The first encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIV, titled Great humanity ("Magnificent humanity"), was officially published today by the Vatican. The document addresses d "the custody of the human person in the time of artificial intelligence", establishing the ethical and moral position of the Church in the face of the current technological revolution. The encyclical was signed on May 15, in commemoration of the 135th anniversary of the historic social encyclical New things by Leon XIII (1891).
The text consists of an introduction, five chapters and a conclusion and the main axes of its message are:
- Priority of human dignity: The text warns against the risk of creating a "technological Babel", insisting that digital tools and algorithms must always be at the service of people and not the other way around.
- Risks of technocratic power: Warns about excessive technological development without ethical limits that can be used to benefit only the power of a few, marginalize the most vulnerable or dehumanize social relations.
- Governance and responsibility: It demands frameworks of transparency, international regulation and an open dialogue between theology, the human sciences and the leaders of the technology industry.
- Peace, work and social justice: It links the impact of AI with the future of decent employment, military automation (autonomous weapons) and the need to protect minors in the digital ecosystem.
INTRODUCTION
1. The magnificent humanity that God has created is today faced with a decisive choice: raise a new tower of Babel or build the city where God and humanity dwell together. Each generation receives as an inheritance the task of shaping its own time: to mature history as a place where the dignity of each person is protected, justice is promoted, and fraternity is made possible. But in every era there is a risk of building an inhumane and more unjust world. Where humanity is in danger of losing its face, we Christians raise our eyes to the God who became flesh, knowing that "the mystery of man is only clarified in the mystery of the incarnate Word." February 10, 2022 In Jesus Christ, this magnificent humanity finds the way, the truth and the life, opening for each of us the way to grow towards plenitude.
2. Grounded in Christ, the living stone, we experience the powerful and mysterious action of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that every authentic human effort to cooperate with Him for good will be blessed by the heavenly Father, in whom we place our hope. For this reason, we can contribute with determination to all those initiatives that build a more just world, and we can invite others to collaborate with us in promoting the integral development of each human being. We wish to enter into dialogue with all the men and women of our time, with whom we participate together in the events, questions and aspirations of humanity. 4.23). We can ask ourselves: why this particular attention of Jesus towards the sick, to such an extent that it also becomes the main work of the mission of the apostles, sent by the Master to announce the Gospel and to heal the sick? (cf. We want to identify, together with them, new paths for the common good and the promotion of a dignified life for all. This attitude of dialogue is an integral part of the vocation of the Church, since she, constituted "in Christ as a sacrament, [...] of the intimate union with God and the unity of the entire human race", [3] recognizes in history the place where the Gospel challenges and accompanies the human experience.
3. In this spirit, in 1891 Leo XIII published the Encyclical New things, whose 135th anniversary we celebrate this year with deep gratitude. With that document, my dear Predecessor promoted that reflection on society, the economy and politics that today we call “Social Doctrine of the Church.” And when some objected that the Church should not waste energy on worldly issues, but rather worry about communicating a message of eternal life, he responded with realism and wisdom that the proclamation of the Gospel cannot forget the concrete life of people. Let us bless the Lord for the progress that medical science has made, especially in recent times. New technologies have made it possible to develop treatments that are very beneficial for sick people; research continues to make its valuable contribution to eradicating old and new diseases; Rehabilitation medicine has significantly developed its knowledge and skills. All this, however, should not make us forget the uniqueness of each sick person, with their dignity and their frailties. Many decades have passed since then, and the Magisterium, pastors, theologians and the faithful have continued to reflect on social issues in the light of the Gospel. Today, the Social Doctrine of the Church is a heritage of wisdom, in which we find principles for thinking, criteria for discerning and judging, and concrete guidelines for acting. It is based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition and, in dialogue with the sciences, helps us to lucidly read the challenges of the present, identifying appropriate paths to live a clear Christian testimony, with joy and at the service of the world. It is not a static set of concepts, but a living corpus of truths, which guards and interprets humanity's vocation to a full and just life. To this living tradition I wish, therefore, to add my voice, invoking the assistance of the Spirit of wisdom, who has inhabited the world since its creation (cf. Pr 8,22-31).
The “res novae” of our time
4. If at the time Leo XIII spoke of “new matters” ( of the new world), today we cannot simply limit ourselves to repeating his valuable teachings, but we must ask God for the wisdom to interpret the great trends of our time, particularly the advances in technology. In recent years it has become increasingly evident how quickly and profoundly digitalisation, artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics are transforming our world. The technique should not be considered, in itself, as an antagonistic force with respect to the person; On the contrary, it is rooted in our history from the beginning, in that it is "a deeply human fact, linked to the autonomy and freedom of man." In this context, I wish to reaffirm the importance of Catholic health institutions: they are a precious treasure that must be guarded and sustained; his presence has characterized the history of the Church for his closeness to the poorest sick and the most forgotten situations Over the centuries, technological development has contributed to a significant improvement in the living conditions of humanity; At the same time, each stage of progress has also revealed the ambiguous side of instruments capable of causing harm when they are not oriented towards good. Today, however, we find ourselves facing a new situation, in which the power and omnipresence of emerging technologies are intertwined with the fabric of daily life, shaping decision-making processes and deeply affecting the collective imagination: "Never has humanity had so much power over itself." 5. Pastoral mercy: presence and closenessNew technologies open a horizon that extends in directions that, although intuitive, we cannot yet fully foresee. This makes it more complex to evaluate its impact and long-term effects on the dignity of people and the common good.
5. Now it is our responsibility to assume the challenges of our time with lucidity and responsibility. It is necessary to adopt appropriate regulatory instruments, capable of safeguarding justice and containing the distorting effects of technological power. But the issue is not limited to regulation. As he warned Pope Francisco, we must ask ourselves realistically who holds that power today and to what ends they direct it: "We cannot ignore that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, the knowledge of our own DNA and other capabilities that we have acquired [...] give those who have the knowledge, and above all the economic power to exploit it, an impressive dominion over the whole of humanity and the entire world." [7] In the past, it was mainly states that drove and guided innovation. Today, however, the main drivers of development are private actors, often transnational, endowed with resources and capacity for action greater than those of many governments. Technological power thus acquires an unprecedented face, predominantly “private”, and therefore even more difficult to discern, govern and direct towards the common good.
6. For this reason it is necessary to initiate a shared discernment capable of delving into the spiritual and cultural roots of the transformations that are taking place. If we limit ourselves to contingent circumstances, we run the risk of letting the succession of emergencies decide the direction of the path for us. We are experiencing a rapid transition phase, a “change of era” in which – while some dispute the future of new technologies and others reflect on them – the majority of people remain waiting, observing from afar and simply waiting for everything to turn out well. Precisely for this reason, decisive questions are imposed on our conscience, which can no longer be avoided: Where are we going? Towards which goal do we want to orient ourselves? What direction to choose as a human community and as peoples?
Two biblical images
7. To answer these questions and discern how to live responsibly in the age of AI, I would like to evoke two biblical images: the construction of the tower of Babel (cf. Gn 11:1-9) and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (cf. Yes 2-6). In the book of Genesis, the story of Babel is located at the origins of humanity, immediately after the genealogies of Noah's children. Human beings, having settled on the plain of Shinar, decide to build a city and a tower "whose top reaches to heaven" (Gn 11.4). They thus want to ensure stability and power, and above all to “perpetuate a name”, fearing being dispersed throughout the land. The company seems imposing: a single language, a single technology, a single direction. However, the project hides a deep deception: it is a work conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminates diversity and that, instead of communion, chooses homogenization. When the city is built on pride and the pretension of being self-sufficient, communication breaks down, languages become confused and human beings no longer understand each other. The result is not unity, but dispersion. Babel thus reveals the limit of every construction that, no matter how grandiose, arises from the absolutization of humanity and its pretension to self-sufficiency, sacrifices the dignity of people for the sake of efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God's blessing.
8. The book of Nehemiah, in turn, begins at a time of great vulnerability in the history of ancient Israel. After the Babylonian exile, a part of the people has returned to Jerusalem, but the city remains in ruins, the walls have collapsed and the gates have been burned (cf. Yes 1-2). Nehemiah, a Jew in the service of the Persian king Artaxerxes, receives news of the disastrous state of the city of his fathers. Before acting, fast, pray and intercede for the people; He then asks the king for permission to return to Jerusalem and, once there, silently examines the destroyed places. It does not impose solutions from above. He summons the families, entrusts each one with a section of wall to rebuild, listens to fears, coordinates efforts and confronts opposition. The story shows how the city is reborn not thanks to the initiative of a single person, but through the shared responsibility of the entire town: priests, artisans, heads of families, women and young people. It is a work that has God at the center and rebuilds ties even before stones. Ancient Jerusalem thus recovers a common language, not that of uniformity, but that of communion: the harmony that is born when each one assumes their part and the entire people recognize that their strength comes from the Lord.
9. In light of these two images, the Holy Spirit today challenges us about our relationship with technology and the ongoing digital revolution. Scientific discoveries are a talent given to humanity to make it bear fruit (cf. Mt 25,14-30). Technology can heal, connect, educate, care for the common Home; but it can also divide, discard, and generate new injustices. In the abstract, this, in itself, is not a solution to humanity's problems, nor is it an evil in itself; but, specifically, it is not neutral, because it takes on the face of whoever conceives it, finances it, regulates it, uses it. Therefore, the first choice is not between a “yes” or a “no” to technology, but between building Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem: between a power that seeks to dominate heaven and a people that, in the presence of God, begins to work together to once again raise the walls of fraternal coexistence.
10. Let us, therefore, avoid the “Babel syndrome”: the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, the uniformity that flattens differences, the pretension of a single language—even digital—capable of translating everything, even the mystery of the person, into data and performance. This is the risk of dehumanization—building the future by excluding God and reducing the other to a means—an ancient and always new temptation, which today also takes on a technical face. Let us choose, instead, the “way of Nehemiah,” which highlights the value of shared work to make the city of God a safe place for returned exiles. Today, rebuilding means recognizing that, in the plurality of voices and visions that sometimes recalls the dispersion of languages, there is, however, a luminous possibility: that of building together, transforming diversity into a resource and making listening and dialogue the common ground on which to make justice and fraternity grow. And, in this shared work, Christians find their own way of building: orienting action towards God, so that, under his light, pluralism does not disperse in disorder, but, in the practice of synodality, becomes the space in which humanity recovers its solid foundations and its ultimate goal. In the Apocalypse, John sees the new Jerusalem "coming down from heaven and coming from God" (Ap 21,2) as a gift to all humanity. And this vision of grace is for us Christians a call to work together, cultivating a peaceful, just and dignified common life in the “cities” of today.
Build on good
11. Building a city focused on the common good requires, above all, building on the rock of the relationship with God. It means recognizing that the truth of his love calls us to a life "in abundance" ( Jn 10,10) and to communion with Him. Together with Saint Augustine, we too can say: "For you have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they rest in you." [8] Indeed, God has inscribed in our hearts a desire for happiness that embraces all dimensions of life; and the Church, in dialogue with the men and women of our time, feels the urgency of guarding and directing that aspiration towards its deepest truth.
12. Secondly, building in good means accepting the limits and fragility of humanity without considering them an error that must be corrected. Today, the human being's desire for plenitude runs the risk of being diverted towards misleading goals: the illusion of a technology that promises to free us from all fragility or models of well-being that “leave behind” entire peoples. It is not unusual for us to place our hope in unlimited potential, in forms of progress that can exacerbate inequalities, in immediate solutions incapable of healing people's wounds. Thus, while some pursue the chimera of unlimited self-affirmation, many lack what is necessary. The Church remembers, with a humble but firm voice, that true fulfillment does not come from the elimination of frailties, but from harmonious growth: where freedom and responsibility are intertwined with reciprocal care and true solidarity, and where progress is measured by the dignity of each person and the good of the people.
13. Third, building a world in which everyone can “flourish” requires courageous co-responsibility. No hand, by itself, is enough to support the weight of the challenges that the world is going through; and none is so weak that they cannot offer their contribution: "My power triumphs in weakness" (2 Co 12.9). To each one corresponds their section of wall: scientists and researchers, businessmen and workers, educators and legislators, civil society, popular movements and communities of faith. This is the logic of subsidiarity, which values cooperation between generations, between peoples, between disciplines and cultures as the privileged path to grow stability, prosperity and peace. Tensions and differences should not be intimidating; They can become creative energies when guided by shared responsibility.
14. Finally, building in good requires evangelical language. Let's avoid words that humiliate or confront. Let us opt for the clarity that illuminates and the frankness that opens paths. Let us not bless naive enthusiasms or feed sterile fears. Rather, let us indicate criteria of discernment—the dignity of the person, the universal destination of goods, the option for the poor, care for the common Home, peace—and let us translate them into practices: responsible planning, assessments of human and social impact, inclusion of the most fragile, digital literacy, research and industry oriented toward justice and peace.
Stay human
15. In the recent ordinary Jubilee of 2025, we have walked as pilgrims of hope and we have been filled with graces. Strengthened by these gifts, we can move forward with confidence in the face of the arduous tasks and demanding challenges that lie ahead in our future. In the era of artificial intelligence, in which human dignity risks being eclipsed by new forms of dehumanization, we have the urgent duty to remain deeply human, lovingly guarding that magnificent humanity that has been given to us and revealed in fullness in Christ, and that no machine can ever replace in its splendor. True progress is always born from a heart open to the other, from an intelligence willing to listen, from a will that seeks what unites more than what separates.
16. To all the Catholic faithful, to all Christians, to all men and women of good will I address a vehement appeal: let us not be afraid to get our hands dirty in the work of our time. Like Nehemiah, let us pray, plan with wisdom, work with perseverance, putting God on the horizon of our actions and the human being at the center of our decisions. Then the discarded stones—the poor, the sick, the migrants, the little ones—will become cornerstones, and upon the earth a solid and hospitable common home will emerge, where love and truth will finally meet, and justice and peace will kiss (cf. Sal 85,11). This is the blessing we implore from God and the task before us: to be builders of communion, not architects of Babel; servants of the coming Kingdom, not owners of towers destined to collapse. And, with the spirit of a pastor and a father, I ask everyone to stop the construction of the umpteenth Babel and to join forces to build for good, so that humanity never loses its own beauty and the world can recognize once again, in the heart of the human being, the place where God desires to dwell.
CHAPTER ONE
A DYNAMIC THOUGHT FAITHFUL TO THE GOSPEL
17. In this first chapter my intention is to cover, in a synthetic way, the path through which the Social Doctrine of the Church has been taking shape in the recent Magisterium of the Popes and the Vatican Council II, to highlight its dynamic character. In each era, in fact, the new things They urge this teaching to measure itself against the questions of history in the light of revealed Truth. For this reason, AI must also be understood not as a thematic appendix, or as an emergency that must be managed, but as a transformation that challenges the categories of social Doctrine from within and demands its greater development, in fidelity to the Gospel.
18. However, this itinerary would not be truly understandable if, before dwelling on the contribution of each of the Pontiffs and the most relevant documents, we did not clarify some fundamental convictions about the way in which the Church inhabits history and relates to the world. Without this clarification, the Social Doctrine would run the risk of appearing to be an undue interference in temporal matters or an external ethical code that is applied arbitrarily. In reality, it arises from a Church that walks with humanity, recognizes the autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction between ecclesial community and political community and, precisely for this reason, aspires to serve the common good.
A Church on the way in the history of humanity
19. The Church, present in the world as a sign of unity for the entire human family, recognizes in the questions and challenges of the current era the area in which to exercise its vocation to listening, dialogue and service, allowing itself to be challenged by everything that concerns the existence of men and women today. This intertwining of life with the people makes it understand more and more that its mission has a historical scope and implies a responsibility regarding the way in which social relations are woven. For this reason, it cannot be considered alien to the dynamics that shape the face of society. Rather, it participates with commitment in the paths through which society itself grows and organizes itself, and offers its contribution to the achievement of a more just and fraternal coexistence. He Pope Francisco He strongly recalled this historical dimension of the ecclesiastical mission, pointing out that "no one can demand that we relegate religion to the secret intimacy of people, without any influence on social and national life, without worrying about the health of the institutions of civil society, without giving an opinion on the events that affect citizens." [9]
20. The call and commitment to walk with humanity in the concreteness of history leads the Church to recognize that earthly realities have a consistency and order of their own. He Vatican Council II expressed this principle with special precision in the Pastoral Constitution The joy and hope, whose 60th anniversary we celebrated with fond memory on December 7, 2025: "If by autonomy of reality we mean that created things and society itself enjoy their own laws and values, [...] this demand for autonomy is absolutely legitimate." [10]This emphasis shows that creation is imprinted with an original goodness that the human gaze must guard, cultivate and mature. In this horizon, the Church offers itself as a presence that helps to read reality in depth, supporting with humble firmness those decisions that promote the dignity of each person, the cohesion of communities and the good of all. Thus, it places itself on a par with the world without imposing itself on it, so that in each human event the promise of justice and peace that the Holy Spirit continues to raise in the heart of humanity can germinate.
