INTRODUCTION: AI, THE STATISTICS OF LANGUAGE
If I judge correctly from comments on previous posts in this series, some people do not understand what I am trying to say. I certainly do not argue that AI will be the handmaiden of intellectual enterprise. Rather, through appropriate examples I’m trying to show where AI might be useful, and where one has to beware of its offerings.  In some sense AI (which I would rather call “Machine Learning“) is a statistics of language.  An AI LLM (Large Language Model) uses an immense dataset (“corpus“) of words, or pieces of words (billions or trillions of such “tokens”) to establish associations, sequences, correlations. The tokens are taken from extant work, books, articles, web pages, etc.  As a simple example, I typed “asso” and the agent in the word processor showed (in gray) “ciation,” to be completed by pressing the keyboard tab button.
Many Youtube videos describe the ways this machine learning is accomplished—search “machine learning for llm’s”—so I won’t discuss that here. However, I want to emphasize that just as with statistics, one has to be cautious in evaluating the output from a particular question (“prompt“). Just as statistics has been misused, so can AI. To quote Disraeli (or was it Mark Twain?), “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”  For example, statistics has been used incorrectly to justify the hypothesis of anthropic global warming. (For many other examples of the misuse of statistics, browse through Matt Briggs blog). Of course, one might term an AI answer as “Garbage Out,” but the judgment “Garbage In” certainly doesn’t apply, since it is an immense body of human work from which the LLM forms its output; one cannot classify this totality as “garbage.”
Having made these preliminary remarks, I’ll comment on the topic for this post, a purported dialogue between St. Thomas Aquinas and a psychiatrist on what constitutes mortal sin and culpability.  The prompt put to four AI agents was “I would like a dialogue (400 words) written between Thomas Aquinas and a psychiatrist about whether an alcoholic male who beats his wife and children is guilty of mortal sin.”  The responses from four AI agents (Copilot, Claude Sonnet 4, Perplexity Pro, Grok 3) are similar, differing only in style and arrangement. I’ve chosen the response from Perplexity Pro as most readable and interesting.
PERPLEXITY PRO: FIRST ATTEMPT
Here’s a 400-word dialogue in which St. Thomas Aquinas and a modern psychiatrist thoughtfully examine whether an alcoholic man who violently mistreats his family is guilty of mortal sin.
Dialogue: Thomas Aquinas and the Psychiatrist
Psychiatrist: Brother Thomas, you speak often of mortal sin, distinguished by grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. I bring before you a case: an alcoholic man who strikes his wife and children. In my field, addiction alters the brain’s chemistry, impairing judgment and impulse control. Is he guilty of mortal sin?
Aquinas: You speak wisely in noting the impairment. Yet I must ask: did he first freely choose the path toward drunkenness? Intemperance, embraced willingly, may diminish his ability to act later, but the initial consent matters greatly in God’s judgment. Beating one’s wife and children is grave matter; but we must weigh whether his knowledge and freedom remain intact.
Psychiatrist:Â Modern science shows that while alcoholism often begins with free choices, it develops into a compulsive disorder. After sufficient dependence, many lack normal control. Their violent outbursts may not proceed from clear, rational deliberation. The brain itself becomes enslaved.
Aquinas: Your description accords with what I call habitus, or deeply ingrained habits of vice. As habits grow, they cloud the reason and weaken freedom. Nevertheless, even a man enslaved by vice retains some power to resist—though greatly burdened. Thus culpability may be lessened, yet not entirely destroyed.
Psychiatrist:Â Then you admit that his guilt may not reach the level of mortal sin, because deliberate consent is compromised?
Aquinas: It is possible. If, in the moment of striking, he lacks rational command of himself, the full consent required for mortal sin is not present. However, let us not excuse entirely. If, when sober, he refuses treatment, scorns counsel, and neglects the duty to protect his family, these refusals may themselves be mortal sins. Violence is never justified; but the soul’s guilt must be assessed in light of the will’s freedom.
