The Catholic Thing

The Catholic Thing is a daily column rooted in the richest cultural tradition in the world, i.e., the concrete historical reality of Catholicism.

  1. 2h ago

    Facing a 'Pivotal Choice'

    By Randall Smith At Mass the other day, the priest said, "Today, we face a pivotal choice." He was referring to the challenges of artificial intelligence. AI presents a challenge, but it's important to understand that the challenges we face and the pivotal choices we must make are the ones mankind has faced repeatedly – ever since the beginning. It is often said that we are in a "new age" where "everything has changed." This is a tendency exacerbated by the way remarks in the Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on the Modern World (Gaudium et spes) have been interpreted by some. In Gaudium et spes 4, it says: "Today, the human race is involved in a new stage of history. Profound and rapid changes are spreading by degrees around the whole world." Contrary to the oft-made claim that Gaudium et spes was overly optimistic, the Council fathers warn: "As happens in any crisis of growth, this transformation has brought serious difficulties in its wake. Thus while man extends his power in every direction, he does not always succeed in subjecting it to his own welfare." They then go on to mention some of the serious problems: continuing starvation, lack of educational resources, the destructive force of atomic weapons, increased atheism – and its consequences in a lack of respect for the dignity of the human person. In retrospect, I think the Council Fathers can be excused for being amazed at the changes that had taken place in their lifetimes. If you were a Council Father born in 1900, when you were young, you would have mostly seen people traveling at the speed people had traveled since the time of Christ: on foot or by horse. But when you traveled to the Second Vatican Council in 1965, you likely would have traveled on jet plane, and your interviews on radio and television could be beamed around the world. Mankind was just four years from landing men on the moon. You would have seen two destructive world wars, the Holocaust, the murder of millions in Russia and China, and the creation of atomic weapons. We think we face changes, but they are nothing compared to the changes faced by that generation. Although we shouldn't discount the startling developments that took place in the twentieth century, we might wonder whether there was ever an age that didn't consider itself "pivotal." The ancient Greek world took itself to be "pivotal" culturally, moving past the "barbarian" cultures that did not know Greek philosophy and culture. The Romans took themselves to be "pivotal," civilizing the world with law and public works. Charlemagne saw himself as a "pivotal" figure pushing back against the Muslim invasions of Europe. Theologians in the thirteenth century described their style as "modern" to distinguish it from their predecessors. The thinkers of the Renaissance saw themselves as "pivotal," as did the thinkers of the Enlightenment and the Marxists of the twentieth century. But we're all very "modern" now, whatever that means. According to some, modernity began with Galileo and Descartes in the sixteenth century; others claim it was with Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes in the seventeenth century; and still others say "modernity" began with Darwin, Marx, and Freud in the late nineteenth century. Read Paul Johnson's classic work Modern Times and you'll find that the "modern world" began with Sir Arthur Eddington's experiments validating Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. So what does it mean to be "modern"? People used to claim we're "postmodern." But that was a while ago. I don't know what we are now. In each age, the claim was made that "it's a new age," so "everything will be different now." When America was discovered, they called it "the New World," and many imagined that in this "new world," everything would be different. It was, and it wasn't. The old diseases, both physical and spiritual, traveled with them. But this question about "pivotal moments" – when we face "a fork in the road" – can be traced further back...