21. By recognizing that God accompanies the freedom of human beings in the development of history, the Vatican Council II affirmed the distinction between ecclesial community and political community, emphasizing that each of them must act with the fullest autonomy. The presence of the Church in the world is also expressed in its relationship with civil society and public institutions. By dialoguing with them, the Church recognizes the value of social and political realities and respects its own responsibility, supporting everything that protects people's lives and strengthens the foundations of the social fabric. It does not intend to assume the functions that are the responsibility of the State; On the contrary, it values its service to the common good and recognizes with conviction the responsibility that civil institutions exercise in society. At the same time, the mission entrusted to her leads her not to remain distant from the concrete sufferings of the men and women of our time. Her closeness does not arise from the intention of replacing the institutions, much less from an implicit criticism of their work, but from the evangelical charity that drives her to approach the wounds of humanity at the moments when they manifest themselves most seriously. When he intervenes, he does so imitating the good Samaritan, with discretion and closeness, aware that what arises from an immediate need cannot become the norm, nor replace the institutional responsibilities of the civil community.
22. From this double recognition—the autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction of powers between the ecclesial community and the political community—the orientation that the Vatican Council II has given to the Church in its relationship with the world. The joy and hope remember that "it is the responsibility of all the People of God, but mainly of pastors and theologians, to listen to, discern and interpret, with the help of the Holy Spirit, the multiple voices of our time and to value them in the light of the Word of God, so that the revealed Truth can be better perceived, better understood and expressed in a more adequate way." [11] Listening to the “different languages” is not a mere sociological attention, but implies a spiritual discernment in which, with the help of the Spirit, the People of God recognize in cultural and social transformations both the signs of the presence of Christ, who comes and guides history towards its fullness, and those deviations that obscure his face. Thus, the revealed Truth is not modified in its essential core, but is made explicit and assumed as a living criterion to guide concrete choices, inspire paths of personal and community conversion, promote reforms of structures and support new forms of evangelical witness in public life. History is, therefore, one of the places in which the Church allows itself to be instructed by the Spirit about the humanizing scope of the Gospel and learns to adapt its teaching to the service of the dignity of each person and the good of people.
The wisdom of the Word and the dialogue with the human sciences
23.The Church considers companions on the journey to all those who sincerely seek "truth, goodness and beauty", considering them "precious allies" [12] in the defense of the dignity of each person and in the custody of creation. Assuming the pastoral style of Vatican Council II, which invites us to listen, discern and interpret the signs of the times, the Church, illuminated by the wisdom of the Word, does not fear the encounter with human knowledge. The Word of God offers reliable criteria to guide the paths of justice and open paths of reconciliation and peace between human beings. When it comes to applying these criteria to the complex situations of our time, the contribution of philosophy and the human and social sciences is essential, which help to understand and analyze in more depth the cultural, economic and political dynamics. San Juan Pablo II He recalled that the Church welcomes the contribution of the social sciences "to obtain concrete indications that help it carry out its teaching mission." [13] Dialogue with this knowledge does not diminish the strength of the Gospel; On the contrary, it allows us to identify more clearly what really promotes the lives of people and communities. He Pope Francisco, in line with this perspective, stressed that, on many specific issues, the Church does not intend to offer "a definitive word," [14] but recognizes the importance of paying attention to scientific research and fostering serious and loyal dialogue among academics, accepting diversity of opinions.
24. Fed by this fruitful dialogue between the Gospel and human knowledge, the Church has progressively deepened its social Doctrine, maturing over time a heritage of wisdom endowed with a theological and anthropological coherence rooted in the Christian vision of the person. Precisely because it is born from faith and its understanding of reality, this heritage does not translate into a repertoire of technical solutions or into an economic or political model that opposes others: it has its own category, [15] that of the principles that guide the reading of events and support an evangelical interpretation of historical processes and the decisions they imply. From this arises the proper function of Social Doctrine, which is not intended to replace the responsibilities of politics and institutions, but is offered as support for common discernment, helping to recognize and promote what contributes to the dignity of people, the vitality of communities and the good of all.
Social Doctrine as community discernment
25. The understanding of truth as a gift to be shared and not as a possession to be claimed frees the Church from the temptation to long for forms of presence based on power. San Juan Pablo II invited us to look sincerely at those times in which we gave in to "methods of intolerance and even violence in the service of the truth," [16] to rediscover the evangelical path of peaceful proclamation and of the truth that is not imposed. Along the same lines, I have reiterated that the Church "does not want to raise the flag of possession of the truth," [17] because the truth is not a territory that must be defended, but a good that must be shared. This same perspective was summarized by Pope Francisco in his famous words, according to which "time is superior to space": [18] The important thing is not, above all, to occupy positions of power or control cultural bastions, but to initiate good processes and let them mature; Thus, the truth of the Gospel is not imposed from above, but grows over time, in the concrete interweaving of lives, communities and cultures. It is a truth that does not fear diversity, but rather welcomes and orders it; that does not eliminate conflicts, but rather transfigures them; that recomposes what history tends to disperse. Hence also the image of the polyhedron, a figure with many faces where the same truth of the Gospel is reflected, from different angles. [19]
26. This attitude of openness to the truth, unique and at the same time multifaceted, deeply expresses the catholicity of the Church, which encompasses the entire human family and, at the same time, lives immersed in the concrete conditions of peoples and cultures. He Vatican Council II remember that, precisely by virtue of this catholicity, "each of the parts collaborates with its own gifts with the remaining parts and with the entire Church," [20] and that, in this way, both as a whole and in each individual community, it grows thanks to a reciprocal exchange and a mutual effort towards an ever fuller communion. From this it follows that the People of God is not only made up of many peoples, but that within it is woven of diverse functions, vocations, cultures and traditions, called to support and enrich each other. In this perspective, Saint Paul VI recognized that, given the great variety of historical situations, it is not realistic to think that social Doctrine can "pronounce a single word", [21] an exclusive and valid answer for all contexts; That is why he invited each Christian community to read with lucidity and responsibility the reality of their own country. The fruitful tension between the universality of the mission and local roots is an intimate part of the life of the Church: she carries in her breath the horizon of the entire world, but assumes the questions of each context as the real place in which the Gospel comes to life.
27. In light of what has been said so far, the Social Doctrine of the Church appears in its most authentic face: it is not a manual of principles and norms that must be applied, but a path of community discernment. Born from the encounter between the eternal truth of the Gospel and the questions of history, it allows itself to be challenged by the signs of the times; It is nourished by the contribution of sciences, cultures and human experiences. Therefore, when the dignity of our brothers is disfigured, when politics does not respond to the tragedies of humanity, when the economy turns against the person or science surpasses the limits of its method, [22] The Church—along with other Christian denominations and believers of other religions—must make its voice heard not to dominate, but to serve the communion. Understood in this way, Social Doctrine becomes a theology of communion in history; a place where the Word, made flesh, continues to become dialogue, memory and prophecy.
The development of the social Magisterium from Leo XIII to today
28. After having recalled the way in which the Church is situated in history and enters into dialogue with the world, I now wish to dwell on the development of social Doctrine in the Magisterium, which, from the 19th century to the present day, has accompanied the great social transformations. Obviously, I will not be able to account for all the richness of this teaching, whose fundamental principles are presented in the Compendium of the social doctrine of the Church and they go even deeper in the recent Magisterium. Nor will I be able to systematically return to what has been elaborated in the Encyclicals of my last venerated Predecessors, particularly in Laudato si ' and in All brothers. However, I want to remember some essential lines, to show that what I write is placed in continuity with this tradition and, at the same time, to highlight how in it the stable core of the truths revealed about the person and human coexistence is intertwined with an always renewed capacity to listen to historical situations and to allow oneself to be challenged by the questions that arise from the present. I will, therefore, go through some decisive stages of this development, beginning with the stage inaugurated by the Encyclical New things.
The first steps of the Social Doctrine of the Church
29. What we today call “Social Doctrine of the Church” does not arise suddenly in the contemporary era, but rather collects and organizes a long tradition of ecclesiastical reflection on social life, which has its roots in Sacred Scripture, in the Fathers of the Church and in the theological and legal elaborations of the Middle Ages and the Modern Age. The expression “Social Doctrine of the Church” was used for the first time by Pius XII in 1950, [23] but the content it contains, understood as an organic corpus of social teachings, began to take shape with the Encyclical New things from Leo XIII. Before the “new issues” of his time—the conflict between capital and labor, the labor question, economic and social transformations—, Leo XIII He did not limit himself to confirming the discomfort, but he assumed these situations as the scope of the pastoral mission of the Church, he subjected them to rigorous discernment and illuminated their causes and the possible ways out in the light of the Gospel and a comprehensive vision of the person, created in the image of God. San Juan Pablo II He saw in this way of proceeding a "permanent paradigm" [24] of Social Doctrine: an exemplary praxis through which the Church, in the face of historical transformations, exercises its right and duty to examine social realities, pronounce on them and indicate paths towards a just solution. In this way, the perennial contents of faith and ancient ecclesial wisdom are articulated in a living doctrine that, while remaining faithful to the Gospel, grows in dialogue with the “new issues” of each era.
30. The Encyclical New things from Leo XIII constitutes a milestone in the evolution of social teaching. The document places the dignity of work and the worker at the center of its reflection, affirms the right to a fair salary for oneself and one's family, recognizes in people an essential value that prevails over capital and profit, defends private property along with its indispensable social function, appreciates workers' associations and proposes forms of collaboration between the various components of society as an alternative to the logic of "class struggle." It is not surprising, therefore, that Pius XI has defined it as the « Great Charter» [25] of the social action of Christians: in New things, the ancient wisdom of the Church about the person and life in society acquires a new form, capable of facing the industrial age and offering the first great systematic framework of that social Doctrine that the following decades would develop even further. Although many of the historical conditions described by Leo XIII have changed, at least two of its principles remain highly topical: the primacy of human work over any purely productive or financial logic, with the consequent attention to individuals and families most exposed to exploitation, and the indissoluble link between the evangelical proclamation and the search for a more just social order. So, New things It continues to remind us that there is no authentic evangelization that does not also touch the structures of human coexistence.
31. The Encyclical In the year of Lent from Pius XI, published in 1931 on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of New things and at the height of the great world economic crisis, it takes another step in the development of the social Magisterium. It does not limit itself to returning to the “worker question”, but broadens its view to the general configuration of the economic and political order. It denounces the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few; he criticizes both unlimited competition and those collectivist projects that nullify people's freedom and responsibility; It strongly recalls the right of association of workers and reiterates the demand that the salary be proportional not only to performance, but to the needs of the worker and his family. In this framework, it systematically formulates the principle of subsidiarity, destined to become one of the fixed references of Social Doctrine, according to which what can be carried out by individuals, families, intermediate organizations and local communities should not be absorbed by higher authorities. Along with these contributions, Pius XI clearly remembers the social function of property and, with various interventions by his Magisterium - from the Encyclicals We don't need it Y With burning concern until the of the Divine Redeemer—, denounces totalitarianisms that violate the dignity of the person, suffocate social life, exalt the State above its fair value and adopt the discriminatory category of race. For our time, at least three intuitions of his social teaching remain particularly current: the awareness that injustices do not refer only to individual behavior, but also to economic and institutional structures; the value of the principle of subsidiarity, which invites us to strengthen the associative and community fabric, avoiding new concentrations of power; and the link between the dignity of work, fair remuneration and the real possibility for families to lead a dignified human life.
32. In the dramatic context of the Second World War and the years of reconstruction, the Magisterium of Pius XII offers a significant contribution to the development of social Doctrine, especially through the Christmas radio messages, in which it outlines the general lines of an international order based on the recognition of human dignity, justice and peace. On these occasions, the Pope proposes a dialogue with society based on a demanding reference to natural law, understood as a set of objective principles that precede the interests of individuals and states and that must regulate the internal life of nations and their reciprocal relationships. Pius XII It also attributes a decisive role to professional associations, workers' unions and the various intermediate bodies of economic and social life, recognizing in these organized forms of society an essential bulwark for civil balance and for the protection of the common good. He maintains the need for a solid rule of law to prevent abuses of power and recognizes democracy as an adequate instrument to promote the correct exercise of authority. At the same time, it warns against any attempt to base law on interest or force, remembering that an international order regulated by the benefit of the strongest exposes weaker peoples to oppression and fundamentally undermines trust between nations. Finally, it identifies the deep economic imbalances between countries as one of the factors that fuel conflicts. [26] In our era, marked by new forms of global power and growing inequalities, three principles remain especially significant: the demand that law prevail over interest, the awareness that economic disparities are fertile ground for tensions and violence, and the value of an associative fabric capable of mediating between the individual and the State. These continue to offer social Doctrine important criteria to interpret the dynamics of globalization and to promote a more just and peaceful international order.
The years of the Second Vatican Council
33. Con Saint John XXIII A new stage of the social Magisterium opens, marked by more explicit attention to the global dimension of social issues and the language of rights. In Mother and teacher presents the Christian faith as a light capable of uniting heaven and earth, remembering that the Church, although its main mission is sanctification and the proclamation of eternal goods, does not for that reason neglect the concrete needs of people's daily lives, but is interested in all authentic human good. [27] Starting from this unitary vision of the human being, it emphasizes that social life requires a balance between the initiative of citizens and groups, called to self-organize and collaborate, and the action of the State, which must coordinate and sustain without suffocating the freedom and responsibility of the subjects; Therefore, it pays attention to fair remuneration for work, worker participation and growing disparities between countries. A few years later, with Peace on Earth, addressing for the first time not only the faithful but all men of good will, Saint John XXIII organically links the dignity of the person with the recognition of fundamental rights and duties and proposes an order of coexistence—also at the international level—founded on truth, justice, love and freedom. [28] In our era, marked by widespread conflict and new forms of global interdependence, the universal scope of its call, the reference to human rights as a common language, and the conviction that lasting peace requires institutions and relationships between peoples inspired by the dignity of each person remain especially significant.
34. The Vatican Council II marked a turning point in the way the Church understands itself in the contemporary world. In the pastoral Constitution The joy and hope He presented us with the image of a Church close to humanity, committed to the world and dedicated to reflecting not on the basis of abstract schemes, but on the concrete reality of historical situations. The text addresses the major questions of marriage and family, of economic and social life, of the political community, of war and peace, insisting that economic and institutional structures are fair only to the extent that they serve the integral development of the person and favor the responsible participation of all. [29] The importance of this conciliar document for the Social Doctrine of the Church lies not only in having opened perspectives for thematic reflection, but also in having provided a method of discernment that invites us to interpret historical transformations with an evangelical perspective and human competence. This style shows that dialogue with the world is not a tactical option for the Church, but a concrete form of its mission, because the Gospel, like leaven, can transform the structures of coexistence from within and open paths towards greater humanity. The Declaration also falls within this horizon. Human dignity, in which the Council recognizes that religious freedom is a fundamental right rooted in the dignity of the person, which must be guaranteed by the legal system so that no one is forced to act against their conscience or prevented from seeking and professing the truth in private and in public. [30] This principle, of great relevance for our time, continues to offer social Doctrine decisive criteria for the protection of the person and for the construction of pluralistic and peaceful societies.
35. In the Pontificate of Saint Paul VI A conception of peace emerges that is not reduced to the absence of war, but rather takes shape on the path towards integral human development. In The development of the people, describes development as the passage from less human conditions of life to more human conditions and understands it as a process that concerns "all men and the whole man." [31] that is, to all dimensions of the person and to all peoples, without exception. On this basis, Paul VI can affirm that a development conceived in this way is, in reality, "the new name for peace", [32] because it aims to eliminate the roots of injustice and conflict and open spaces for a more dignified life for all. Also the creation of the Pontifical Commission Justice and Peace It must be interpreted in this sense, as an attempt to give a stable form, at an ecclesial and international level, to this intuition, keeping alive awareness about the growing gap between rich and poor countries and about the need for policies that promote truly more humane living conditions for all.