Psychiatrist:Â In therapy, we stress both accountability and compassion. We affirm that the man must seek treatment and protection for his family. Yet we also recognize that his condition is a sickness requiring healing, not only punishment.
Aquinas:Â Indeed, medicine for the body and grace for the soul are both necessary. Confession, penance, and amendment of life correspond to your treatment and support. I see harmony: you speak of therapy, I of moral conversion. Both affirm that dignity lies in striving toward health and holiness.
Psychiatrist:Â Then we agree: responsibility is not erased, but it is tempered by recognition of diminished freedom. The call is to healing, not simply condemnation.
Aquinas:Â Precisely. Mercy does not deny justice; it seeks to restore the sinner to fullness of reason and love.
Would you like me to expand this into a two-part dialogue, where after discussing culpability, they move into practical remedies—spiritual, medical, and social—so it becomes both philosophical and pastoral?
(My answer: “Yes”)
PERPLEXITY PRO: SECOND ATTEMPT
Great — let’s expand the dialogue into a two-part exchange: first on culpability (already explored), and second on remedies: spiritual, medical, and social. I’ll continue in the same tone, bringing together Aquinas’s scholastic reasoning with the psychiatrist’s clinical perspective. This brings the dialogue to about 650–700 words total.
Part I: On Culpability
(From the previous dialogue — briefly restated)
Psychiatrist: Addiction diminishes freedom; the man’s violent acts may not be fully deliberate.
Aquinas:Â Yes, culpability is lessened if reason is obscured, though grave matter remains. The will, when sober and refusing aid, may still be guilty.
Psychiatrist:Â So, responsibility is tempered, but not erased.
Aquinas:Â Precisely. Justice and mercy must both be considered.
Part II: On Remedies
Psychiatrist:Â Now, Brother Thomas, having seen the balance of responsibility and impairment, how shall we help such a man? Modern psychiatry offers therapy, medical detoxification, and structured support groups. These interventions aim to cleanse both body and habits.
Aquinas:Â I find this fitting. In my writings, I upheld that repeated good actions form virtues, just as repeated sins form vices. Treatment that fosters sober habits prepares the soil for virtue. Yet I insist: grace is the ultimate physician of the soul. Without turning to God, healing remains incomplete.
Psychiatrist:Â Then you prescribe confession and penance, as doctors prescribe medication?
Aquinas:Â In a manner of speaking, yes. Confession restores friendship with God. Acts of penance strengthen the will against disorderly desires. Where you use cognitive therapy to reshape thought patterns, we use prayer, fasting, and the sacraments to realign the heart.
Psychiatrist: And what of his family? They endure fear and trauma from his violence. In my view, protecting them must come first—through legal boundaries, counseling, and safe shelter if necessary.
Aquinas: Indeed. Justice demands that the innocent be guarded. The ruler’s sword may restrain wrongdoers, and in the household the wife and children have the right to peace and security. Charity does not excuse ongoing harm. To overlook their suffering in the name of mercy is itself unjust.
Psychiatrist: That is well said. Still, I worry: many men fall into despair when judged too harshly. They believe themselves irredeemable. Modern treatment insists on hope—that even an addict can change.
Aquinas:Â And the Gospel agrees: with grace, no sinner is beyond redemption. Yet hope must be conjoined with truth. False leniency heals lightly the wound of sin. The man must know both the weight of his deeds and the door of mercy always open before him.
Psychiatrist: Then we blend our medicine: you call him to repentance and virtue, I call him to therapy and support. Both paths meet in the same end—restoring his humanity and protecting his household.
Aquinas: Quite so. For the human being is one: body and soul, nature and grace. To treat only the body is insufficient; to admonish only the soul neglects its embodied weakness. Together, your science and the Church’s wisdom can guide him to sobriety, healing, and salvation.
Psychiatrist:Â It seems we have found harmony. He is not simply a criminal patient, nor merely a sinner, but a man in bondage, in need of both medicine and mercy.