  2. 1d ago

    Following the Science

    By Robert Royal Surveys of young people show that many lose their faith because they believe religion has been disproved by science. Among many other factors, this error is a major challenge for the Church – which doesn't get nearly enough attention. I thought of this when my longtime friend Phil Lawler and I were emailing a few weeks ago – always an enlightening thing – and we discovered that we both keep a kind of side interest in trying to understand quantum theory. He does it to keep abreast, as much as a non-specialist can, of a significant intellectual development of our time (as did now-Blessed Fulton Sheen). I do it, I think, because a long, long time ago on a planet far, far away, I entered university as a physics student. Years later, I found to my relief that the young Socrates studied physics as well because, like me, he wanted to know the nature of things. Well, the math (which I'd always been good at) began to seem increasingly fictional to me. I know now that it isn't. But you need another gear in your head for that kind of math, which I lacked. So like the older Socrates, I took other avenues to truth, though I follow, as an amateur, quantum mechanics and other scientific developments. I "follow the science," but not in the way that phrase gets used today. In the classic formulation, science is a "value-free" pursuit, great for discovering truths about energy and matter, and the space/time continuum in which we live. And all the more valuable when it adheres to its domain of the value-free. But this raises a question. How do otherwise intelligent people write on social media or put up lawn signs that say, "Follow the Science," as if science can tell us how to live? It's clearly a tactic, invoking the prestige of modern science to pressure us: to accept things like abortion (though the science of embryology shows that a living human being with unique DNA exists from the moment of conception); to downplay the differences between men and women, which are many and demonstrable far beyond the XX/XY chromosomal binary. "THE Science," it appears, should also lead us to regard homosexuality, "trans" people, non-traditional families, etc. as "normal," despite social-science surveys demonstrating their correlation with unhappiness, and various psychological and social disorders. There are sciences that guide life – theology, philosophy, ethics – but properly followed, they lead in very different directions. Oddly, there are hundreds of very good books, old and new, and online sites that clarify the crucial distinction between the natural sciences and the sciences that constitute wisdom. But with little effect. Which is remarkable given that it's precisely the failure to make this distinction that prevents many people, especially young people, from understanding how following only the physical sciences has led precisely to the sense of aimlessness and meaninglessness that's all around us today. As the American physicist Steven Weinberg wrote in his highly influential book The First Three Minutes, "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." That's partly true, but tragically false. It's partly true from the perspective of value-free science, where ends and meaning were methodically excluded. But it's tragically, catastrophically false as the only credible account not only of human life but of the order, truth, and beauty of the universe itself. Phil Lawler mentioned in our exchange that he doesn't entirely understand quantum theory. (Even scientists – Richard Feynman with notable charm – say they don't either.) But it has convinced Phil that science can recognize that there are realities that we don't see – and can't in principle. Witness the experience of people who have "died" and come back with astonishing, similar accounts. After our email exchange, I had what the French call l'esprit d'escalier, i.e., I thought of something I should have said. Non-believers often claim that ther...

  3. 2d ago

    Three Loves

    By Fr. Paul D. Scalia Well, he got more than he bargained for. In today's Gospel (Matthew 22:34-40), all the scholar of the law wanted was a Gotcha! moment by catching Jesus in some controversy. As with the other tests, however, our Lord not only bests his opponents but rises above them and raises the discussion to a level they had not anticipated. Thus, the scholar asks for only one commandment. . .but he gets two. . .with a third slipped in between them. And he hadn't bargained for that. To appreciate this exchange, we should imagine ourselves in the place of the scholar of the law. Because we are like him: we put our Lord to the test and want to prove ourselves right. So, since we do what he does, we should also hear our Lord's response as he does. The Pharisee gets off to a bad start: "Teacher," he says. Well, Jesus is more than a teacher. Yes, He teaches, but He does so with divine authority and unlike anyone else. He is the only teacher whose instruction deserves our complete trust. When we approach Him as a mere teacher, we make Him one among many. At that point, we're not seeking His truth. We're just getting input, asking His opinion as we do of many others. "Which commandment in the law is the greatest?" The Pharisee had his own opinion about this. He had his favorite law in mind. Part of his testing Jesus was to see if He agreed. Which is what we do. We zero in on this, that, or the other aspect of the faith – our favorite – and make it everything. Maybe it's doctrine, or the liturgy, or serving the poor, or changing the culture, or. . .well, whatever. But instead of having our own ideas about this, we should want our Lord to teach us what is the greatest. "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This commandment is drawn from the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:5), which devout Jews recited several times daily. It proceeds from Israel's unique belief in the one God. Jesus calls this commandment not only the greatest but the first. It's not just better than the others but the font of all of them because it flows from the very being of God, Who Himself is one, undivided, and loving. The commandment has a beauty, simplicity, and grandeur that draws us in. It also has an absoluteness that's often lost on us. It commands the Israelites – ever tempted to divide themselves between the Lord and the more practical and indulgent gods around them – to undivided devotion. Explicit polytheism is not a present reality to us as it was to them. But the commandment holds just as well. Like the Israelites, we divide our devotion and hedge our bets. We diversify our spiritual portfolio (as it were) by dividing up our heart, mind, and soul, investing portions of them here and there, but never entirely in God. Sure, we place some of our trust in Him. . .but also in our own power, our resume, our finances, etc. The one and undivided God deserves more – He has a right to a whole and undivided response. And because He is love, the response to Him must be love. It cannot be – as perhaps the Pharisee and we would like – mere external observance. It must be a response from the center of man himself, from his heart, the source of love. It's the first and greatest commandment in this sense too, that it centers our love on Him and so determines all other human acts. Remember Saint Augustine's line: Dilige et quod vis fac – Love, and do what you want. If our love is properly ordered – heart, soul, and mind given entirely to God – then all other loves will follow. Which brings us to the second commandment: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Notice that this contains not one but two loves: for neighbor and for self, but not in that order. The phrasing indicates that love of self sits between love of God and love of neighbor. In the proper ordering of loves, we proceed from love of God to love of self. We love ourselves because in loving God we should love what He loves. Since we are mo...