36. With the The eightieth coming, written on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the New things, Paul VI transfers this perspective to post-industrial society, marked by urban transformations, new forms of poverty, changes in the world of work and rapid cultural changes that call into question the future of people and communities. For Paul VI, the Gospel, despite having been announced, written and lived in a historical-cultural context very different from ours, is not an “outdated” message, but rather a vision of the human person, of relationships, of authority and of the common good capable of guiding economic, political and cultural decisions today as well. [33] In other words, the Gospel remains current because it provides the criteria to recognize what humanizes or dehumanizes, what liberates or oppresses, in always new situations. For the social doctrine of the Church, the most demanding legacy of Paul VI It is precisely this: as long as there are peoples in the world excluded from a development worthy of the human being, the Christian community cannot be content with proclaiming peace in the abstract, but must let the Gospel judge, based on those who remain on the margins, those economic and political structures that, as John Paul II would remind us, can become authentic "structures of sin." [34] so that no person or town is treated as expendable in development processes.
The recent Magisterium
37. The fruitful social Magisterium of Saint John Paul II It is situated at the crossroads between the crisis of the great ideological systems of the 20th century and the beginning of economic globalization. In the Encyclical Exercising labor, written ninety years after the publication of New things, a new avenue of reflection on work opens. The fair wage is presented there as concrete proof of the equity of the entire socioeconomic system, since it shows whether the worker is treated as a person or as a simple cost of production. [35] Work is not considered just a problem that must be managed or a means to obtain income, but rather a fundamental good for the person, the principle of economic activity and the key to the entire social issue. In it, human beings put their freedom, creativity and ability to cooperate into play, contributing to the cultural and moral elevation of society. [36] In view of this, the various forms of precariousness, the fragmentation of professional trajectories and automation cannot be evaluated solely in terms of efficiency, but based on the dignity of the worker, the right to sufficient remuneration and the effective possibility of participating in social life.
38. On the 20th anniversary of the The development of the people, with the Encyclical Social anxiety, John Paul II once again addresses the scourge of underdevelopment and recognizes the failure of many attempts to reduce the economic backwardness of poor people and accompany their industrialization, confirming the persistence and, at times, the widening of the gap between the North and the South of the world. [37] It also denounces the economic, financial and commercial mechanisms that, managed by the strongest countries, structurally favor their interests and suffocate the weaker economies, and asks that they also be subjected to rigorous ethical judgment, and not just technical ones. [38] In this context, solidarity is understood as a concrete co-responsibility between people, peoples and nations, a form of social friendship or political charity oriented towards the “civilization of love” invoked by Paul VI. [39]
39. On the centenary of New things, the Encyclical The hundredth year Finally, it offers a reflection on the collapse of the Soviet system and the consolidation of democracy and the market economy. Saint John Paul II takes up the message of Pius XII according to which the Church can value democracy to the extent that it guarantees the effective participation of citizens, allows rulers to be peacefully elected and replaced, and prevents power from being monopolized by small elites motivated by particular or ideological interests. [40] Likewise, it recognizes the positive potential of the market and private initiative only if they remain subordinated to the moral law and guided by the principle of solidarity, without sacrificing the weakest for the sake of the logic of profit. [41] For the Social Doctrine of the Church this represents a legacy of special relevance: the affirmation of the link between the dignity of work, solidarity between peoples and the critical evaluation of democracy and the market economy continues to offer criteria to judge new forms of exploitation, exclusion and crisis of political representation.
40. The Pope Benedict XVI, in his social encyclical Love in truth, wanted to return to and deepen the concept of development presented in The development of the people, reinterpreting it in the context of globalization. Remember that this development should translate into "real growth, extendable to all and concretely sustainable", [42] that is, in economic progress that is truly inclusive and respectful of the limits of creation. It notes, however, that in rich countries new categories of poor are emerging and unprecedented forms of exclusion are multiplying, while in the poorest regions small groups live in consumerist well-being that coexists with situations of dehumanizing misery. [43] It also observes that the new global economic-financial system, characterized by great mobility of capital and means of production, has reduced the political power of states and their ability to guide economic processes. [44] For this reason, it reiterates that economic activity cannot aim to solve social problems simply by expanding the logic of the market, but rather must be oriented towards the common good, with respect to which the political community has its own and irreplaceable responsibility. [45]
41. At the center of this reinterpretation, Benedict XVI places charity, stating that this "is the master path of the social doctrine of the Church," [46] as long as it is linked to the truth; and observes with concern that, precisely in the social, legal, political and economic spheres, there is a tendency to declare its moral irrelevance. The novelty of his contribution lies in showing that development, justice, institutions and the market are not neutral realities, but spaces in which charity in truth must take historical form. Today - marked by growing inequalities, the pressure of financial markets, the environmental crisis and distrust in politics - this teaching remains valid because it requires judging each development model by its capacity to be inclusive and sustainable, recomposing the relationship between economics and politics around the common good and recognizing charity's critical and generative role in public life.
42. The social Magisterium of the Pope Francisco develops along the lines of The joy and hope, which invites us to contemplate history starting from people's wounds and hopes and to put them in dialogue with the Gospel. This orientation is evident with particular clarity in the gospel of joy, where it is stated that the Christian proclamation has an intrinsic social dimension and refers to a Church capable of listening to the cry of the poor, of migrants and of the victims of new forms of slavery. This perspective also includes the insistence of I entrust all the sick and their families to the intercession of Mary in a synodal Church, a Church in which we “walk together”, which seeks to read the signs of the times in the light of the Gospel and allows itself to be evangelized by the poor with whom it shares history. [47]
43. In Laudato si ', I entrust all the sick and their families to the intercession of Mary offers the first major systematic analysis of the environmental crisis in a social Encyclical, demonstrating that it is not a sectoral issue, but rather the ecological aspect of the contemporary socioeconomic crisis. His proposal of "integral ecology" combines the care of the common Home and the preferential option for the poor, and affirms with determination that "both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor" [48] They cannot be separated. In this sense, the universal destination of goods once again takes center stage, the criticism of a technocratic paradigm that seeks to reduce everything to an object of domination, the defense of human work threatened by the logic of throwaway, the demand for intergenerational justice and the call for an authentic dialogue between politics and economy, so that neither of the two is enclosed in its own self-referentiality.
44. Faced with the disintegration of the social fabric, the “world war in pieces”, individualistic globalization and the consequences of the pandemic on community ties, I entrust all the sick and their families to the intercession of Mary relaunches in All brothers the dream of a humanity capable of choosing social friendship and universal brotherhood. It proposes a culture of encounter, a “better policy” capable of seeking the common good, paths of reconciliation and a world that guarantees “land, shelter and work for all.” [49] Con Loves usFinally, he shows that these great social commitments cannot be separated from the personal relationship with Christ: when returning to the Word of God, he remembers that the most authentic response to the love of the Heart of Jesus is the concrete love towards his brothers and sisters and affirms that "there is no greater gesture that we can offer to return love for love." [50]
A reading of history in the light of faith
45. When contemplating this journey as a whole, it is understood that the Social Doctrine of the Church is not the fruit of a project drawn up on a desk, but rather the result of a patient process, in which each Pontiff - together with the Vatican Council II—has made an original contribution in light of the “new issues” of his time. Each one, assuming the challenges of their time and interpreting historical changes in the light of the Gospel, has highlighted different aspects of a unique heritage: the dignity of the person, the value of work, the universal destination of goods, solidarity and subsidiarity, care for creation, the centrality of peace and fraternity. The result is a harmonious development, although not always linear, marked by different accents, by progressive deepening and, sometimes, by changes of perspective that do not break with what has gone before, but rather make its implications mature. If today we can speak of a corpus of shared principles and criteria, it is because this reading of history in the light of faith has never been interrupted and has known how to allow itself to be challenged by the questions of each generation. It is to this fundamental core—the great principles of social Doctrine that guide the discernment of believers in personal and public life—to which I now wish to direct attention, to better grasp its internal coherence and its generative force for our time.
CHAPTER TWO
FOUNDATIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
46. The Social Doctrine of the Church is a living reality, in dialogue with history, cultures and sciences and, at the same time, it preserves a core of truth that does not decline. That is why it can be considered a form of wisdom capable of guiding the personal and social lives of believers even today. In this second chapter I would like to dwell on some foundations and principles of social Doctrine that help to read the “new issues” of our time in light of the fundamental dignity of the human person. I think that currently, to safeguard the human person in the time of AI, we must once again reflect on the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity and social justice. I am convinced that the harmonious relationship between these principles requires that they be analyzed together, so that it is clearly evident how they claim and illuminate each other.
47. In proposing these reflections I wish, above all, to help the lay faithful and all women and men of good will to rediscover their own task of making present in everyday life - in family relationships, at work and in social participation - the principles that I am going to point out, letting themselves be encouraged by the purpose of embodying the love of God in the concrete plot of history. At the same time, I would like to encourage academies and universities to revitalize such principles, reconsidering them in a way that adapts to current times and is effective in facing the digital revolution. In this way, theological and philosophical research will be able to deepen and sustain the pastoral path of the Church, contributing to the Magisterium's task of enlightening the conscience of believers and guiding their commitment to make the life of our societies more just and fraternal.
The foundations of social Doctrine
The human being, image of the Trinitarian God
48. The Social Doctrine of the Church leads us to the very heart of our faith: the mystery of the living God, revealed in Jesus Christ as a communion of people; Father, Son and Holy Spirit: love in relationship, which is given reciprocally and communicated to the world. [51] As he remembers Council, the human being is called to communion with God and "cannot find his own plenitude except in the sincere surrender of himself"; [52] Its deepest vocation is to enter the Trinitarian movement of love received and shared.
49. If the mystery of God-Love is the source of social Doctrine, we contemplate its most concrete face in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word. Becoming man, the Son of God enters history and our flesh, bringing us the love that unites him to the Father and the Holy Spirit. «The mystery of man is only clarified in the mystery of the incarnate Word», [53] because his humanity is completely free, open to others, capable of building supportive and precious relationships, and given to the total gift of himself. Whoever believes in Him is involved in the great work of renewal inaugurated by the mystery of his passion, death and resurrection, and cooperates in the building of the Kingdom of God, learning to welcome every woman as a sister and every man as a brother, children of the same Father. Thus, both the proclamation and the Christian experience, guided by the action of the Holy Spirit, tend to generate social consequences in the world. [54]
50. At the center of the Christian vision of the human being is the great affirmation according to which man and woman are created “in the image and likeness” (cf. Gn 1,26-27) of the Trinitarian God. Each person, constitutively made for relationship, is intended and willed by God to enter into a story of communion with Him, with others and with creation. Your dignity does not depend on the abilities you possess, the wealth or the role you play, nor the right or wrong decisions you make, but it is a gift that precedes and exceeds it, given by God as an expression of his love that never fails. For this reason, the human person always remains “the first and fundamental path of the Church.” [55] and the heart of every authentic path of integral human development. [56]
The equal dignity of all human beings
51. San Juan Pablo II He stated that "the deeper sense of the dignity of the human person and his uniqueness, as well as the respect due to the path of conscience, is certainly a positive acquisition of modern culture." [57] This statement follows the footsteps already traced by the Vatican Council II, which had noted a growth in awareness of the sublime dignity of every person, of their value superior to things and of their universal and inviolable rights and duties. [58] It is important to ensure that this growth in awareness of human dignity is not obfuscated under the pressure of new ideologies or certain powerful interests in today's world. Among these ideologies, I consider particularly insidious the one that suggests that every person must earn or justify their own value, to the point of attributing greater value to those who are more efficient and productive. In such a perspective, the person ends up being reduced to a means to obtain results, to a resource to be used and exploited, and is not recognized as an end in itself, never instrumentalizable. But the value of the person does not depend on what he or she does or produces; There are rights that correspond to everyone for the mere fact of being people. No human power can legitimately deny or arbitrarily limit them. [59]
52. When we talk about dignity we do not always use the word in the same way; Sometimes we refer to moral dignity, that is, the way in which the person guides his own decisions and his own actions; other times we think about social dignity, that is, the living conditions of the person and the concrete respect that is recognized by society; In other cases we indicate existential dignity, which refers to the way in which a person perceives the value of themselves and their own life. These dimensions of dignity can grow or diminish. But beyond these meanings there is a deeper level, the most important, which consists of ontological dignity. It is the dignity that belongs to every human being simply for the fact of existing, of having been wanted, created and loved by God; [60] No sin, no failure, no humiliation, no exclusion can affect the profound value of a human life that He has willed and called into being. [61]
53. Therefore, the fundamental dignity of each person is not acquired, must not be earned, and does not need to be demonstrated. The recent Declaration Infinite dignity has offered a synthesis of the Church's convictions on this topic: "An infinite dignity, which is inalienably based on one's own being, corresponds to each human person, beyond all circumstances and in any state or situation in which they find themselves." [62] that is, always and inescapably. This dignity of every human being can be defined infinite, as he said Saint John Paul II, [63] for two reasons: because the love of God that calls you to friendship with Him is infinite, and because it is absolutely unconditional, in the sense that, even if you search to infinity, nothing will ever be found that can suppress or deny it.
The very high value of human rights
54. The Church recognizes with gratitude that "the movement towards the identification and proclamation of human rights is one of the most relevant efforts to respond effectively to the essential demands of human dignity." [64]And, as stated Saint John Paul II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, continues to be one of the highest expressions of human consciousness today. [65]This is "a milestone in the path of the moral progress of humanity." [66]Therefore, from the Christian perspective, human rights are not an external addition to the person, but rather a historical translation of their intrinsic dignity, which the international community is called to protect and promote.
55. Human rights are inviolable, because they are "inherent in the human person and their dignity." [67]Consequently, they are universal and inalienable. [68] Precisely because they are founded on the common dignity of every man and every woman, these rights entail practical consequences and legal effects, because "it would be in vain to proclaim rights, if at the same time everything necessary is not put into practice to ensure the duty to respect them, by everyone, everywhere and for everyone." [69]Among these, the first human right is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, [70]without which it is impossible to exercise any other right. When this fundamental right is denied – as happens with induced abortion, the murder of innocent people and euthanasia – we find ourselves faced with decisions that the Church judges to be seriously illicit. [71]
56. Looking at our times, we cannot ignore that the protection of human rights today is exposed to two particularly serious risks. The first is that of a purely formal declaration, while, along with technological progress, violations of human dignity advance in a hidden or obvious way. The second, which is actually at the basis of the first, is that of not being able to recognize the foundation of its universality, because the "search for the most solid foundations that are behind our options and also our laws" has been renounced. [72]The Pope Francisco He invited us not to underestimate this last problem. He recalled that, when reason allows itself to be seriously questioned about human nature, it is capable of discovering values applicable to everyone, because they derive from it. If this search work were abandoned, it could happen that rights today considered untouchable, in the future would end up being questioned or denied by those in power, perhaps after having obtained an only apparent consensus on the part of terrified or manipulated populations. [73]
57. Along with greater awareness of the value of every human person and their rights, recognition of the rights of minorities has also grown. However, there is still a long way to go before the rights of a large part, for example those of women, are truly guaranteed throughout the world. It is a reality that "women who suffer situations of exclusion, abuse and violence are doubly poor, because they frequently find themselves with fewer possibilities to defend their rights." [74]Therefore, it is not enough to affirm in words that men and women have the same dignity and the same rights; This must be translated into concrete decisions, in laws, in access to work, to education, to social and political responsibilities, in the way in which society listens to and values the contribution of women. As long as this disparity exists, we cannot say that society truly and deeply recognizes that women have the same dignity as men.
58. It is the specific people who count, each one of them and their families. Social movements, great political proclamations in favor of the people and community ideologies are useless if they are not oriented toward the promotion of people—men and women—with their inalienable rights. In the same way, it is not enough to exalt individual freedom or private initiative, if it is then accepted that a multitude of people continue to live without a decent job, without guardianship and without access to fundamental goods.
The principles of social doctrine
The principle of the common good
59. Recognizing that every woman and every man possess an inalienable dignity and rights that no human power can harm or eliminate requires shaping the way we live together, our economic and political decisions, and the concrete face of our cities. From here comes the first great principle of social Doctrine to which I wish to refer: the common good. We can describe it as the social form of dignity that is recognized in each person. When Benedict XVI He alluded to the non-negotiable values that the Church must always defend, including among these "the promotion of the common good." [75]For a Christian, in fact, leaving the small world of his own interests and committing himself to the common good—within the limits of his own possibilities—is a non-negotiable value, as is the promotion of life.
