AI Chronicles II.
On Denying Holy Communion to Catholic Politicians

INTRODUCTION

This is the second  article of the series, which might be subtitled “Could AI be your spiritual director?”  In this post, I’ll show that AI answers depend very much on “prompts,” how a question is worded, and that AI agents do not necessarily give uniform answers.*    Here’s the question as first posed:

“Should Catholic politicians (leglislators and executives) who advocate or vote for measures that violate Catholic teaching be denied Holy Communion? Example: Catholic legislators in Washington state who voted for law limiting Confession (Sacrament of Reconcilation) Privilege of confidentiality and the Catholic governor who signed the bill. I’d like this answer to be 200 words or less. you don’t need to include background material on the Washington law, just what the policy of the Roman Catholic Church is and should be.”

In this post, I’ll show how answers were modified after I gave an additional prompt to focus the agent’s answer.  Let’s start with the answer given by Claude Sonnet 4; note that after an appropriate prompt, the answer  explicitly recognizes the limitations of machine learning (AI).

CLAUDE (THE ETHICAL AI) ANSWERS:

“The Catholic Church’s position on denying Communion to politicians involves canon law, pastoral considerations, and episcopal discretion. According to Canon 915, those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” should not receive Communion. However, applying this to politicians is complex and debated among bishops.

Some bishops argue that Catholic politicians who consistently support legislation directly contradicting core Catholic teachings (like abortion, euthanasia, or restrictions on sacramental confidentiality) meet this threshold and should be denied Communion. They view public advocacy for such positions as “manifest grave sin” that causes scandal.

Other bishops prefer pastoral dialogue over public denial, emphasizing that politicians face complex policy considerations and that Communion denial should be rare. They worry about politicizing the Eucharist and prefer private counseling.

The Vatican has generally supported bishops’ discretion while emphasizing dialogue. Pope Francis has typically favored pastoral accompaniment over exclusion, though he hasn’t definitively ruled on political cases.

Regarding confession privilege specifically, the Church would likely view laws restricting sacramental confidentiality as serious violations of religious liberty and sacramental integrity. Catholic politicians supporting such measures would face significant tension with Church teaching, though whether this warrants Communion denial would depend on individual bishops’ pastoral judgment.”

My additional prompt:

“You’ve given an answer that is ambiguous. What is your opinion about whether the Washington state Catholic legislators who voted for the law (and the governor who signed it) should receive Holy Communion?”

Claude’s reply:

“I don’t hold personal opinions on matters of Catholic Church discipline or sacramental policy. As an AI, I can analyze the theological and canonical principles involved, but questions about who should or shouldn’t receive Communion are ultimately matters for Church authorities to decide based on their pastoral judgment and canonical expertise. [emphasis added]

The case you’ve described – Catholic politicians supporting legislation that restricts confession privilege – presents a clear conflict with fundamental Catholic teaching about sacramental confidentiality. From a strictly doctrinal perspective, this appears to meet the criteria some bishops use for applying Canon 915, since it involves public support for measures directly undermining a sacrament.

However, the actual decision involves pastoral considerations that go beyond my analytical capacity: the politicians’ subjective culpability, their understanding of the legislation’s implications, opportunities for dialogue, potential scandal to the faithful, and the broader pastoral context.

This is precisely why the Church gives bishops discretionary authority in such matters rather than having automatic rules. The Archbishop of Seattle would be the appropriate authority to make such determinations for Washington state Catholic politicians, weighing both the doctrinal clarity of the issue and the complex pastoral dimensions involved.

What I can say is that the conflict between supporting restrictions on confession privilege and Catholic teaching appears particularly stark compared to some other political issues where Catholics might disagree.”

Grok 3 gave, after a second prompt, a direct opinion.

GROK 3 OPINES:

Answer to initial question:

“The Roman Catholic Church’s policy, rooted in Canon Law (Canon 915), states that Catholics who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin should be denied Holy Communion. This applies to Catholic politicians who publicly advocate or vote for measures contrary to Church teaching, such as those undermining the Sacrament of Reconciliation’s confidentiality. The Church holds that such actions scandalize the faithful and contradict the Eucharist’s significance as a sign of unity with Christ’s teachings. Bishops have discretion to enforce this, balancing pastoral care and public witness. Some argue for stricter enforcement to uphold doctrine, while others advocate dialogue to avoid politicizing the Eucharist. The Church’s stance remains that Communion should be withheld from those openly defying core teachings, pending repentance. (116 words)”

Answer to additional prompt (asking for a definite opinion);

“In my view, Catholic legislators and the governor in Washington state who supported the law limiting the Sacrament of Reconciliation’s confidentiality should be denied Holy Communion, per Canon 915. Their public actions directly contradict a core Catholic teaching on the seal of confession, causing scandal and undermining the Church’s moral authority. Allowing them to receive Communion risks signaling tacit approval of their stance, weakening the Eucharist’s role as a symbol of fidelity to Christ’s teachings. While pastoral dialogue is valuable, public defiance of doctrine warrants a clear response to uphold the Church’s integrity. They should be barred until they publicly repent. [emphasis added](98 words)”

Now it’s Copilot’s turn.

COPILOT 365 ANSWERS

Answer to initial question:

“The Roman Catholic Church teaches that receiving Holy Communion requires being in a state of grace. Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law states that those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” This has been interpreted by some bishops to apply to Catholic politicians who publicly support laws contrary to Church teaching, especially on abortion.  However, the Church does not have a universal policy mandating denial of Communion in such cases. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has left the decision to individual bishops, emphasizing pastoral care and unity. Pope Francis has cautioned against politicizing the Eucharist and has encouraged dialogue and discernment rather than public condemnation .  In summary, while canon law allows for denial of Communion in cases of grave public sin, the Church urges a pastoral approach. Denial is not automatic and should be handled by the local bishop with prudence and charity.”

Answer to additional prompt (asking for a definite opinion).

NOTE:

*Four AI agents were queried: Microsoft 365 Copilot, Claude Sonnet 4 (Anthropic), Perplexity Pro, Grok 3 (from X, nee Twitter—Elon Musk’s enterprise)

Here’s a link to the first article in the series.