  4. 3d ago

    Bring Back the Betrothal

    By K.E. Colombini Thanks to the wisdom of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Catholics who came of age after the Second Vatican Council have gotten a taste of Catholic liturgical tradition previously unavailable, and many have decided that they like it. First and foremost, this has come about via the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) of the 1962 Roman Missal, the last one produced before the significant liturgical changes of Vatican II and the subsequent 1970 Missal. Up until the sharp U-turn of Pope Francis' 2021 apostolic letter Traditionis custodes and its follow-up documents, the Traditional Latin Mass – which had been given greater freedom by Pope Benedict XVI – saw a resurgence that filled pews and inspired many. Yet because all things are connected in the tradition, other devotional practices have come back that also deserve our attention and support. What had been lost for years was found again – and thereby found to be all the more precious. This realization came to me recently when our youngest daughter became engaged. Since she is of a more traditional nature, liturgically speaking, she and her fiancé opted for a short betrothal rite at her parish, one of the two oratories in our archdiocese where the traditional Mass is offered. Bishops have often placed requirements on people seeking sacraments that can be above and beyond reasonable expectation – requiring "community service hours" for Confirmation, for example, or weekend couples retreats before marriage. In fact, when it comes to wedding prep in the Catholic Church, a whole cottage industry of programs has arisen – with names like TOBET4Engaged, FOCCUS, SmartLoving, Witness to Love, Better Together, or Joy-Filled Marriage. These are in a way only to be expected as pastors try to ensure that engaged couples are prepared for a marriage that is supposed to last until death in the midst of a culture that implies precisely the opposite. It is easy to understand concerns about marriage prep when one looks at divorce or annulment rates of Catholics in the United States. Historically, America has not only seen more annulments than any other country; fewer than 10 percent of applications are rejected. This says something about the state of marriage preparation, and something that is not good. One can personally disagree with sacramental roadblocks, and it is not hard to find horror stories about them. When it comes to matrimony, however, one also can argue that the traditional betrothal ceremony would be a smart addition to marriage prep and should certainly be offered and encouraged – at the very least – by priests and others tasked with helping engaged couples. The betrothal rite is steeped in tradition, but has everything that should be appealing to modern Catholic sensibilities. It is short and in the vernacular. And it doesn't even involve kneeling. The rite takes about ten minutes, with the priest encouraging the couple, using words such as: In the time that intervenes, you will prepare for the sacrament of matrimony by a period of virtuous courtship, so that when the happy and blessed day arrives for you to give yourselves irrevocably to each other, you will have laid a sound spiritual foundation for long years of godly prosperity on earth and eventual blessedness together in the life to come. May the union you propose on this day to consummate as man and wife be found worthy to be in all truth a sacramental image and reality of the union of Christ and His beloved Bride, the Church. The couple then exchange a promise to each other that is not unlike the marriage vows that they will make some months down the road; the woman's words are similar to those of the man, who says: "In the name of the Lord, I promise that I will one day take thee as my wife, according to the ordinances of God and holy Church. I will love thee even as myself. I will keep faith and loyalty to thee, and so in thy necessities aid and comfort thee; which things and all that a man ought to do ...