60. The Vatican Council II has stated that the common good consists of "the set of conditions of social life that make possible for associations and each of their members the fullest and easiest achievement of their own perfection." [76] This definition offers us a valuable first orientation, because the common good cannot be reduced to a simple list of conditions or institutions. It does not coincide with the sum of merits of individuals, nor with the union of their particular interests; It is a greater good, which belongs to everyone, and that only together we can build, increase and safeguard. We can say that social action reaches its fullness when it tends towards this shared good, just as the moral action of the person finds fulfillment in the choice of the true good. [77]
61. In this sense, we can affirm that "the whole is more than the parts" [78] and that precisely for this reason "the mere sum of individual interests is not capable of generating a better world for all humanity." [79] It is an illusion to think that it is enough to seek one's own progress to contribute to the good of all, without having to really worry about others. This vision ignores the specific and specific value of the common good; This is the result of "interdependence" [80] that causes a network of social good that spreads and affects people. The common good is a plus, a result of the interaction and reciprocal influence that unites different actions, initiatives, efforts and decisions. If the individual assets were simply added, the existence of this could not be explained. plus that surpasses them and at the same time enriches them.
62. The search for the common good is what gives life to a people, understood not as a mere sum of individuals, but as a living reality where people learn to recognize themselves as linked to each other and co-responsible for the res publica. In this sense, each person contributes to building their own town with "slow and arduous work that requires wanting to integrate and learning to do so until developing a culture of encounter in pluriform harmony." [81] Working together for the good of all means having a shared project. It is evident that among various people there are many ideological and pragmatic differences, there is a variety of interests and frequent contrasts, but that does not mean that a dialogue process is impossible to configure a basis of consensus that allows for the creation of a project for everyone and walking together.
63. It is up to the State to guarantee the cohesion, unity and fair organization of civil society, so that the common good can truly be pursued with the contribution of everyone. This means, specifically, that public power has the delicate task of "harmonizing with justice" [82]the various interests at stake, seeking a balance between individual goods and collective goods, without leaving the weakest behind. When politics renounces a long-term vision and is reduced to short-term calculations or sterile polarizations, discourses about the common good lose credibility, and at the same time inequalities and social fractures grow.
64. This also applies to international politics. As the distances between peoples increase, logics of confrontation and aggressiveness make their way, and the difficult journey towards a more united and fraternal world suffers new and painful setbacks. In this framework, talking about a shared path towards a more just development for the entire human family "sounds like delirium." [83]But we can't lose hope. I invite everyone to think about more effective forms of cooperation and international institutions, capable of caring for the global common good without annulling the legitimate plurality of peoples and states. Indeed, the promotion of the common good can never be separated from respect for the right of peoples to exist, to safeguard their own identity and to contribute their own originality to the family of nations. [84]Any attempt or project to eliminate or subjugate a nation is seriously immoral and therefore unacceptable.
The principle of the universal destination of goods
65. "Among the multiple implications of the common good, the principle of the universal destiny of goods takes immediate prominence." [85] This principle reminds us above all that the goods of the earth - the soil, water, air and natural resources - have been given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all, today and in future generations, and that every person has an original right to the use of these goods. San Juan Pablo II He recalled that "God has given the earth to the entire human race so that it can sustain all its inhabitants, without excluding anyone or privileging anyone." [86] Consequently, "it is not in accordance with God's plan to use this gift in such a way that its benefits benefit only a few." [87]Today we are called to recognize that this universal destiny does not refer only to material goods, but also to immaterial and cultural goods.
66. There is a right to private property that has its own meaning and function, but is always subordinated to the universal destination of the goods. According to Saint John Paul II, said subordination is the golden rule of social behavior and the "first principle of the entire ethical-social order." [88] Church tradition has seen property as a means of safeguarding and managing property so that it can best serve the common good. Since "Christian tradition never recognized the right to private property as absolute or untouchable," [89] Its social function should not be considered as a mere theological opinion, but as a true doctrine of the Church, already present in the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers. Therefore, the Pope Francisco He recalled that solidarity, lived in depth, also means "giving back to the poor what is theirs." [90]
67. Today, among the goods that are universally intended for everyone, we must also include new forms of property: patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructures, data. In a context where the wealth of nations increasingly depends on knowledge and technologies, when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without adequate forms of exchange and access, a new imbalance is created that contradicts the universal destination of goods and feeds the gap between included and excluded, between those who can participate in the digital revolution and those who remain on the sidelines. Furthermore, the care of the common Home and the responsibility towards the poor and towards future generations require that the use of the goods of creation and the new possibilities offered by technology be regulated in such a way as to respect the environment and avoid waste and new forms of fraud.
The principle of subsidiarity
68. The principle of subsidiarity is born from the same vision of the person that has guided our reflection on dignity and the common good. If every woman and every man is called to be protagonists of their own lives and to participate in the construction of society, then the social organization must also respect and favor this responsibility. The Social Doctrine of the Church calls “subsidiarity” the principle according to which what individuals, families, local communities and intermediate bodies can do should not be absorbed by higher authorities. Higher level institutions must recognize, protect and promote the freedom and creativity of lower levels, coordinating their contributions so that they cooperate effectively for the common good. [91]
69. Since the beginning of the modern social Magisterium, from Leo XIII, the Church has insisted on the fact that neither the person nor the family should be absorbed by the State, but rather should act freely, to the extent possible, without causing harm to the common good. [92] San Juan Pablo II took up and deepened this perspective, remembering that the political community is at the service of civil society and that the State must ensure the common good, intervening when necessary, but without permanently replacing the responsibility of intermediate bodies and social entities. [93]Subsidiarity does not justify the State's disinterest, but rather guides its action; Public intervention is required precisely to allow all social subjects to develop their mission without being crushed. It is up to the political community to create the conditions so that people, families, associations and intermediate bodies can fulfill their own social vocation, without being replaced or reduced to mere executors. [94]
70. This principle encourages us to overcome all forms of paternalistic or welfare management of social life, promoting a style of co-responsibility: a State that values the initiative of citizens and a civil society capable of generating links and activating energies at the service of the common good. In a logic of subsidiarity, decisions are made at the closest possible level to the people involved, valuing associative life, so that the people are not faced with decisions already made, but can enter into their path of construction. Where families, associations, local communities, realities of volunteering and the so-called “third sector” are recognized and sustained, social life becomes closer to people, services are provided with greater attention to real needs and responses are more creative and respectful of the dignity of each person. [95]
71. The principle of subsidiarity is particularly valid in the context of the digital revolution. Here the highest level is not the State, but any large economic and technological actor that exercises de facto power over the conditions of common life. The level that absorbs skills, data and decision-making capacity is made up of companies and platforms, which define access conditions, visibility rules, forms of relationships and even economic opportunities. Subsidiarity requires that these processes are not imposed from above in an opaque and unilateral way, but rather are oriented towards the common good through transparency, responsibility and real forms of participation (independent audits, transparency in algorithms, equitable access to data, appeal tools). [96]
72. In this context, states and supranational institutions are called to guarantee fair rules and effective protection mechanisms so that local communities, intermediate bodies, schools and universities, as well as ecclesiastical and associative realities can have a voice and contribute to the discernment of decisions that affect people's lives: work, access to services, data management and digital environments. In decisions that refer to economic flows, digital platforms, data management and algorithms, it is not possible to let a few actors alone guide the processes, but rather it is necessary to build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make them co-responsible for the common good. [97]
The principle of solidarity
73. Having considered the common good and subsidiarity, I wish to dwell on the principle of solidarity. This principle is born from the vision of a person conceived by faith; Every human being is created in the image of God and incorporated into a network of relationships that link him to others, to people and to creation. Saint Paul VI He recalled that the obligations of solidarity, justice and charity are rooted in the human and supernatural fraternity that unites men and peoples among themselves. [98] Fraternity is not only an inner aspiration of those who believe, but a social and political form that must be embodied in shared decisions and itineraries. Solidarity, then, is the concrete recognition that the destiny of each one is linked to the destiny of all; truly “no one is saved alone.” [99] This clearly shows the close link between subsidiarity and solidarity. When subsidiarity is not accompanied by solidarity, it ends up becoming the simple protection of particular interests; When solidarity is not supported by subsidiarity, it degenerates into welfareism that does not promote responsibility. [100] This framework also refers to the responsibility of authentic participation; Solidarity is expressed when each person, personally and together with others, takes part in the life of the community - informs themselves, associates, makes their own voice heard, contributes to public decisions and options - assuming real responsibilities so that the common good is translated into shared decision-making.
74. In many areas we already experience a kind of “de facto solidarity”; Our lives are intertwined, global economies and communications mean that what happens in one place produces distant effects, and digital networks unite people and communities from all over the world in real time. However, this web of relationships is not yet solidarity in the full sense if it does not become a conscious decision. Faith invites us to read this reality as a call; We are not simply neighbors of each other, but we are entrusted to each other, so that each one takes charge, to the extent possible, of the life and wounds of the brother and sister. Solidarity is born precisely when we decide not to remain indifferent to what happens to our neighbors and we transform inevitable links—economic, cultural and technological—into itineraries of exchange, cooperation and mutual care, learning to "think and act in terms of community." [101]
75. The social Magisterium has insisted on the fact that solidarity is both a principle and a virtue. As a principle, it expresses the objective order of relationships between people, groups and peoples, and refers to the awareness of interdependence, so that the good of each person passes through the good of others. As a virtue, it instead requires a "firm and persevering determination." [102] to work for the common good, with particular attention to the weakest. He Pope Francisco He recalled that solidarity is "a way of making history" [103] that builds towns and not simple masses of individuals. Therefore, it implies sober and shared lifestyles, the ability to give up immediate benefits to open spaces for the future to others, and the willingness to question habits and privileges—including those linked to digital consumption and the use of technologies—when they prevent others from living with dignity.
76. In a world marked by increasingly closer relationships between people, communities and nations, solidarity also takes on a global dimension. Benedict XVI strongly pointed out the nexus between development, justice and responsibility towards future generations, remembering that authentic progress requires intergenerational solidarity [104] and attention to the ties that unite us with the natural environment. Today this responsibility also extends to digital and information infrastructures; Like the natural environment, the “digital ecosystem” can also be cared for or exploited, shared or monopolized. Solidarity requires that decisions regarding data, algorithms, platforms and AI take into account not only the immediate benefit of some, but the impact on all peoples and future generations.
The principle of social justice
77. For the Christian community, social justice is a concrete form of following Jesus and fidelity to his Gospel. In the New Testament, Jesus announces "Good News to the poor" ( MESSAGE OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS 4:18) and identifies with the little ones, the sick, the prisoners and the foreigners (cf. Mt 25,31-46). Thus it teaches us that justice is born and realized in fraternity, because the way in which we approach the least and relate to them becomes, concretely, the measure of our relationship with God and with our brothers. Justice, however, does not only refer to the behavior of individuals, but also to the way in which the structures of coexistence are conceived and organized. In this regard, the Vatican Council II remember that every institution is called to serve the human person and their dignity. [105] Social justice is recognized, then, by the capacity of a social, economic and political order that allows everyone—and particularly the most fragile—to live in a truly human way, without anyone being left behind.
78. The recent Magisterium has insisted on the fact that social justice requires a perspective whose starting point is the last. San Juan Pablo II spoke of a preferential option for the poor [106] that must mark personal and social decisions, while the Pope Francisco denounced a “throwaway culture” [107] which causes more and more new forms of exclusion. From this perspective, social justice requires looking at people and peoples, starting with those who are most vulnerable: the poor, migrants, refugees, internally displaced people, victims of violence, people who live in urban or existential peripheries.
79. The idea of “social justice” helps to recognize that injustices do not arise only from wrong decisions of individuals, but also from structures, mechanisms, economic and cultural systems that produce inequality almost automatically. San Juan Pablo II spoke in this sense of structures of sin [108] that oppose the will of God and require an effort at personal and social conversion. From this perspective, justice does not only concern the equitable distribution of goods or the correction of present injustices, but also assumes a reparative dimension. It seeks to mend broken ties and reintegrate those who have been excluded, taking into account the wounds caused by injustices: wars, colonialism, racial or gender discrimination, violence against entire peoples and exploitation. This can mean restoring dignity and voice to those who have been ignored, promoting processes of healing collective memory, combating discriminatory laws and practices, and specifically supporting those who still bear the consequences of wrongs suffered in the past.
80. At this time, social justice must also be confronted with the environment created by digital technologies. The spread of global networks, platforms and AI systems changes the way we get informed, communicate and access services. Justice demands that the emergence of new forms of exclusion and deprivation of liberty be prevented: people and peoples whose access to basic technologies is denied or hindered, communities exposed to invasive surveillance, and social groups harmed by opaque algorithms that reproduce prejudices and discrimination. A fair social order in the digital age is one that guarantees everyone equal access to opportunities, protects the smallest and most fragile, opposes hatred and misinformation, and subjects the use of data and technologies to public control, so that the criterion is not only profit but the dignity of each person and the good of the people.
81. A decisive examination for social justice today is represented by the condition of migrants, refugees and those forced to move due to poverty, violence, climate change and natural disasters. The way in which a society treats them shows whether its idea of justice is guided by fear or brotherhood. He Pope Francisco He invited us to recognize in migrants not simply a problem to be solved, but “a living image of the People of God on the way”; [109] people with dignity, resources and dreams, who have the right to be treated with respect and ask for the opportunity to be an active part of the societies that receive them. Social justice, in this field, implies at least two complementary commitments. On the one hand, protect the right to hope of those who are forced to leave, guaranteeing safe and legal routes, decent reception conditions and real integration processes. On the other hand, also promote the right to remain in one's own land in peace and security, addressing the root causes that force people to migrate, including causes linked to economic injustice and the climate crisis. When these rights are respected, migrations can be an occasion for encounter and mutual enrichment between peoples.
Comprehensive human development
82. In the Encyclical The development of the people, san Paul VI affirms that development is authentic only if it is “integral”, that is, aimed at “promoting all men and the whole man”. [110] In successive decades, the Social Doctrine of the Church has taken up and deepened this expression to indicate the concrete way in which the great principles—dignity, common good, universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice—are applied in history. By “comprehensive human development” we understand a process in which the growth of people and towns encompasses all dimensions of existence and also opens the future to future generations.
83. Development, both for people and for nations, is a task and at the same time a right; requires minimum conditions that make it possible for each person and each people to mature according to their own dignity, without being kept dependent or excluded from access to necessary goods. Development is human when it places people at the center and not the accumulation of goods, and when it also refers to people, not just individuals. Justice requires the recognition of social rights and the rights of peoples, and includes responsibility towards those who will come after us. That is why a development that increases the consumption of some at the expense of costs and injuries to others, or that relegates entire regions to subordinate roles, preventing them from expressing their own potential, is not humane. [111] Development is comprehensive when it is not reduced to the economic sphere, but rather promotes quality of life in its spiritual, cultural, moral and relational dimensions, in respect for the common Home, the diversity of peoples and their ways of living. [112]
84. The idea of integral human development today finds a decisive criterion of verification in integral ecology, which has become an essential dimension of the Social Doctrine of the Church. The quality of development, in fact, is measured by its ability to maintain together, without separating, justice towards people and the custody of the common Home, promoting dignified living conditions, access to necessary goods, fair social relations, care for creation and attention to future generations. From this it follows that true progress is not what increases the well-being of some by degrading ecosystems, offloading costs on the most vulnerable communities or compromising the living conditions of those who will come after us.
85. Understood in this way, integral human development is the horizon in which the transformations of our time must be read, including those of the digital revolution. Technological innovations—including artificial intelligence—are not neutral; They can increase participation and justice, or widen inequalities, control and exclusion. For this reason, they must be examined with a decisive question: do they really contribute to making people and peoples grow in humanity and fraternity, in respect for the common Home and future generations? It is here where the principles of social Doctrine become concrete criteria for discernment in the areas that we will face in the next chapters.
86. In conclusion, I wish to touch on a point that is of particular concern to me. Social Doctrine is not just a word addressed to society; It is also an examination of conscience for the Church, home and school of communion, always called to verify that the principles set forth in this chapter are lived, above all, within it. The common good, in the ecclesiastical sphere, takes on the face of a synodal style for the mission at the service of the Kingdom. The Church, in effect, is "the community and historical subject of synodality and mission." [113] This requires attention to the way decisions are made and responsibility exercised. He Final document of the Synod identifies, among the decisive practices for missionary transformation, the culture of transparency, accountability and evaluation. [114]
87. In this perspective, subsidiarity becomes a criterion of government and pastoral life, which recognizes and sustains the responsibility of the faithful and intermediate ecclesial bodies, valuing charismas and competencies, and avoiding all paternalism that stifles evangelical freedom. Specifically, the participation of the baptized in the decision-making processes and co-responsibility in the mission pass through real, not nominal, participation bodies. [115]
88. Solidarity, for the Christian community, has its source in the mystery of Christ and is nourished by the Eucharist. This is born from communion in faith and in the sacraments: Baptism and Confirmation unite us in Christ, so that we are one body and one spirit, one heart and one soul (cf. That the XXX World Day of the Sick —whose final celebration will not take place in Arequipa 4,4; Hch 4,32). The Eucharist, sacrament of unity, nourishes our belonging to the body of Christ and teaches us to share. The diverse sensitivities present in the Church, the strong convictions that animate each one, are a wealth if they remain anchored in the certainty of unity as a gift received and as a task to be assumed.
