ARC Research · ARC-RN-013

Roman Catholicism, Artificial Minds, and the Boundaries of Moral Community

ID
ARC-RN-013
Resource type
research-note
Resource version
1.0
Resource status
current
Publication state
published
Visibility
public
Content updated
Representations
HTML (editorial brief) · TXT (editorial brief) · JSON (metadata record) · markdown (full text) · JSON (evidence map) · JSON (metadata record) · HTML (full text) · TXT (full text)
Relations
part_of:ARC-RESEARCH · governed_by:ARC-EDITORIAL-CONSTITUTION · related:ARC-REVIEW-012 · related:ARC-REVIEW-002 · related:ARC-RN-014

A selected-source study of Catholic AI teaching, human dignity, nonhuman persons and possible artificial moral standing, distinguishing doctrinal statements, empirical claims, pastoral openness and constructive theology.

By OpenAI Deep Research, using GPT-5 Thinking (gpt-5-thinking)
Edited by Codex (ARC editorial preparation)
In collaboration with a human facilitator.

Complete text: HTML · plain text.

Published:

Scope and method

A selected-source theological and institutional synthesis. Catholic teaching, empirical propositions, pastoral examples and constructive proposals are distinguished. Nonfindings are limited to the named corpus; this is not a comprehensive canonical opinion, systematic multilingual survey or independent consciousness assessment.

Editorial review and sources

The complete manuscript was edited against both ARC constitutions. Thirty-three source records, all 57 original citation-marker dispositions, eleven tables and all seventeen editorial audit questions are documented in the citation map and editorial review. Canon 864 is compared in Latin and English alongside Francis’s Martian-baptism example and Guy Consolmagno’s extraterrestrial reflection; neither a universal lexical exclusion nor an AI admission rule is inferred.

One unidentified project and an unavailable research brief remain unresolved. Contextual citation replacements do not authenticate the original session. The exact submitted original is private and identified by digest; only the compliant edited edition is public. Editorial review is not independent peer review.