  5. 4d ago

    O, Bless My Soul

    By Brad Miner In 2019, I wrote here that, "When I was a 4-year-old, I sat on the fire escape of our apartment and thought: 'What if there were nothing?' (But I'm sure, back then, I didn't use the subjunctive.) And then thought: 'I'm here.' I stared into the slate-gray sky and knew or sensed that 'nothing' is the one thing that cannot be." It was that slate-gray sky, of course. I don't suppose I've ever seen anything else that so suggested emptiness, nothingness. I don't remember which of my parents was home at the time. Likely it was my mother, and perhaps she had shooed me from the kitchen so she could begin dinner preparations, and I may have been feeling lonely. That was my normal state, and it would not change until we moved from the city to the suburbs, and home became a ranch-style house in a newly built neighborhood in what had once been a park or, as we kids called what little greenery remained, the woods. Once I was old enough for school, my loneliness evaporated, which was not entirely a good thing, because all I wanted to do was play (there were always playmates), and that was mostly the case all the way through college, after which I began to worry about my soul – and it was about time I did. According to the Council of Vienne (1312), the rational soul is "per se and essentially the form of the human body." And the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§ 365) explains that "spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature." So, the "I" about which I was contemplating at age 4 anticipated my later, adult understanding of my immortal soul. I was not, of course, any sort of theological Mozart. I was never any kind of prodigy, except for my fearlessness in climbing the sycamore tree in the lot next to the old apartment all the way to the top – something that gave terror to my parents and caused admiration among the older boys (and the girls we used to call tomboys). Plus, I wasn't raised Catholic. Even after I became Catholic at 25, I still had a lot of growing up to do. Something to do with maturation of the prefrontal cortex, probably. But at 35, I'd fully embraced the Faith and its demands. Now, 40+ years later, it's time to get ready for the endgame. When I die, I must go to Heaven. I say that not as an imperative, as though it were God's rule that all go to Heaven, for God does not have such a rule. Being a sensible sinner, I'll happily take Purgatory along the way. But the corollary is: I must not go to Hell – again, not an imperative statement. This is an occasion to recall the famous Léon Bloy quote: "The only real sadness, the only real failure, the only great tragedy in life, is not to become a saint." So, I (and you) must stay focused on that, which, arguably, is the hardest thing for any man or woman to "achieve." Without grace, of course, it will not happen. Thinking about this has got me wondering about Heaven, which is the end for the soul and, later, the body. What is Heaven like? What will the blessed see when they arrive? Well, we begin with a caution – St. Paul (1 Corinthians 2:9) quoting Isaiah (64:4): But as it is written: "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him"— So, neither I nor anyone else can describe this ultimate glory. Some mystics have claimed to have had a glimpse, but that just leads to another caution. After such a mystical experience on December 6, 1273, St. Thomas Aquinas abruptly stopped writing his Summa. According to his secretary/companion/confessor, Reginald of Piperno, Thomas said all his work now seemed to him like "straw" compared with what he had seen. He refused to speak of it again. Other saints (almost always women), from Hildegard of Bingen to Faustina Kowalska, have had visions of Heaven, and they seem to converge on joy and light and love. (You can check here to read what the Catechism says.) It's living in the perfect "communion of life and love ...

