ABSTRACT

This contribution investigates the systemic impact of artificial intelligence on criminal liability models, with particular reference to religious entities, in light of the dogmatic transformations brought about by the emergence of algorithmic systems with operational autonomy and opaque decision-making. Starting from the structure of Legislative Decree 231/2001, the investigation aims to examine how the criminal liability of collective entities, based on organizational fault and the logic of structural deficit risk, cannot be transferred analogically to the subjectivity of AI, which lacks suitas, intentionality, and the ability to assess the negative value of the act. Particular attention is paid to machine learning systems, whose pre-programmed unpredictability and the evolutionary nature of decision-making processes place limits on the application of traditional criteria of guilt and on the causal attribution to the human agent pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Italian Criminal Code. In the confessional context, further complexities arise from the personalistic structure of canon law, which allows for imputation only in relation to the psychological dimension of the agent and configures legal persons as mere centers of reference for legal effects. The use of AI systems by religious institutions can generate criminally relevant risks – privacy violations, algorithmic discrimination, decision-making biases in the management of economic or pastoral activities – which require a rethinking of governance in terms of advanced digital compliance, strengthening of supervisory obligations, and liability for failure to monitor. The challenge for criminal law today seems to be to resist the temptation to subjectivise AI and instead focus repressive and preventive intervention on the accountability of institutions and their bodies, also in light of recent legislative initiatives and the reform of the 231 model, within a framework aimed at preserving the systematic coherence and guarantee principles of state and canon law. Such a scenario seems to be the most compatible for religious entities as well, which have always been torn between the need to safeguard their special status and the need to comply with state regulations in relation to activities other than those of religion and worship.