89. Living justice in the Church means cleaning up ecclesial relationships and structures from those distortions that generate inequalities, lack of clarity and abuses. In this regard, listening to victims of spiritual, economic, institutional, sexual, power and conscience abuses is an integral part of a path of justice, which includes recognition of damage, fair reparation and prevention. All power is at the service of communion and mission. All authority is at the service of the People of God. This diakonia is manifested not only in the faith celebrated and lived in the sacraments, and in the adoption of a synodal style, but also in the concrete sharing of goods. Following the example of the early Church, ecclesial resources are called to be truly common, so that there are no needy among us (cf. Hch 4:34) and so that its administration sustains the mission of announcing the Gospel to the poorest. Regular forms of evaluation of the exercise of ministerial responsibilities must be promoted, which are not a judgment on people, but rather instruments of training and correction oriented to the mission. [116] These principles of social Doctrine are incarnated in ecclesial life to the extent that we are open to the action of the Holy Spirit. In this way, the Church is capable of offering society a credible sign: because seeking together the good of all, in co-responsibility and fraternity, is not a utopia, but a real possibility. [117]
TECHNIQUE AND DOMAIN.
THE GREATNESS OF THE HUMAN PERSON
BEFORE THE PROMISES OF AI90. After having recalled the principles that illuminate Social Doctrine, I wish to turn our attention to some challenges that affect our way of living during this time. The biblical image that accompanies these pages is that of a construction: on the one hand, the tower of Babel, where the common work is guided by a project of domination that ends up dehumanizing (cf. Gn 11,1-9); On the other hand, the ruins of Jerusalem, which with Nehemiah are rebuilt piece by piece, as a task of shared responsibility (cf. Yes 2-6). We are called to question ourselves about the great project of our time: what are we building? While technological development rapidly changes languages, relationships, institutions and forms of power, we, believers, must and can choose which project to work on and with what style, to safeguard and value the magnificent humanity that has been given to us as a gift. This is not a decision about our future, but about our present, because AI and other emerging technologies are already part of our daily lives.
91. I am accompanied by the conviction that the concrete way of living social relations in the light of the Gospel is not established once and for all, but continues to be a task entrusted from generation to generation to the Christian community. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church allows itself to be illuminated by the Word, to read the signs of the times and creatively seek new paths so that relationships between people and peoples are increasingly in accordance with the demands of the Kingdom of God. [118]That is why I encourage everyone, particularly the lay faithful, not to be afraid to allow themselves to be challenged by reality, to listen to each other and to firmly assume their own responsibility in the construction of a more human and fraternal society.
The technocratic paradigm and digital power
92. In the Encyclical Laudato si ' the Pope Francisco denounced the growing consolidation of a technocratic paradigm [119] in the globalized world: the tendency to let the logic of efficiency, control and profit alone govern personal, social and economic decisions. This shows with greater evidence that technique is not a simple instrument and that, when it becomes a criterion, it ends up establishing what counts and what can be discarded, reducing creation to an object of exploitation and people to gears of a system that is increasingly more effective.
93. This paradigm has spread rapidly in recent years, also as a result of the spread of AI, cognitive sciences, nanotechnology, robotics and biotechnology. In themselves, such innovations can be a great help for integral human development and the care of the common Home. But, precisely because of their power, they can act as an accelerator of the technocratic paradigm and, therefore, they need a new spiritual, ethical and political framework. More powerful does not necessarily mean better. In this sense, Romano Guardini's words are still relevant: "Modern man is not prepared to use power wisely." [120]
94. The danger of humanity becoming a victim of its own conquests had already been lucidly perceived by Saint Paul VI, when he warned that "the most extraordinary scientific progress, the most surprising technical feats, the most prodigious economic growth, if they are not accompanied by authentic social and moral progress, ultimately turn against man." [121] That is why technical progress, valuable in itself, requires discernment about the anthropological vision that guides it and the goals it pursues. If technological development advances without adequate ethical and social maturation, it may happen that means increase without humanity growing to the same extent: one “has more”, but one does not “be more”, and the person runs the risk of being valued mainly based on the performance they offer. [122]
95. Here it is necessary to recognize a decisive aspect, which I have already mentioned before: in many cases, in the digital context, control of platforms, infrastructure, data and calculation capacity is not the prerogative of states, but of large economic and technological actors who, in fact, determine the conditions of access, the rules of visibility and the same possibilities of participation. When power of such magnitude is concentrated in a few hands, it tends to become opaque and elude public control, and the risk of distorted development that causes new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities grows.
96. Faced with this concentration of power in the digital world, the great principles of Social Doctrine become criteria to judge and discern the new scenario: the inalienable dignity of the person, the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. These principles require verifying whether the power of digital infrastructures and algorithms truly promotes participation and responsibility, protects the most vulnerable, ensures equitable access to opportunities and is ordered for the good of all. With these premises we can then consider more closely what artificial intelligence is, what possibilities it opens up and what risks it entails.
97. It is not my intention to offer here a treatise on artificial intelligence, nor to review a bibliography that is already very extensive; There are currently important contributions, also in the ecclesial field, to which it is possible to refer. [123] I limit myself to remembering some essential elements for a moral and social discernment that protects the primacy of the person, so that it is always human intelligence, with its conscience and freedom, that guides technical innovations and responsibly establishes its use and its limits.
98. It is appropriate to put two considerations first: the first is that any statement about AI runs the risk of becoming obsolete in a short time, given the impressive speed of development of these systems. Second, all of us, including those who design them, know very little about how they actually work. Modern artificial intelligences are more “cultivated” than “built”: developers do not directly design every detail, but rather create an architecture on which the AI “grows.” Consequently, fundamental scientific aspects—such as the internal representations and computational processes of these systems—remain unknown. Therefore, the urgency of a double commitment is evident: on the one hand, a deepening of scientific research; on the other, an exercise in moral and spiritual discernment.
99. It is not possible to give a single and complete definition of AI. What we can say is that we must avoid the mistake of equating this “intelligence” with human intelligence. These systems imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass it in computational speed and breadth, offering concrete benefits in numerous fields. And yet, this power remains exclusively linked to data processing: the so-called artificial intelligences do not live an experience, they do not have a body, they do not go through joy and pain, they do not mature in relationships or know from within what love, work, friendship and responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience: they do not judge good and evil, they do not grasp the ultimate meaning of situations or assume the weight of the consequences. They can imitate languages, behaviors, evaluations; They can simulate empathy or understanding, but they do not know what they produce, because they do not reside in the affective, relational and spiritual horizon in which the human being becomes wise. Even when these instruments are presented as capable of “learning,” they do so in a different way than the human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through decisions, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity; It is rather a statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply internal growth.
A valuable help that requires attention
100. In the light of what has been said, we can better understand why AI can be a valuable aid and, at the same time, demand a prudent and cautious approach. In recent years, its private use has grown significantly, and different areas reflect on the opportunities and risks linked to its rapid diffusion. In personal use, three aspects, in particular, must be taken into special consideration: the ease of achieving the result, the impression of objectivity and the simulation of human communication. The speed and simplicity with which it is possible to obtain instructions, complex elaborations, media content and forms of concrete assistance simplify our lives, but they can also get us used to delegating too much and looking for quick answers, weakening personal judgment and creativity. The impression of objectivity that the responses and proposals of these systems can provoke runs the risk of making us forget that they reflect the cultural parameters of those who have designed and trained them, with all their virtues and defects. The artificial imitation of positive human communication—words of advice, empathy, friendship, love—can be rewarding and even useful, but in unaware users it can be misleading and give the false impression of being in a relationship with an authentic personal subject. When the word is simulated, it does not build a relationship, but rather an appearance. The artificial imitation of the care or accompaniment relationship can be dangerous when it is introduced in a poor context of real relationships and affections; So the risk is not so much that a person believes that he is talking to another person, but that he loses the very desire to really seek the other.
101. Broadening our view of the use of AI in our societies, we see that it is already present in decision processes in all areas and at various levels: in communication, management and control. The advantages in terms of efficiency and the potential for improvement of some services are evident; However, rapid and uncritical adoption exposes us to various risks, such as underestimating the environmental impact. Current AI systems require large amounts of energy and water, significantly impact carbon dioxide emissions, and consume resources intensively. With the increase in complexity, especially in large linguistic models, the needs for computing power and storage capacity also grow, which are supported by a set of machines, cables, data centers and energy-consuming infrastructures. That is why it is essential to develop more sustainable technological solutions to reduce the impact on the environment and take care of our common Home. [124]
AI Accountability, Transparency and Governance
102. The use of AI is never a purely technical fact: when it enters processes that affect people's lives, it affects their rights, opportunities, reputation and freedom. Delicate decisions that impact work, access to credit and other services, and people's reputations run the risk of being entrusted entirely to automated systems that do not know "compassion, mercy, forgiveness and, above all, openness to hope for change in the individual," [125] thus being able to produce new forms of waste. There may be obviously anti-human uses, such as the manipulation of information or the violation of privacy, but there may also be less obvious deception, when AI systems, presenting themselves as neutral and objective, reflect and reinforce stereotypes or ideological positions of those who have designed and programmed them.
103. Entrusting, in practice, to an algorithm the power to select who is worthy and who is not, without anyone assuming the weight of the decision, means entrusting it with the task of redefining the limits of human possibilities. What diminishes, in this process, is not only empathy towards the excluded, which can be artificially imitated, but political responsibility, because the discarding of the weak is clothed with a neutrality and objectivity against which it is impossible to protest. And, in this way, injustice is carried out silently and compassion, mercy and forgiveness, not as simple appearance, but as political gestures, disappear from the horizon.
104. A simple but compelling consequence follows from this: we cannot consider AI as morally neutral. In reality, every technical artifact carries with it decisions and priorities: what it measures, what it ignores, what it optimizes, and the way it classifies people and situations. If a system is conceived or employed by treating some lives as less worthy, or excluding them without the possibility of appeal, it is not a simple instrument that “must be used correctly”; It already introduces a criterion that contradicts the inalienable dignity of the person. Therefore, ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we use a certain system for a good or bad purpose, but must also question the way in which it is designed and what idea of a person and society is inscribed in the data and in the models that guide it. [126]
105. For AI to respect human dignity and truly serve the common good, it is essential that responsibilities are clear at all stages: from those who design and program the systems to those who use them and those who decide to entrust them with specific decisions. In many cases, however, the internal processes that lead to a result may be opaque, making it more difficult to attribute responsibility and correct errors. This is where what we call “responsibility” becomes decisive ( accountability): the possibility of identifying who must be “accountable” for decisions, motivating them, controlling them and, when necessary, questioning them and remedying the damage that arises from them. [127]
106. Calling for prudence, rigorous controls and sometimes also a slowdown in the adoption of AI does not mean being against progress, but rather exercising responsible care towards the human family. This demand is all the more urgent because there is often an imbalance between the speed of technological development and the pace at which awareness, norms, controls and institutions capable of governing its effects mature. It is not enough to generically invoke ethics; Adequate legal frameworks are needed, independent surveillance, user education, a policy that does not renounce its task. Otherwise, change will be governed only by technocratic logic and presented as necessary and essential, ending up imposing rules dictated by those who possess data, infrastructure and calculation capacity.
107. We cannot limit ourselves to invoking the moralization of the machine, the so-called “alignment” of AI with human values, without having the courage to put a subsequent condition: the possibility of discussing the ethical code that should be used, subjecting it to criteria of shared social justice. Otherwise, whoever controls the AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of the systems. A more moral AI would be of no use if this morality is decided by a few. A more present policy is needed, capable of slowing down where everything accelerates and protecting the spaces in which communities can continue to participate and question themselves.
108. Indeed, as happens with any great technological advance, AI tends to increase, above all, the power of those who already have economic resources, skills and access to data. In light of the common good and the universal destination of goods, this phenomenon raises serious concern: small, very influential groups can guide information and consumption, condition democratic processes and influence economic dynamics for their own benefit, contradicting social justice and solidarity between peoples. That is why it is essential that the use of AI—especially when it involves public goods and fundamental rights—is accompanied by clear criteria and effective controls, inspired by participation and subsidiarity; Communities and intermediate bodies cannot be reduced to recipients of decisions made in other places, but must be able to contribute to discernment and vigilance. Furthermore, data ownership cannot be entrusted solely to the private sector, but must be regulated. These are the fruit of the contributions of many and cannot be sold or entrusted to a few. We need creativity capable of managing them as one of the common or collective goods, in the logic of sharing, as I already suggested. Saint John Paul II regarding collective goods. [128]
109. The principles of social Doctrine help us read this new reality. In a world where few subjects concentrate data, computing capital and regulatory capacity, talking about the common good means unmasking this new epistemic, economic and political asymmetry, naming the new AI monopolies. Talking about the universal destination of goods means finding ways to ensure universal access to technologies and training. Talking about subsidiarity requires protecting the ability of communities to decide and correct, without relegating their intervention to later surveillance, once the standards have been established elsewhere. Talking about solidarity forces us to recognize the invisible, often exploited, work that feeds algorithmic models. Talking about justice calls for questioning the geographies of power that define who can program the models and who is only the object of that programming, and recognizing that social justice is not only an objective that must be protected after the adoption of technologies, but a condition that must be put into practice from their design.
110. I would like, finally, to use a word that is very important to me: “disarm.” Disarming AI means removing it from the logic of arms competition, which today is no longer only military but also economic and cognitive. It is the race for the most efficient algorithm and the most extensive data bank, to consolidate a geopolitical or commercial advantage over all the others. Disarming means breaking this equivalence between technological power and the right to govern. Disarming does not mean giving up technology, but preventing it from dominating the human. It means removing it from monopolies, making it debatable, refutable, and therefore habitable, reestablishing in it the plurality of human cultures and ways of life. The task, today, is not only ethical or technical; It is ecological in the most radical sense, because it challenges a new dimension of our common Home. AI is already an environment in which we are immersed and a power that we must confront. Therefore, it is not enough to regulate it; It is necessary to dismantle it and make it cozy.
111. I make a strong appeal to those who develop AI systems. Technological innovation can be, in some ways, a human form of participation in the divine act of creation. Developers therefore carry an important ethical and spiritual weight, since each project choice expresses a vision of humanity. Just as the author of an artistic or literary work is obliged to consider the values it manifests, so they are also called to treat with due seriousness the values they instill in their projects: with transparency, with responsibility towards the communities involved and with attention to verifying that what is cultivated is really a good.
112. Having recalled the questions of responsibility and governance of AI, it is necessary to return to our central topic: what it means to steward the human. The risk is not only that some technologies are misused, but that the technocratic paradigm in which we are immersed, enhanced by the digital revolution and AI, makes an anti-human vision seem fair and normal, according to which the fullness of life would consist of having more, reducing fragility, eliminating the unforeseen and controlling everything. When efficiency becomes a measure of value, the human being is tempted to consider himself as a project that must be optimized rather than as a creature called to relationship and communion.
113. In reality, absolutizing a single dimension of the human being is always wrong. In fact, it is not only lack that generates disorder. Also that which grows without measure can become a form of poverty. In an ecosystem, harmony is broken when a single species proliferates to the detriment of the others; In humans, the same thing happens when a faculty claims to be the measure of everything. Thus, intelligence, if it is absolutized, ends up veiling other essential dimensions of life: affection, will, dedication and relationship. Technical power, if not balanced, does not make us more capable; It isolates us, and exposes us even more to logics of dominance and exclusion. It is certainly not about opposing intelligence, but about remembering that, when it withdraws into itself, it forgets that it has been made to serve life and the human person.
114. The quality of a civilization is measured not by the power of its means, but by the care it knows how to offer, by the ability to recognize a face in another and not a function. The ability to know how to take care of each other is an important dimension of our human being. This ability is learned and perfected with experience. Reading stories to a child, accompanying an elderly person or making a space welcoming are gestures that are experienced in a family environment, but that help us learn and internalize the importance of care at a social level and train us to recognize the other as a person worthy of attention. Technology can also support mutual care between people, for example if it offers instruments that help to foresee and organize, without stripping the human being of his freedom and judgment, as a subject of relationships and responsible for decisions.