  6. 5d ago

    Reading Alito Backwards

    By Michael Pakaluk I read Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's So Ordered: An Originalist's View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country backwards, chapter-wise, and I'd recommend you do the same. The end of the book tells us about Samuel Alito, the great-hearted man and patriot, while the beginning of the book, academically more respectable, to be sure, dives right into the state of the debate over textualism and originalism, which are not everyone's cup of tea. The final chapter, "The Real Counterculture," is an address commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, California. In this essay, as in almost all the other essays, Justice Alito's exquisite historical sense is on display. I take it that a true originalist must be a true historian, since the originalist's aim is to let Chesterton's "democracy of the dead" exercise its merited authority. Justice Alito refers to the 30,000 hippies who gathered in San Francisco for the Human Be-In in 1967; the first Earth Day in 1970; and the student protests against Nixon's bombing of Cambodia. None of these storied counter-movements from around the time of the college's founding, he points out, has proved to be a lasting counterculture, and yet the college's devotion to truth and civil disagreement remains countercultural, different, and vital. What follows includes a chapter on the necessity of faith in a secular and materialistic age; another, "Four Men of the American Experience," which weaves the story of Theodore Roosevelt together with those of the Justice's grandparents and Clarence Thomas's family, attempting to define the distinctively American character; and an astonishing chapter on "Achievements of Italian Americans." After recounting the terrible prejudice that Italian immigrants faced, he asks whether we know, for instance, that at least twenty-seven Italian Americans have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Many have been great artists such as Constantino Brumidi, the "Michelangelo of the United States Capitol," operatic composer Gian Carlo Menotti, and the singer Frank Sinatra. "In religion," he says, "think of Mother Cabrini, the first American saint, who overcame enormous obstacles to aid suffering Italian immigrants. Think of Rita Antoinette Rizzo, better known as Mother Angelica, who founded EWTN." And that's not all. "Is it possible to think of the history of baseball without Joe DiMaggio or Yogi Berra?" Indeed. In the midst of reading the essays on threats to the Constitution and the primacy of the right to religious liberty, I began saying to myself, "How did we come to deserve a high-ranking government official with such extraordinary character? How is it even possible that this man has attained a seat on the highest court? If we fail at this project, will we have anyone else to blame but ourselves?" Conveyed throughout the book is the relentless workload of a contemporary Justice. Writing on Learned Hand, Justice Alito yearns for the days when a judge enjoyed the leisure to practice judging as a craft: "If Learned Hand's opinion writing is akin to producing a custom-made garment, the judges who sign off on fifty opinions per day are more like factory managers." A striking humility about the role of a judge is also evident throughout this book. Again and again, Justice Alito insists that he isn't a philosopher. Dealing with abstract questions in the way that might make a law professor celebrated has little to do with the practice of judging. Judges, he observes, are not trained to decide deep questions; most of their work is extremely narrow and technical. Certainly one should not seek praise and fame by judging; done rightly, it ought to draw little of either. A judge on a state supreme court and a low-level administrative judge differ in scope and in the reach of their decisions, but the nature of the task is the same. I confess to being puzzled by the absence of any essay in the volu...

  7. 6d ago

    AI Is a Two-Edged Sword

    By Francis X. Maier Readers with a taste for history may remember the story of Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02). For those who don't, it was a high-end military simulation from a couple of decades ago, run by the now defunct U.S. Joint Forces Command. Described as "the key to military transformation," it cost about $250 million – a huge expense for such a thing at the time. The game's premise was an armed conflict with a rogue Persian Gulf state. The Blue team was a combined American force testing the concept of RDO – "Rapid Decisive Operations." It was based on the doctrine of "network-centric warfare" and supported by a wide range of information technologies, analytical tools, and electronic sensors. The Red team – the bad guys – was largely a one-man show run by a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, Paul Van Riper. He was given complete freedom in conducting his side of the conflict. The war game commenced, and Red team promptly sank an aircraft carrier, several cruisers, and much of the Blue fleet with low-tech swarm attacks. It killed thousands of simulated U.S. servicemen in the game's first two days. It also consistently evaded Blue team surveillance by using unconventional, unpredictable tactics and exploiting Blue team's technical vulnerabilities. Red team did so well that the simulation was halted, reset, and – according to a very public and very angry Van Riper – forced to conform to a computer-projected framework and outcome favoring Blue. The military disputed elements of Van Riper's account, but MC02 remains a lasting embarrassment and a lesson in the costs of our tech addiction. Worse, it is a lesson imperfectly learned. Today – 24 years later – our technologies, including most notably AI, are much more sophisticated, powerful, and precise. They're also more expensive. And they still have technical vulnerabilities. They can do vastly more damage in war. But they can't – by themselves – destroy a determined, low-tech adversary, no matter how wicked the enemy and how deserved the punishment might be. Iran is Exhibit A. High tech weaponry, no matter how "intelligent," never takes the place of mature, morally informed human command. It's true that killing an enemy remotely makes one's own safety more secure. But it also makes both the act of killing more impersonal, and the choice to kill much easier. Autonomous combat drones choosing their own targets is not an edifying thought. But exactly that reality is already a part of today's battle space. Here's the point: The more advanced our tools, the more two-edged they become. George Parkin Grant, the great Canadian Christian philosopher, noted that North American civilization is uniquely addicted to technology in a manner resembling a secular religion. This flows from the continent's European settlers and their Calvinist roots, drained of their original Christian framework. Fundamentally, we are a people of conquest – the conquest and remaking of nature, including human nature. This explains our genius for innovation and tools. But as we use our tools, they use and reshape us, ending in a kind of hubris that involves a blindness to nature, a refusal of limits, a skepticism toward anything "sacred," and a slavery to the power of technique. This needn't be so. We can choose otherwise. But too often, too easily, we sleepwalk ourselves into catastrophe. MC02 reminds us of the cost of failing to see beyond our tech-dominated assumptions and the consequences that ensue. Thus, when it comes to artificial intelligence, if we don't want a real-world version of Skynet, we can never dispense with rigorous human foresight and rigorous human control of AI, its development, and its applications. AI is here and it's not going away. So how should we proceed? Scripture tells us dozens of times to "be not afraid." That's not a suggestion. It's a command. There is a God; He loves us; and He's intimately involved in our affairs. Words like "apocalypse" and "crisis" pepper our pu...