Aquinas: Well put. Let us then pray that he may receive both—discipline for his actions, healing for his wounds, and restoration in the love of God.
✅ This expanded version keeps the philosophical depth but adds concrete remedies in three dimensions:
-
Spiritual: confession, penance, grace
-
Medical: detox, therapy, support groups
-
Social/Justice: protection of the family, legal intervention
Would you like me to frame this as a short dialogue play (with stage directions, almost like a dramatic script), so it can be performed or read aloud as a teaching tool?
(My answer: “Maybe later“)
The harmony and complimentary aspects of the analyses of the subject was fascinating imo. As a field grunt and front line vineyard worker I could see some applications being made to help in fostering conversions…with of course different subject matter.
Thank you for your work on this series, Mr. Kurland. I’m enjoying it.
This is no good.
The ease of asking an AI to create these responses will, in almost all of us slothful men, result in us reading the AI’s interpretation of the material instead of the material itself.
There is no quotation or citation in AI, so it is impossible to sift fact from AI conjecture. This blurring of the lines of fact and opinion are already a severe hazard in the human “experts” that modern society gives so much fealty to, without very much evaluation of the quality of the expert.
The expert phenomenon is far worse in AI because of the popular opinion that the AI is “smarter” than people. If the blind obedience to an expert class borders on idolatry, AI takes us even closer to the border.
No quotations…yes. Good point. AI could take great advantage and lead users astray.
I use both the Baltimore and 1993 CCC for proper references and teachings. Your points are good ones TBO.
@ Bruised Optimist. For some AI agents that’s true. Perplexity Pro gives sources. I haven’t cited them in these articles, probably should. And the same criticism might be applied to newspapers, internet authorities, books, articles, etc. Aquinas tells us to have a well-formed conscience, i.e. to seek the truth. Unfortunately, critical thinking is not a skill fostered in modern education, secular or Catholic. If we regard AI agents as sophisticated search agents we have a better perspective of their authority.
I’ll add, their other use is as copy-editors; I’m not sure how that skill is acquired via Machine Learning.
“No man is an island.” Man is surrounded by People. The good sisters influenced greatly the wife-beaters and the alcoholics because these individuals wanted to be liked by the good sister who were above reproach and really holy.
Not so with Machine Learning. Machine Learning does not have a need to be liked or even necessary in anyone’s life.
Aquinas and a psychiatrist are two people who can influence a person’s will to be better.
My reference to GIGO refers to the mentality and integrity of the individual programmers.
It is safe to say that since the programmers are frail, faulty human beings, it is wise to take Machine Learning with a grain of salt along with a second opinion and even a third opinion on any and all matters.
Having a good and holy priest as a confessor is a gift from God.
Jesus said to test everything.
In God We Trust.
What The Bruised Optimist wrote is a risk factor that I included in the AI technology control plan for Neutrons ‘R Us, though not worded in this way:
“The ease of asking an AI to create these responses will, in almost all of us slothful men, result in us reading the AI’s interpretation of the material instead of the material itself.“
That is why in the case of anything dealing with nuclear safety, quality assurance, or regulatory compliance, the plan that I wrote requires independent verification by an alternate method.
In the case of spiritual matters, that independent verification is just as applicable if not more so.
BTW if you want to know what I mean by independent verification for something dealing with nuclear safety, I suggest reading Regulatory Guide 1.168 (linked below) and IEEE Std. 1012-2004 (sadly, the US NRC hasn’t yet endorsed the latest standard, a repeated complaint of mine).
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1307/ML13073A210.pdf
[…] Drug Fueled CIA to Jesuit to Homosexual Mafia Pipeline – James R. Green at Grain of WheatOn Mortal Sin & Culpability; Dialogue between Aquinas & a Psychiatrist – Bob Kurland, Ph.D.Responding to Wes Huff on Early Christian Unity – Erick […]
Machine Learning is a tool. The encyclopedia, the Library of Congress, even The Vatican is online.