Background narratives: transhumanism and posthumanism
115. Trying to bring to light the cultural assumptions that accompany the ongoing digital revolution, I would now like to draw attention to some currents that interpret progress as an improvement of the human being and that we can classify under the names of transhumanism and posthumanism. These currents constitute the ideological background that resides in some centers of technological power and colonize the collective imagination in a simplified way, especially in the media and social networks, inducing enthusiasm for new technologies with a futuristic vision of “empowered humanity” or “hybridized man” with the machine.
116. Transhumanism and posthumanism comprise within them a plurality of currents and sensibilities, and it is difficult to make a univocal description of them. They can be compared to an archipelago of different conceptual islands, but united by the same sea of assumptions: the centrality of technique and the dream of overcoming the limits of the human condition. In general, transhumanism imagines an empowerment of the human being through technologies—biomedicine, body engineering, devices, algorithms—with the aspiration of increasing performance and capabilities. Posthumanism, especially in its most radical versions, goes further: it criticizes anthropocentrism and proposes a form of hybridization between the human being, the machine and the environment, to the point of imagining that it will cross the threshold in which humanity will surpass itself, entering a new evolutionary stage. Even though these hypotheses remain largely speculative, they are gaining relevance, because they modify the collective imagination and, consequently, guide social, economic and political decisions. [129]
117. The critical point, in light of the Social Doctrine of the Church, is not the use of the technique as such, but the vision that underlies it; If the human being is treated as matter to be perfected or surpassed, then it becomes easier to accept that some are considered less useful, less desirable, less worthy. In the name of progress, one can think of “necessary sacrifices” and make the most vulnerable pay the price of a supposed optimization of the species. The aforementioned warning of Saint Paul VI It remains a great intuition: truly the achievements of science and technology, disconnected from moral and social progress, end up turning against man. [130] For this reason, it is necessary to distinguish clearly: one thing is to integrate technologies into a human and relational vision; Another is to let oneself be guided by an imaginary that despises the limit and promises a purely technical “salvation.”
The limit, the heart, the greatness of the human being
118. Today our relationship with life seems to be in crisis. Everything that represents a “limit”—disability, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability—tends to be read mainly as a defect that must be corrected, rather than as a space in which the human being matures and opens up to relationships. Instead, we must remember that human beings do not flourish despite of the limit, but often through of the limit. A vision of reality in the light of faith helps to recognize what we call “contingency” of the things of this world. If on the one hand it is necessary to try to eliminate the suffering that marks human life, on the other, it is wise to recognize our constitutive finitude, knowing that "religious experience, particularly Christian faith, proposes to inhabit without simplifications this ambivalence between the greatness and the limit of the human, interpreting it in the light of the original and founding relationship with God." [131]
119. It is precisely in our limited being that compassion, sincere concern for the needs of others, generosity that surprises even in the midst of darkness and failure, spiritual experience and worship of God find place. We see it in so many moments when the limit becomes tangible in our lives: when we receive rejection, when we suffer due to the illness or death of a loved person, when we experience inability or error. Mysteriously, it is in these cases that we can find new wisdom, feel the affection of people and experience the presence of the Lord.
120. Even when the limit manifests itself as inner pain, human wisdom teaches not to deny or eliminate it, but to integrate it. To completely eliminate pain, it would be necessary, ultimately, to also extinguish love and desire. Those who love and desire, in fact, cannot avoid going through trial and suffering, and for this reason, over the years we preserve in us teachings that remain marked as scars, memory of the path taken between freedom and falls, dreams and disappointments. Only thanks to the network of these elements, those inner wonders are realized in the heart that make us savor the sweetest taste of our human being. [132] Giving up this adventure, at the same time dramatic and splendid, in the name of a presumed overcoming of all limits could be anything, but it would not mean being human.
121. The moral corruption of our creaturely limit—the evil that evidently stirs the heart of man—ruins society and life, even reaching extremes of inhumanity. And yet, this painful form of limit also leaves loopholes for good. Even when human beings are dehumanized and cause tragedies, a small light continues to shine in humanity and continues to be capable of being revived, with the grace of God, following paths of conversion and reconciliation. Viktor Frankl precisely said that in moments of horror "we have come to know man in its purest form: man is that being capable of inventing the gas chambers of Auschwitz, but he is also the being who has entered those same chambers with his head up and the Lord's Prayer or the Shema Israel on his lips." [133]
122. Finitude, when embraced in the truth, does not impoverish the human being, but rather opens him to the recognition of the face of God and of the other. Furthermore, precisely because he experiences the limit—vulnerability, pain, failure—he can recognize his own and others' dignity as inviolable. And in the same experience of the limit, he continues to be able to sense a brotherhood greater than himself and to recognize injustice as a scandal. Culture and art, when authentic, guard this spark, preventing the normalization of evil. In this way, some works have assumed an almost prophetic value: the Ninth Symphony of Beethoven as a desire for unity; Guernica as a denunciation of dehumanization; The Schindler's list as an invitation not to surrender the past to oblivion.
123. History is not only presented as the catalog of our violent actions, but also as proof that human beings know how to found institutions capable of protecting common life. In the last two centuries we see it in some emblematic events: the birth of the International Committee of the Red Cross (1863), whose operational neutrality guarantees compassionate care for all; the long process that has led to the abolition of slavery, which has not been a simple legal change, but a transformation of consciousness; the founding of the United Nations Organization (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), who have established a common language to say, at least as a shared ideal, that dignity is universal; the Refugee Convention (1951), which recognizes a duty of protection towards those fleeing persecution and threats. In these examples, the desire for good is concretely translated into public forms—norms, institutions, practices—capable of limiting force and defending the vulnerable. But none of this has emerged without being confronted by resistance, petty interests and cultural inertia. Moral conquests almost always have the face of a long and tiring road, also marked by setbacks; Let's think about the interrupted peace processes or the slow implementation of environmental commitments. Even so, precisely the fragility of these results demonstrates how precious the responsibility of those who initiate and sustain them is.
124. Some events help us see that history can change when at least one single man or one woman really takes the dignity of all seriously: the civil rights movement in the United States of America, linked to the testimony of Martin Luther King Jr., or the end of the apartheid in South Africa after the release of Nelson Mandela and his decision not to put the future in the hands of hate. In various contexts, brave and generous women have also distinguished themselves, such as Saint Laura Montoya, Saint Teresa of Calcutta, Dorothy Day, Maria Skłodowska-Curie, Maria Montessori, Elisabeth Elliot, Wangari Maathai, Benazir Bhutto and many others from all continents, who with their efforts have contributed to making history more human.
125. Along with these public signs, there is a more discreet but decisive plot: religious communities that choose poor and dangerous places; the martyrs of fraternity and justice such as Saint Maximilian María Kolbe, Saint Óscar Romero and Blessed Enrique Angelelli, along with witnesses who have incarnated, in harsh and often inhuman conditions, the hope of the Gospel and the dignity of man, such as the Venerable François-Xavier Nguyễn Văn Thuận. And, above all, the “martyrs of everyday life” who heal, educate, accompany and console discreetly, such as parents, nurses, doctors, volunteers and people who are with the elderly or the excluded. His testimony shows that good does not progress automatically, but requires perseverance, memory and a conversion that makes one capable of starting over even after defeats.
126. Precisely this convergence of just institutions, credible testimonies and daily fidelities keeps hope alive and indicates a direction: to make technology grow without the heart retreating. That is why humanity—magnificent and wounded—must not be replaced or surpassed; It can embrace the progress of technology to alleviate suffering and open up new possibilities, as long as it does not deny what makes it itself, that is, the capacity for relationship and love. At this point a decisive question arises: if an authentic “more than human” exists, where is it found? The Christian faith responds by indicating a plenitude that does not derive from a technological divinization, but from that produced by the grace of God, received in Christ.
The True “More Than Human”: Grace and Christian Humanism
127. The expression “more than human” does not belong only to the language of technical promises. For centuries, the Christian tradition has affirmed that the human being is not confined within the limits of his own nature, but is called to transcend himself; not to escape from reality or despise the limit, but to fulfill oneself in love. Faith knows a “beyond” that is born from the gift of God. This transformation is the work of the Holy Spirit. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, this process of elevation and transformation “exceeds the capacity of human nature.” [134], because there is an infinite distance [135] between our nature and the life of God. However, it is possible to be introduced into the bosom of that inextinguishable life, even as we walk between the limits of this world. And the one who makes this path possible can only be the Infinite that is given: it is God himself who overcomes the “infinite” disproportion. [136] This is how the re-creation of the human is carried out: "He who lives in Christ is a new creature: the old has disappeared, a new being has become present" ( 2 Co 5,17).
128. When we accept this possibility of transcending ourselves with the grace of God, we do not deny ourselves, we do not become less human. On the contrary, as explained by Pope Francisco, “we become fully human when we are more than human, when we allow God to take us beyond ourselves to reach our truest selves.” [137] Here is the radical difference with respect to Promethean dreams: what saves the human is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms. Faced with this, a technology that classifies and optimizes what already exists can be, unintentionally, an obstacle to change and growth. For an algorithm, error is something that must be corrected; For a person, it can be the beginning of a profound change. A person's future is not calculable, but is entrusted to his freedom - elevated by inexhaustible divine grace - and to the relationships he cultivates.
129. Christian humanism does not reject science or technology, but rather assumes them with gratitude and realism, and places them “with its feet on the ground” within a higher vocation. The creative intelligence of the human being is a gift that can alleviate suffering and open new possibilities, but it must remain ordered to the common good, to justice, to the care of the fragile and of creation. In this sense, the true alternative is not between enthusiasm and fear, but between two ways of building: progress that serves the person and the people, or progress that bends them to the logic of power. In the end, the decisive question remains the one indicated by Saint John Paul II: Does AI “make man's life on earth, in all its aspects, “more human”?; Does it make her more “worthy of man”? [138] If the answer is “yes”, then we can recognize in it a good possibility to use responsibly, in a path of shared and patient reconstruction, according to the model of the rebirth of Jerusalem narrated in the book of Nehemiah. If, on the other hand, power grows while the heart withers and bonds are broken, then we are facing a new version of Babel: a grandiose, but inhuman construction.
130. Questioning ourselves about this alternative of progress and our way of interpreting and living it always means, in the end, also examining our hearts. In fact, the way we think and structure relationships, work and institutions manifests our fundamental values and, ultimately, is born from what we have in our hearts. It is a love that guides us: what we really love, as individuals and as a society, guides our lives and our actions. Saint Augustine describes human history as a place of struggle between two loves, which have built two ways of inhabiting the world and living together, two “cities”: on the one hand, the love of God and neighbor; on the other, only self-love. «Two loves have given rise to two cities: the love of self to the contempt of God, the earthly one; and the love of God to the point of contempt for himself, the heavenly. [139] As in all of human history, today too these two loves fight in our hearts for predominance. The time of AI does not escape this rule: the construction of Babel or Jerusalem begins in each of us.
CUSTODY THE HUMAN IN TRANSFORMATION.
TRUTH, WORK, FREEDOM131. After having outlined the panorama in which the challenge of technological transformation is inscribed, particularly that linked to AI and transhumanist and posthumanist currents, we cannot limit ourselves to simple general analyses. When languages and tools change, everyday gestures and social relationships also change. Therefore, it is necessary to stop at some areas in which these transformations have very specific, sometimes dramatic, repercussions. In light of the principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the digital transformation asks us to rediscover the truth as a common good, protect the dignity of work and safeguard freedom from all dependence and commercialization.
132. The use of digital platforms and AI systems accelerates profound changes in public and political communication. Tools that could encourage debate and participation are often used to construct biased narratives and blur the lines between what is true and what is false, mixing data and opinions. Disinformation does not arise with AI, but it finds a powerful multiplier in it today. The possibility of manipulating content, images and videos exposes citizens to biased or misleading perspectives. The problem affects the cultural and moral dimension, since the quality of public communication depends directly on social trust and has an impact on it. True information, in fact, does not arise from centralized or automated control. In public discourse, the truth of facts has a rational dimension, since it requires verification, comparison of sources and argumentative responsibility; but it is even more relational: it is built through bonds of trust and shared practices, in an honest dialogue with others and with the world. Only the shared search for the truth of the facts, assumed as a common good, can lay the foundations for fair communication.
133. Those who have powerful technical and economic resources—and, with them, also many human resources to intervene—have a great capacity to provoke cultural changes and, ultimately, to convince a significant number of people about what is the truth about the human being, about the world, about the meaning of existence, about the family, and even about God. It is pure power devoid of truth, which subtly or openly imposes what it wants others to consider as true. Behind all this there is a sick root that is difficult to recognize: the fact that "modern man has the erroneous conviction of being the sole author of himself, of his life and of society. It is a presumption resulting from selfish closure in oneself. [140] Therefore, he believes that he can construct reality and that what best suits his needs is valid. San Juan Pablo II reflected on the consequences of the “crisis around the truth”, going so far as to affirm that, "The idea of a universal truth about the good, which human reason can know, has been abandoned, and the very conception of conscience has also inevitably changed." [141]In this way, the recognition of universally valid truths that precede us and that conscience must accept is diminished. This led to Pope Francisco to ask oneself realistically: "What is the law without the conviction reached after a long journey of reflection and wisdom, that each human being is sacred and inviolable?", and to conclude: "For a society to have a future it is necessary that it has assumed a sense of respect for the truth of human dignity, to which we submit. Then killing someone will not be avoided just to avoid social ridicule and the weight of the law, but out of conviction. It is an inalienable truth that we recognize with reason and accept with conscience. A society is noble and respectable also because of its cultivation of the search for truth and its attachment to the most fundamental truths. [142]
134. The search for truth is an essential element for democracy, which is in itself an instrument of participation in the common good. When the question about what is true loses interest and a pragmatism that conforms to what seems useful or effective prevails, democratic life weakens. This, in fact, is not based solely on rules and procedures, but, above all, on a loyal relationship with the facts and a real orientation towards the good of people and society as a whole. Disinterest in the truth leads slowly but inexorably toward totalitarianism, for which, as the philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote, the ideal subjects are not so much those who are ideologically convinced, but rather "the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between the true and the false (i.e., the norms of thought) no longer exist." [143]
Communication and collective imagination
135. In this context, it is important to remember that communication "is not only the transmission of information, but the creation of a culture." [144] The content that circulates in digital environments influences the way people perceive the world and introduces images and stories into the collective consciousness that guide desires and influence everyday decisions. "It is not a parallel or purely virtual world," [145] because what appears on the internet becomes part of people's lives, especially the youngest.
136. Therefore, those who control digital platforms and the media have a remarkable capacity to influence the collective imagination and present a certain vision of reality as desirable. It is a power that must be continually illuminated by the search for truth and respect for human dignity, so that the culture that is generated on the Internet does not become an instrument of excessive distraction, homogenization and domination, but rather a space in which inner freedom and critical thinking can mature.
For an ecology of communication
137. The first task that corresponds to us is not to demonize or idolize the media, but to manage them from a fixed point: the truth is a common good and not a property of those who have power or visibility. Therefore, it is necessary to promote an ecology of communication: in the area of public standards, this means establishing rules that make the criteria by which content is selected and amplified more transparent and that protect personal data; In the social and cultural sphere, however, it implies the strengthening of intermediate organizations, serious journalism and spaces for debate in which argumentation and verification prevail over immediate reaction; in the field of school and family, the growing need for a new educational awareness and training in the correct and critical use of digital tools, AI and purchasing and investment platforms; In the university environment, the great challenge of the integration of knowledge, training both in the ability to connect and merge knowledge to interpret complexity, and in fact verification techniques.
138. Christian communities must also commit to transparent communication and the honest pursuit of facts. Unfortunately, it has not always been this way. We have witnessed, with shame, the arduous discovery of painful truths even about members of the Church and about ecclesial realities. In particular, some journalists committed to the truth have played a fundamental role in exposing injustices and abuses. To them I would like to reiterate the words of the Pope Francisco when addressing the Vaticanists: "I also thank you for what you make known about what does not work in the Church, for what you help us not to sweep under the rug and for the voice you have given to the victims of abuse." [146] However, vigilance and transparency are, above all, a grave responsibility of the Church itself and we must not wait for others to force us to confront uncomfortable truths about ourselves.
An educational alliance for the digital age
139. In an era in which truth is often subordinated to interests and communication strategies, the world of education acquires decisive importance. However, rapid technological transformations reveal how unprepared we are in the educational field. The omnipresence of digital media generates a culture of immediacy and overstimulation, which feeds fatigue, boredom and apathy in the face of the effort involved in seeking the truth.