  8. Oct 20

    Men without Minds

    By Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg Few criticisms of modern education have aged as well as C.S. Lewis's 1943 The Abolition of Man. In "Men without Chests," Lewis explains, "we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. . . .We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful." The chest, in this context, is the trained heart that subordinates the appetites to the right use of reason. While Lewis focused on the chest, we can extend the analysis to the head, where the same surgery is performed on both the "mind" and "intelligence." Lewis presaged the current crisis of intellect when he described the men that a debunking education produces. He called them Men without Chests; we call them "critical thinkers." Of them he wrote: "It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence." Today, "intelligence" has suffered the same fate as the "intellectual." "Mind" and "intellect" are words that point to realities that are immaterial in nature. Consistently eradicating all immaterial things from educational theory leaves these concepts especially vulnerable to abuse. Ask any school faculty to explain "intelligence," and you will likely hear modifiers like multiple, emotional, and artificial. The noun they modify has become an organ donor. The word "intellect" comes from the Latin intus legere – to read the interior. Our senses perceive outward qualities; the intellect grasps what things are, conceptually. A man sees and recognizes a particular dog, but his intellect grasps the nature it shares with all dogs. Unlike sight, it is not tied to a bodily organ; schools should cultivate its use and proper end. Aquinas teaches that the intellect's end is truth, the conformity of mind to reality, and thus our intellectual nature bears the image of God, a likeness that finds its fulfillment in Christ the Logos who is Truth Himself. Intellect is a power of the soul with two operations Aquinas calls intellectus and ratio. Josef Pieper, in Leisure, the Basis of Culture, describes intellectus as "simply looking," the mind at rest receiving reality. The student who grasps the structure of a fugue, a proof, or a proverb is doing more than perceiving: he is apprehending what the thing is. Ratio, or reasoning, is the active capacity to move from what is known by first principles to what was previously unknown. Reasoning becomes rootless when it is not preceded by the intellect's apprehension of the first principles. Yet we still demand "higher-order thinking" after we have banished the receptive mode of intellectus. By this removal, we produce an army of men without minds, well trained to criticize but rendered incapable of begetting higher culture. Severed from the truth it exists to know, intelligence becomes simply technical skill, leaving no room for true erudition. St. Paul described a generation such as ours as "ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3:7) Three modern notions illustrate St. Paul's words, and each takes the name of the mind and gives it to something lesser. Howard Gardner's "multiple intelligences" splits the unity of intellect into eight or more capacities, such as mathematical, kinesthetic, and musical; the intellect exercises these abilities, but they are not the intellect itself. "Emotional intelligence," the premise of the social-emotional learning programs, inverts the order of intellect and passions. Artificial intelligence is no more like intelligence than fake flowers are like flowers; it simulates its effects, not the thing itself. Only the habit of judging by appearances lets us confuse the two. Dante, passing through the gate of Hell in Canto III of the Inferno, learns from Virgil that he will see the sorrowful who have "lost the good of the intellect," not the power to think, but its object, the truth that is God – the Goo...

Ratings & Reviews

4.7
out of 5
35 Ratings

About

The Catholic Thing is a daily column rooted in the richest cultural tradition in the world, i.e., the concrete historical reality of Catholicism.

More From Faith & Reason Institute

You Might Also Like