The Naturalistic Foundation of the AEI Council
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has launched a council on artificial intelligence (AI) ethics, stating its purpose is to “balance innovation with prudence, freedom with responsibility, and ensure technological capability promotes human dignity.” The council, led by Anthony Mills, includes an interdisciplinary team from “differing, sometimes opposing, philosophical traditions: secular, religious, liberal, conservative, or other.” Among its members is Brian Boyd, described as a “Roman Catholic theologian” and director for the Center for Ethics and Economic Justice at Loyola University New Orleans. The council’s stated goal is “not to forge artificial consensus but to create a forum in which to examine and debate the ethical demands of our moment,” welcoming dissent in a “pluralistic and deeply divided society.” Its framework document aims to draw on traditions “from Aristotle and Augustine” to identify “transcultural fundamental capabilities” essential to the human person, focusing on concepts like “self-determination” and being “the author of your own thoughts.” The council explicitly states it is “not the job of an AI ethics committee to give an understanding of human nature; it’s a task for traditions.”
The Omission of Christ’s Kingship: A Denial of Catholic Social Doctrine
The most glaring and damning omission from the entire AEI council framework is any reference to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is not a minor oversight but a fundamental denial of Catholic doctrine as defined by the Magisterium before the conciliar revolution. Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical *Quas Primas* (1925), dogmatically established the feast of Christ the King precisely to counter the secularism and laicism that removes Christ from public life. He declared: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed… the entire human society had to be shaken, because it lacked a stable and strong foundation.” The AEI council operates entirely within the framework Pius XI condemned: it seeks to build an ethics for society “without” Christ, relying on a pluralistic consensus of “traditions.” This is the very “secularism of our times” the Pope identified as the “plague that poisons human society.” The council’s silence on the duty of rulers and states to publicly honor and obey Christ the King is a direct rejection of the doctrine that “all power in heaven and on earth is given to Christ the Lord” and that His reign encompasses all men, nations, and states (*Quas Primas*). By refusing to proclaim that “the state is happy not by one means, and man by another; for the state is nothing else than a harmonious association of men” whose happiness must be ordered to Christ, the council perpetuates the error condemned by Pius IX in the *Syllabus of Errors*: “It is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship… conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people” (Error 79) and the error that “the State… is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits” (Error 39). The council’s project is a practical implementation of the modernist separation of the City of God from the City of Man.
The Relativism of “Transcultural Capabilities” and Indifferentism
The council’s methodology—seeking “transcultural fundamental capabilities” from “Aristotle and Augustine” alongside secular and liberal traditions—is a textbook case of the indifferentism and latitudinarianism condemned by Pope Pius IX. The *Syllabus* explicitly anathematizes the proposition that “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Error 15) and that “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (Error 16). By treating the ethical insights of pagan philosophers (Aristotle) and a Christian Doctor of the Church (St. Augustine) as equally valid sources for a “pluralistic” ethics, the council commits the error of reducing supernatural revelation to one “tradition” among many. This is the “moderate rationalism” of Error 8: “As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences.” The council’s framework document admits it does not provide an understanding of human nature, leaving it to “traditions.” This is a surrender of the Church’s exclusive right to define the nature and dignity of the human person, a right denied by the *Syllabus* in Error 21: “The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.” The Catholic Church, through her infallible Magisterium, alone can define the ends of man and the moral law based on divine revelation and natural law as interpreted by her authority. To suggest that “transcultural” agreements can be forged without this authority is to adopt the modernist principle that doctrine evolves and that truth is a consensus of the “Christian community,” a proposition condemned by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu*: “Dogmas, sacraments, and hierarchy… are merely modes of explanation and stages in the evolution of Christian consciousness” (Proposition 54) and “The Church is incapable of effectively defending evangelical ethics, because it steadfastly adheres to its views, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress” (Proposition 63).