140. Educational processes, on the other hand, require time to mature, a confrontation with reality beyond appearances and a patient path. The question is fundamental, because all technology educates those who use it. Educating in the use of AI implies, therefore, educating to decide when and for what no use it. The speed and ease with which an answer or synthesis is obtained runs the risk of extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which only bears fruit over time. As Plato writes, the deepest and most important things are only learned after a long time and a lot of effort, engaging in discussion with others to “rub” concepts and experiences as if they were flint, until the spark of understanding jumps in us. [147] We must learn to do without AI and protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle seduction that makes human thought seem useless precisely when it is most needed.
141. In recent years, psychological and psychiatric literature has increasingly documented how early and unsupervised exposure to digital devices and social networks can negatively affect sleep, attention, emotional regulation and relationships, especially at the most vulnerable ages, with sometimes dramatic consequences. Added to this is the ease of access to violent or cruel scenes that hurt sensitivity, to pornographic and hypersexualized content, to messages that trivialize the body and emotions, and to proposals that normalize risky behavior. Phenomena of recruitment, blackmail and sexual exploitation of minors are not uncommon on the Internet, which become more insidious due to the use of false profiles, algorithms that amplify dangerous contacts and AI tools capable of manipulating images and videos. Having a personal mobile phone too soon and using it without adult control can accentuate fragility and encourage addictions in young people, exposing them to dynamics of isolation, harassment and cyberbullying, as well as pressure to share intimate images or sensitive data.
142. It is difficult for parents to resist alone the conditioning of business models that monetize attention and time. That is why an alliance between politics, educational institutions and families is essential, capable of concretely supporting adults in their task. It is necessary to oppose, with far-reaching public decisions, the immediate interests of the platforms—concentrated in a few hands—when these conflict with the good of minors. In this perspective, legislative interventions are timely that establish age limits, hold service providers responsible - without offloading, on families, the burden of the limitation - and provide specific protections against all forms of exploitation and sexual violence in internet, so that childhood and adolescence are truly safeguarded as precious assets entrusted to our care. [148] At the same time, it is necessary to educate children, adolescents and young people so that they learn to recognize manipulations, defend their own dignity and respect that of others, also in digital environments. [149]
143. School is the place where new generations can learn to seek and love the truth, to question the meaning of life and the dignity of each person. For this reason, many parents, who want their children to grow up being able to relate, think critically and have solid values, place great hopes in it, as a valuable ally in their children's education. Indeed, parents have the primary and inalienable right to choose the type of education and training that is provided to their children, in coherence with their own moral, cultural and religious convictions. The educational world today finds itself facing some urgent challenges.
144. The first challenge is sociopolitical in nature. Both within each country and between different regions of the world, strong inequalities persist in access to basic education and higher education. In many countries, the State has still not invested the necessary resources to guarantee quality education for all, either by adequately supporting the public school system or supporting the private institutions that offer this fundamental service. When a significant part of education, at various levels, is entrusted to private institutions, it may happen that, in the absence of adequate public support, access to school depends too much on the economic possibilities of families. Faced with this risk, however, the contribution of many Catholic educational works must be recognized and supported, which, although they are private institutions, guarantee an inclusive reception for children and young people of all origins, even when the economic conditions of the families would not allow it.
145. The second great challenge is pedagogical in nature. Many educational systems have difficulty keeping up with the pace of change and supporting comprehensive student growth. The development of information technologies and AI means that curricula conceived for another era quickly become obsolete, while the organization of the school, the spaces, the evaluation methods and the figure of the teacher himself must be rethought with a view to a truly comprehensive education, open to all dimensions of the person. It is necessary to promote the continuous training of teachers throughout their professional lives, so that they know how to dialogue positively with new technologies, helping students to make responsible, critical and creative use of them, and not passively suffer their influence.
146. The third great challenge is of an intellectual and sapiential nature. If we are not attentive, an educational system lacking love for the truth can emerge, in which the incessant flow of information replaces the exercise of research, reflection and discernment. Fragmentary knowledge multiplies, but it becomes more difficult to grasp reality as a whole, ask questions about the meaning of things and develop authentic critical and creative thinking. Many educators already perceive the signs of a possible dehumanization, in which people “know many things” but have difficulties in giving meaning to their lives – also due to the inability to connect information and knowledge – and in not losing sight of the horizon of meaning. It is necessary to promote a true hygiene of attention: rhythms that include silence, reflective study, reading, considered analysis; Without these elements, inner freedom can be compromised.
147. The Social Doctrine of the Church invites families, schools, Christian communities and public institutions to a renewed educational alliance. This becomes a reality when the fundamental principles are translated into educational objectives: to educate in sobriety and in the sense of limits; educate in the recognition of the right of others and of those who will come after us to enjoy the goods that have been given to us, or that human ingenuity places at our disposal; educate in freedom and responsibility; educate in the sense of transcendence and the common good. The school is not called to chase the speed of the digital world, but to offer what digital alone cannot provide: shared time to learn and reliable relationships.
The dignity of work in the digital transition
148. Since the birth of the social Doctrine, with the New things, the Church has drawn attention to the protection of workers and the need to combat all forms of exploitation. But, above all, the Magisterium has recognized in the work "the essential key" [150] to understand the social issue in its entirety, since through it the person develops many dimensions of their own existence. From this perspective we also understand the great intuition of Saint Benedict of Nursia, who united prayer and work, pointing out daily activity as part of the person's response to God's call. Created in the image of the Creator, through our works we somehow prolong his: we contribute to the progress of society and the construction of the common good, we put into practice the capacities received, we improve and beautify the world, we support our families, we establish cooperative relationships and we learn to build together, through listening and dialogue, something that no one could do alone.
149. For these reasons, work is not a simple instrument, but rather expresses and increases the dignity of our life. It is a need inherent to the human condition, a habitual path towards maturity, development and personal fulfillment. From this perspective, economic aid to the poor is sometimes still necessary in emergency situations, but it cannot become the only response, since the objective is to offer each person the conditions to live with dignity through their own work. [151]
150. Today, the combination of automation, robotics and AI is rapidly transforming the very structure of work. It is said that this will bring great improvements for everyone. In reality, “new ways” of working are not necessarily better, because “while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over ordinary tasks, workers are often forced to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines designed to help those who work. Thus, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, current approaches to the technology can paradoxically despecialize workers, subject them to automated surveillance, and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks. The need to keep pace with technology can erode workers' sense of agency and stifle the innovative capabilities they are called to bring to their work. [152] Precisely to avoid this drift, it is necessary to design systems focused on the person and not just on performance.
151. San Juan Pablo II recalled that unemployment is a serious evil and that, especially when it acquires massive proportions, it can become a true social calamity, which especially highlights the responsibility of the State. [153] Today, in the “fourth industrial revolution”, this concern is exacerbated, since innovation is usually embraced only in order to reduce costs and increase profits. [154]In some contexts, it is realistic to fear a significant and rapid reduction in available jobs, with a knock-on effect that deeply affects families, young people and local economies. In many sectors, this already translates into new forms of precariousness and inequality, with very high salaries for a highly specialized minority and increasingly lower salaries for a large part of the active population.
152. It is undoubtedly desirable for technology to free man from particularly heavy, repetitive or dangerous work and to offer intelligent support to human activity, but the general rule must remain the protection of jobs and the irreplaceable role of the person. The objective of obtaining greater profits cannot justify decisions that systematically sacrifice employment, because the human person is an end and not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinated to their dignity and the common good.
153. Simultaneously, we must recognize that any real transition occurs through discontinuity: it is uneven, fragmentary and, at times, conflictive. Therefore, there is no single model of change, nor a global solution; There are territories and stories that demand different responses. Given the inequality that characterizes our world, the spread of AI and computing systems produces different effects in each place. Wealthy societies automate rapidly and chaotically, reducing the need for labor and generating zones of unemployment and institutional friction. Instead, vast regions of the world remain trapped in hybrid economies, where low-paid human labor and partial technologies coexist without truly transforming. These territories become reserves of precarious labor and sources of instability and forced migration. Solutions, therefore, must be found at the national and local level, involving intermediate communities. Tools capable of adapting are needed: articulated models, local experiments, progressive redistributions, new rights of access to essential goods. Without pursuing abstract harmony, it is about building concrete forms of human coexistence in transformation.
154. Work remains a fundamental dimension of the human experience; It is not only a means of subsistence, but also a space for expression, relationships and contribution to the community. Therefore, the problems linked to work are not limited only to the income necessary for the survival of families. A society that guaranteed work to only a small part of the population would expose many to a situation of forced inactivity, lack of responsibilities, lack of commitment and daily stimuli, with consequences of human and cultural impoverishment in contrast to the high level of technical development. We would find ourselves facing a paradox of material progress and anthropological regression, in which the conditions for a just and stable social peace would disappear. For this reason, the Social Doctrine of the Church insists that access to work for all must continue to be a priority objective of public policies and economic processes, a criterion of judgment to evaluate the human quality of a development model. [155]On the other hand, in those parts of the world in which employment tends to be reduced or radically transformed, as a consequence of technological and organizational processes that escape democratic control, it is necessary to rethink the very concept of work and its relationship with citizens, so that the lack of employment does not undermine social participation.
155. In light of this conviction, we can also reinterpret the history of the Social Doctrine of the Church after the New things. The initiatives that emerged in this context—associations, unions, cooperatives, social assistance works—have contributed decisively to improving labor legislation, protecting the most vulnerable and promoting more humane conditions. [156]Today, however, such instruments are no longer sufficient on their own in the face of the transformations caused by AI, the new organization of markets and competitiveness that rarely cares about social sustainability. A new joint effort is necessary on the part of policy makers, workers' organizations, the business world and the scientific community to quickly develop appropriate and agreed upon standards and protection measures, also at the international level. [157]Trade union organizations, which the Church has always supported, are called to open themselves to new forms of work and new workers, to represent and defend them in a context in which, without courageous decisions, more poverty and more inequalities emerge, with a multitude of excluded people surrounded by machines and automated systems that have taken their place.
156. In this transition, it is not enough to react when jobs disappear, but it is necessary to manage the transformation proactively. A viable way is, first of all, to establish social criteria for innovation: any introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by verifiable measures of employment protection, retraining and worker participation, so that technology is aimed at freeing up time and human capabilities, not generating exclusion. Secondly, it is necessary that active policies make continuous training and professional transitions accessible to everyone, without offloading the entire cost of adapting to the transformations on individuals. Finally, corporate responsibility is needed that includes the quality and dignity of work among the indicators of success. When these conditions are met, innovation can become an ally of safer, more creative and more dignified work; When they are lacking, it tends to become an acceleration of injustice.
An economy that values dignity
157. The labor market is one of the areas in which the risks of new technologies manifest themselves most clearly. That is why it is necessary to remember that economic freedom is not absolute and must always be measured based on the common good and the dignity of each person. Entrepreneurship can be a true vocation, capable of generating wealth and improving the lives of everyone, as long as it recognizes the creation of decent and valuable employment as an essential part of its service to society, and not as a variable dependent solely on profit. [158]
158. With a prophetic spirit, the Pope Francisco warned of economic freedom proclaimed only in words, while real conditions prevent many from actually benefiting from it. [159]Economic models that emphasize efficiency and individual success tend to see it as pointless or unprofitable to invest in people who start from disadvantaged situations or who follow slower growth trajectories, as if their destiny depended exclusively on their ability to keep up with the winners. In reality, a just society requires a present State and civil institutions capable of overcoming the mere logic of efficiency, explicitly directing resources, creativity and norms in favor of the most vulnerable. [160]Instead of expecting the benefits of growth that will “eventually” reach the poor as well, decisions are needed that make growth inclusive from the start. The experiences of recent decades show that, in economic and financial crises, it is always the poor who pay the highest price, while theories that promise automatic general well-being often turn out to be illusory.
159. There is a need to overcome the current parameters for measuring the degree of development—anchored for more than eighty years in the concept of Gross Domestic Product—which mean that essential aspects for the general well-being of people and the environment are almost systematically overlooked. At the same time, these parameters assess activities that have an impact, in the short or long term, on the life of our planet. The development of parameters and metrics complementary to GDP is decisive to improve the baseline data used to carry out analysis, make political and economic policy decisions, as well as to select regional, national and international priorities. The introduction of new parameters will make it possible to evaluate, with a broad vision appropriate to the times, the effects of legislative and regulatory deliberations on the dignity of work, shared prosperity, the reduction of inequalities and the protection of the environment. It will have an impact on the very concept of development, on training processes, on mentality and public opinion, and also on peace, which is only true if it is based on justice.
160. Finance has become increasingly important in recent years and has seen significant innovation, even after the introduction of cryptocurrencies. The reflections and guidelines contained in the Magisterium of my Predecessors, particularly in their Encyclicals, have highlighted the functioning of financial intermediation "whose operation, having been disconnected from appropriate anthropological and moral foundations, has not only produced obvious abuses and injustices, but has also proven capable of creating systemic crises throughout the world." [161] And it is equally true that capital income runs the risk of replacing labor income, which is often relegated to the background of the main interests of the economic system. However, savings that are transformed into credit for the real economy, and therefore to create employment, both employed and self-employed, remain fundamental for development and for the investments that must accompany the transitions underway. The social function of credit remains irreplaceable. Funding for funding's sake is very different from funding for development and for the creation and evolution of work.
161. This perspective must be considered within a broader vision of global dynamics. World wealth has grown in absolute terms, but its concentration in few hands has increased and imbalances have become more pronounced, both between countries and within the same country: "few have too much and too many have little, this is today's logic." [162] Scientific and technological advances, even in the medical field, are not easily accessible to the vast majority of the population, as was seen dramatically during the recent pandemic. While in some regions investment is made in superfluous interventions or in dreams of self-improvement that few people can afford, in other parts of the world there is still a lack of essential equipment to save millions of human lives. Thinking that new technologies will automatically benefit everyone means ignoring evidence: if the transformations are not managed by setting the prevention of new and greater inequalities as a priority objective from the planning phase, technological progress automatically generates structural inequalities. Today justice also involves access to the benefits of innovation: care, knowledge, tools and opportunities.
162. There is no doubt that fair laws and redistribution instruments are needed to correct imbalances, including through tax systems that ease the burden on the weakest and demand more from those with greater resources. But we must not consider the search for social justice as a separate and subsequent issue from the production of wealth, as if the economy should be limited to creating value and politics intervene only afterwards to distribute it. On the contrary, justice affects all phases of economic activity, from obtaining resources to financing, from production to consumption, and each choice has moral consequences. [163]
163. Furthermore, in the era of AI and robotics, it is no longer possible to rely solely on the “invisible hand” of the market: [164] Policy has the task of guiding economic-technological dynamics towards the common good, promoting decent work, social inclusion and an equitable distribution of the benefits of innovation. Given that many economic decisions cross the borders of states, international cooperation capable of defining common strategies is also necessary, especially in favor of the most vulnerable countries and groups, to promote development and overcome welfareism. The logic that inspires these decisions is that of the immense dignity of each person, the common good and a world truly designed for everyone. The interdependence between peace and development, as Saint Paul VI in 1967, [165] It could be updated today like this: prosperity can contribute to building and strengthening peace only if it is widespread, inclusive and sustainable.
164. In concrete terms, orienting the economy towards dignity means adopting some stable performance criteria even in the age of AI. Firstly, transparency and responsibility: when data and algorithms influence the granting of credit, the selection of personnel or access to services or opportunities, it is necessary that the decisions be understandable, questionable and subject to control, so that the person is not reduced to a profile. Second, inclusion and access: the benefits of innovation must be accompanied by investments in skills, infrastructure and essential services, so that technology does not widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Finally, equity measures: taxation, social protections and industrial policies must correct the imbalances created by the concentration of wealth and power. These criteria are not a brake on innovation; In reality, they make it viable and humane.
Family and young people: social conditions of hope
165. The family is a primary social good. Founded on the stable union between a man and a woman, it is the first environment in which each person develops their potential, becomes aware of their dignity and learns the first forms of truth and goodness, internalizing habits that prepare them for life in society. [166]The family, the first natural society, endowed with original rights, is the fundamental and irreplaceable cell of any community organization. [167]Consequently, when political projects and important economic decisions relegate it to a marginal or secondary role, the authentic growth of the entire social body is compromised. [168]
166. The family is, however, a fragile social asset, which is immediately affected by the economic and technological transformations that are changing the world of work, and which requires cultural, legal and economic support. The devastating impact of unemployment and precariousness on the family fabric is well known. In the short term it may seem advantageous to reduce labor costs or maximize financial efficiency, but in the long term this undermines the very foundations of coexistence: while technological advances are celebrated, the social structure is progressively eroded as if by a silent virus.