The “Catholic” Theologian: A Symbol of the Neo-Church’s Apostasy
The inclusion of Brian Boyd, a theologian from a “Catholic” university affiliated with the post-conciliar sect, is not a sign of Catholic influence but a stark symbol of the apostasy of the conciliar clergy. A true Catholic theologian, adhering to the integral faith before 1958, could never participate in a council that treats the Church as one “tradition” among many in a pluralistic forum seeking secular consensus. Such an act is a public repudiation of the dogma *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* and the teaching that the Catholic Church is the sole ark of salvation. The *Syllabus* condemns the notion that “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Error 55) and that “The civil power may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government” (Error 44). By advising a state-linked think tank on ethics for a pluralistic society, Boyd implicitly accepts the secular state’s autonomy in moral matters, a direct rejection of the Church’s right to teach all nations and to guide the consciences of rulers. His stated concern for his children’s future “ordered to the goods of our nature” is a naturalistic humanism. Without the explicit, primary, and non-negotiable ordering of that nature and all its goods to the supernatural end of union with God through Christ and membership in His Church, such “goods” are merely pagan virtues. As Pius XI taught, “Christ the Lord is King of hearts because of His love… because there has been and will be no one who has been so loved by all as Christ Jesus.” Any “human dignity” not rooted in the Incarnation and Redemption is a hollow, modernist concept. Boyd’s participation is an act of apostasy, lending the credibility of a “Catholic” title to a project designed to build a world *without* Christ as King.
The Language of Autonomy: A Heresy of Self-Deification
The council’s focus on “self-determination,” being the “author of your own thoughts,” and having “purpose and meaning” is not Catholic anthropology but the heresy of liberal autonomy, which places the human will in opposition to God’s law. This is the “cult of man” condemned by Pope Pius XII. Catholic doctrine holds that true freedom is found in submission to God’s law: “If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). The council’s language echoes the modernist proposition condemned by St. Pius X: “Faith, as assent of the mind, is ultimately based on a sum of probabilities” (Proposition 25) and “The dogmas of faith should be understood according to their practical function, i.e., as binding in action, rather than as principles of belief” (Proposition 26). By reducing ethics to a debate about “capabilities” and “autonomy” without reference to the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the binding precepts of the Church, the council promotes a religion of man, not of God. The *Syllabus* condemns the error that “Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction” (Error 56). The AEI council, by seeking a “pluralistic” basis for ethics, implicitly denies that all moral law derives from God and is authoritatively defined by His Church.
The Symptom of a Broader Apostasy: The Conciliar Sect’s Worldview
This AEI council is not an anomaly but a perfect fruit of the conciliar revolution. The post-conciliar “Church” has consistently promoted the errors of religious freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), ecumenism, and the separation of Church and State, all condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium. The council’s pluralistic, secular methodology is the logical extension of Vatican II’s *Gaudium et Spes* and its “reading of the signs of the times” apart from Tradition. Its members, including a “Catholic” theologian, operate within the “abomination of desolation” occupying the Vatican, where the primary goal is not the reign of Christ but the “dialogue” of the world. The council’s silence on the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation, the duty of the state to profess Catholicism, and the subordination of all human activity to the law of Christ is identical to the apostasy described by Pope Pius IX: “the entire government of public schools… may and ought to appertain to the civil power… freed from all ecclesiastical authority” (Syllabus, Errors 45-47) and the error that “The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect” (Error 24). The AEI council is a symptom of the “modernist” infection described by St. Pius X: it treats doctrine as evolving, ethics as a human consensus, and the Church as one contributor among many in a “global” search for meaning. This is the synthesis of all heresies—the belief that truth is found in a marketplace of ideas rather than in the deposit of faith guarded by the one, holy, Catholic, and *Apostolic* Church.
Conclusion: A Call to Rejection and Return
The AEI council on AI ethics is a project of naturalistic humanism, built on the condemned principles of indifferentism, secularism, and the autonomy of human reason. It is a modernist instrument designed to create a moral framework for a world that has formally rejected Christ the King. The participation of a “Catholic” theologian makes it a particularly insidious form of apostasy, giving the illusion of Catholic concern while stripping it of all supernatural content and authority. The only Catholic response to such initiatives is total rejection and uncompromising proclamation of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ as defined in *Quas Primas* and the *Syllabus of Errors*. There is no “balance” between innovation and human dignity if that dignity is not rooted in the Incarnation. There is no “prudence” that does not begin with the fear of God. There is no “freedom” that is not freedom in Christ. The faithful must flee such modernist entanglements and cling to the immutable Faith, which alone can offer a true ethics for the challenges of technology, because it alone submits all human activity to the law of the Divine King.
Source:
Council on AI ethics formed to balance innovation with human dignity (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 23.02.2026