167. For young people, job insecurity is especially serious. As the bishops of the United States of America recall, work is not only a source of income, but a decisive area in which identity is formed, friendships and relationships are forged, concrete responsibilities are learned, and one's own vocation is discerned. [169] When access to employment is hindered by high unemployment rates, inadequate training systems or structural barriers, many young people find their path to personal and professional fulfillment blocked. The need to change jobs several times throughout one's life requires permanent updating and requalification itineraries, which make new generations capable of assuming, with competence and autonomy, the risks of a changing and often unpredictable economic context. [170]
168. From this a specific public responsibility is derived. The State has the duty to support the activity of companies by creating favorable conditions for employment, promoting work where it is scarce and defending it in times of crisis, since this is a primary good for families and for society. [171] Especially in a time of profound technological changes, political creativity “in favor of employment” is needed that places the family and the new generations at the center, if we do not want economic advances to translate into new forms of insecurity and exclusion.
169. Supporting families and young people in this transition requires measures that make stability possible. As mentioned above, labor policies are needed that favor the continuity and quality of employment, combating precariousness as a normal condition of life and promoting realistic itineraries of access and professional development. Secondly, measures are needed that guarantee human rhythms: without a balance between work, services and rest, the family weakens and young people find it difficult to mature a sense of responsibility. Furthermore, it is essential to invest in accessible vocational training and training, so that the professional mobility required by the digital economy does not become a cruel selection between those who can update and those who cannot. Finally, we must support social ties: educational networks and communities that accompany life choices and prevent uncertainty from generating loneliness and dependencies. Thus, the technological transformation can be gone through without breaking what makes a society generative: the ability to build the future.
Guard freedom from dependence and commercialization
Dependencies and social control
170. After having analyzed truth and education, work and families, we must talk about the effect of the digital revolution on human freedom, reflecting on how to address both the risks related to individual psychology and the great social dramas. The more subtle forms of dependency linked to the digital economy of attention should not be underestimated, where platforms and services are designed to capture the time and gaze of users, exploiting their fragilities and weakening inner freedom. When business models prosper at the expense of human weakness, the person is treated as a means and not as an end, and those who design or finance these systems assume a moral responsibility from which they cannot exempt themselves. It is urgent to promote the use of technologies that reinforce inner freedom: education in digital sobriety, protection of minors and the fight against models that prosper at the cost of vulnerability.
171. An additional risk, less visible but no less serious, is that of social control that the massive collection of data and the use of algorithmic systems make possible. When each gesture leaves traces—movements, purchases, relationships, preferences—a new power is created: that of outlining, predicting and guiding behavior, often without people being fully aware of it. If this data is used to make decisions that affect specific opportunities (access to credit, personnel selection, services), there is a risk of undermining freedom and discriminating against the most vulnerable. Furthermore, control does not pass only through explicit prohibitions, but through the architecture of visibility: what is amplified or becomes invisible, what is rewarded or penalized, ends up shaping opinions and choices, generating conformity and self-censorship. That is why freedom, in the digital age, is not just an internal question; It is also a public matter, which requires clear rules, transparency, avenues of appeal and proportionate limits to the use of invasive technologies, so that technology continues to be at the service of the person and does not become a form of domination of consciences.
172. The root of these problems is a technocratic and posthumanist mentality, which tends to consider the person as a manipulable object or a resource to be optimized, [172]eliminating everything that puts limits on profit maximization: what matters is efficiency, not respect for freedom and human dignity. Some posthumanist currents even go so far as to propose the existence of “second-class” human beings, serving the interests of elites who perceive themselves as superior: a disturbing perspective, even more serious if it is combined with technological instruments that exponentially expand the power of control and selection. Also certain logics of structural indebtedness, which keep entire peoples in conditions of dependence, reveal the same mentality that accepts, in new forms, relations of subordination close to slavery.
Break the chains of the new slavery
173. This distorted vision of the human being is translated today into various forms of subjection directly linked to the digital economy. In the world of AI nothing is immaterial or magical. Every response that seems immediate and perfect comes from a long chain of mediations, an extensive network of natural resources, energy infrastructures and, above all, people. A significant part of the functioning of the digital economy is based on the silent work of millions of human beings, employed in inconspicuous but essential activities: data labeling, content moderation – often terrible – and model training. In many cases they are young people, mostly women, who work hard in exchange for minimum wages. Added to this arduous invisible work is the even more brutal task of extracting the resources necessary for the production of the devices and microprocessors on which AI is based. In some regions of the world, teenagers and children work in dangerous conditions crushing the materials from which rare earths are obtained. Bodies marked, mutilated, consumed so that the flow of calculations is not interrupted. In addition, criminal networks use internet platforms, messaging systems, anonymous payments and profiling techniques to recruit, control and transport trafficking victims, often minors, turning men and women into “data” to track and “packages” to transfer within the same digital circuits that support much of the global economy. This reality deeply challenges the moral conscience of our time. It is not enough to invoke efficiency or praise the benefits of innovation, if these are based on a chain of exploitation that is deliberately kept hidden. If a technology promises emancipation, but produces new forms of global subordination, it contradicts the fundamental principle of the dignity of the person.
174. The fight against new forms of slavery constitutes a decisive litmus test for the ethical discernment of AI and digital transformation. Following the tradition started by Leo XIII, the Church renews its firm condemnation of all forms of slavery, trafficking and commercialization of people, and recalls the urgency of a broad movement of reflection and action that places at the center the inalienable dignity of every human being and the common good, as goals of society and as criteria for all personal, social and political decisions. Without this ethical and humanizing reflection, the growing power of digital systems risks leading us towards new atrocities, no less shameful than those of the past that we deplore today, while we continue to present ourselves as “advanced” and “civilized” societies.
175. Trafficking must be recognized as a contemporary form of slavery and a serious violation of human dignity; Not reacting firmly or tolerating these practices in any way means, to a certain extent, becoming complicit today in the faults committed yesterday, when slavery was justified or silenced. [173]
176. The Church, as its doctrine matured, progressively became aware of the seriousness of these realities. It is true that the events of the past cannot be judged ahistorically, as if all the criteria that have matured over time had always been available. However, we cannot deny or minimize the delay with which the Church and society condemned the scourge of slavery. If in Antiquity and the Middle Ages many people and ecclesiastical institutions had slaves, already in the Modern Age the Roman Apostolic See, urged by the requests of the sovereigns, intervened on several occasions to regulate and legitimize the methods of subjection and, in some cases, of reduction to slavery of the "infidels." [174] We had to wait until the 19th century to find a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery, particularly with Leo XIII. [175] This constitutes a clear example of the progress of the Church in understanding the perennial truths of the Revelation that she guards. Although we do not find homogeneity in the issue itself - having tolerated slavery for a long time and only later coming to condemn it absolutely -, there is continuity throughout history in terms of the conviction about the dignity of every human being, created in the image of God, although without having managed, in eighteen centuries, to officially explain the total incompatibility of slavery with said dignity. This is a wound in Christian memory to which we cannot consider ourselves alien. [176] It is inevitable to feel deep pain when considering the enormous suffering and humiliation that slavery has meant for so many people, in contrast to the limitless dignity of each one of them, infinitely loved by the Lord. Therefore, on behalf of the Church, I sincerely ask for forgiveness.
177. Precisely for this reason, the memory of the complicity and blindness of the past in the face of the injustice of slavery becomes for us a call to vigilance: what we have learned must be translated into discernment and responsibility in the present. If we do not want to ask for forgiveness in the future for not having been faithful to the treasure of human dignity that our faith contains, today it is up to us to be direct and firm when it comes to denouncing trafficking in its multiple manifestations and to support, step by step, together with all those who are committed to this cause, real paths of prevention, protection, liberation and rehabilitation.
178. Colonialism currently shows an unprecedented face. It not only dominates bodies, but also appropriates data, transforming personal lives into exploitable information. Entire territories, especially those with less geopolitical relevance and greater structural fragility, are currently traversed by a new logic of extraction: that of health flows, epidemiological profiles, genetic maps and demographic data. These are the new “rare lands” of power: vital information that, once correlated, can be used to train predictive models, guide investment strategies, anticipate crises and, above all, select who and what matters. Whoever has the health data of entire populations, today often collected under the pretext of aid, research or innovation, actually has a structural lever on the future: they can shape needs and markets. And you can decide, before others, to whom to allocate medicines, investments and protections. This is where one of the most urgent moral questions of our time comes into play: transforming shared knowledge into a common good, not a tool of domination; returning to the people not only the data that describes them, but also the possibility of deciding how it will be used, who will use it and for whom. Otherwise, the digital age will not be postcolonial, but colonial in another form.
179. The new slavery is fueled by economic chains and digital infrastructures. Action is therefore necessary on several fronts: first, to demand greater transparency of the supply chains that underpin the technology industry and the digital economy, so that no competitive advantage is built on invisible exploitation. Secondly, it is necessary for companies and investors to adopt clear criteria for preventive ethical verification (due diligence), including among priorities the protection of workers, the fight against forced labor and the social impact of data-based business models. Furthermore, digital platforms must be required to cooperate responsibly with authorities and civil society to prevent communication, payment and profiling tools from becoming channels for recruiting and controlling victims. When these decisions converge, the digital environment can be transformed from a space of predation into a space of protection, prevention and promotion of dignity.
180. The different areas considered – the search for truth in public life, education in the digital environment, transformations in the world of work, the fragility of families and new forms of slavery – are not isolated phenomena. All of them put the same thing at stake: if technique becomes an absolute criterion, the person runs the risk of being treated as data, a gear or a commodity; If, on the contrary, technique is part of a horizon of wisdom, it can become an opportunity for growth, justice and fraternity.
181. From this perspective, the Social Doctrine of the Church proposes a shared responsibility. Calls for these processes to be managed with a vision of the future: by institutions capable of regulating without suffocating and protecting without supplanting; for companies that recognize work and dignity as a criterion for success; by intermediate organizations and educational communities that rebuild trust and links; by citizens who cultivate responsibility, sobriety, discernment and a sense of truth. Only in this way can innovation truly become integral human development and not a factor of exclusion and domination; and only in this way can the promise of progress be recognized as true, because it will be measured according to the inviolable dignity of each man and woman.
THE CULTURE OF POWER AND THE CIVILIZATION OF LOVE
182. After having analyzed how AI is transforming some aspects of life and society, with serious repercussions for human dignity, it is necessary to turn our gaze to an even more dramatic area: war. Here the issue does not refer only to the efficiency of the new instruments, but to the risk that technology, separated from ethics and responsibility, makes the decision about life and death faster and more impersonal, and presents the use of force as an immediate and viable option. In an increasingly interdependent world, peace is not one issue among others, but a condition of the universal common good and a test for the moral maturity of people, and especially of those called to positions of responsibility in government.
183. The digital revolution is changing the grammar of conflicts. Hybrid forms are added to visible war: cyber attacks, information manipulation, influence campaigns and automation of strategic decisions. AI enters these processes as an acceleration factor, in a context in which many technologies are intrinsically ambivalent: what is born to protect can quickly become an attack, and the border between protection and aggression tends to blur. AI can enhance the defense and protection of civilians, but it can also lower the threshold for the use of force, make responsibilities opaque and feed a culture in which the enemy is reduced to data and the victim to “collateral damage.” Faced with these transformations, we must resort to the principles of social doctrine—dignity of the person, common good, universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and justice—as criteria to judge whether technologies truly serve humanity or end up subjugating it, and consider them as guidelines for our decisions.
184. In this chapter I intend, therefore, to compare two opposing logics, which I have already evoked with biblical images: on the one hand, the temptation to build the tower of Babel, trusting in power and pride; on the other, the patience to rebuild Jerusalem, as in the times of Nehemiah, “piece by piece”, taking care of what is human and the common good.
185. If we observe global dynamics, we recognize with increasing clarity the expansion of a culture of power, made up of polarization and violence. The modern Babel is not only the globalized technocratic paradigm, but also the distant confrontation between opposing imperialisms, between powers that want to preserve their primacy and powers that aspire to conquer it, with a multiplicity of local conflicts. It is, furthermore, the race to develop increasingly powerful technologies, or to ensure their control, according to a dehumanizing dynamic that seems to know no limits. And yet, along with this drift, we glimpse a large part of humanity that tries to remain human and strive to build the city of coexistence and peace. Of it, we are all often unconscious architects and disunited architects, capable of generous gestures but lacking an overall vision: it is a slower, less visible and less striking construction, which hopes to be better understood and more coordinated, to thus become the conscious and articulated commitment of each community, from the family to the government of states and their relationships. It is to this horizon of commitment, to this work of hope, that we give the name “civilization of love.”
The civilization of love in the digital age
186. When Paul VI introduced the expression “civilization of love”, [177] The world was marked by the Cold War, the arms race and strong economic imbalances. In this context, the Church indicated an alternative path to the ideological opposition between systems, imagining a social order in which justice and charity are intertwined and love becomes the organizing principle of economic, political and cultural life. Today we must strongly recover this vision: the civilization of love is not a naive utopia, but a demanding project. It consists of translating charity into structures of justice, giving institutional body to fraternity and considering the other—whether person or people—as a necessary ally for the construction of the common good. As the Encyclical has reminded us All brothersOnly this social love, capable of becoming culture and norm, can generate a stable international order, transforming coexistence from simple armed coexistence into a community of destiny. [178]
187. Today, in the context of the digital revolution, this intuition is even more decisive. Digital networks, the globalized economy and the development of AI create increasingly closer links, connecting in real time the decisions made in one place with the effects they produce in another. For this reason, the words of the Vatican Council II about the growing interdependence between peoples: the common good increasingly acquires a universal dimension, with rights and duties that concern the entire human family. [179] The project of the civilization of love here assumes the decisive task of transforming this suffered interdependence into a desired and chosen solidarity. It is the criterion to guide technological processes: it is not enough for AI to make us more efficient or connected, it must serve to build that universal human family, with shared rights and duties, where digital proximity becomes a real opportunity for encounter and reciprocal care.
188. In the times we live in, a culture of power is being consolidated, in which the availability of means and the ability to dominate tend to dictate the agenda and decision criteria, relegating the common good of humanity to the background and reducing the concrete drama of peoples at war to a secondary variable with respect to strategic interests. This culture of power penetrates society, modifies relationships and behaviors, expands by normalizing war, pursuing ever greater military power, taking advantage of the crisis of multilateralism and feeding a false realism, which repeats that there are no alternatives.
189. In 1965 it resonated strongly the cry of Saint Paul VI before the UN Assembly: "Never again war, never again war!" [180] We must recognize that, despite the wishes and proclamations of peace, the last sixty years have been marked by conflicts of impressive ferocity, which have often massively affected civilian populations, causing innocent victims, waves of refugees, social destabilization and long-lasting wounds. However, the conviction prevailed in public discourse that war should remain a extreme reason, subject to rigorous ethical and legal limits and, in any case, to a political horizon oriented towards peace. Following the events that occurred in the interwar period, after the Second World War there was a shift: peace was placed at the center of the international order, as witnessed in particular by the United Nations Charter, which aims to "preserve future generations from the scourge of war." [181] Many national Constitutions, along the same lines, had relegated the use of weapons to extreme and rigorously delimited cases. Even during the Cold War, despite the presence of serious conflicts, the awareness persisted that a new global conflict had to be avoided at all costs.
190. Today, however, we are witnessing a true paradigm shift in public discourse and rearmament decisions, with a worrying rehabilitation of war as an instrument of international policy, while precisely those ethical criteria that had limited its use are eroded. Regional conflicts that last over time, the escalation of tensions and crossed threats become almost common, and forms of conflict due to territorial expansion that were believed to have been overcome re-emerge. Public opinion is progressively oriented and accustomed to polarized media narratives, often amplified by algorithms that value confrontation and opposition.
191. We are also witnessing a worrying loss of historical memory. The gradual disappearance of direct testimonies of the Holocaust and the two world wars facilitates the selective or distorted rewriting of the past, in a climate in which fake news and narrative manipulations cloud the lessons learned. Without a living memory of the horrors of war, political decisions risk being made on the basis of calculations of force, lacking a vision of the long-term consequences.
192. Added to all this is a new and decisive element: the media and digital dimension. Communication networks, fragmented information environments, and algorithms that reward confrontation can amplify polarization and resentment, accelerate propaganda, and make common discernment difficult. Thus, war is not only fought, but also culturally prepared through simplistic narratives, friend-enemy logic, misinformation and fear. When historical memory is attenuated and the ethical criteria that protect civilians and the most fragile are weakened, it becomes easier to present violence as necessary, inevitable or even “clean.” It is in this climate where humanity is falling into the violent culture of power, where peace is no longer presented as a task to be assumed, but as a precarious interval between conflicts. Today more than ever it is important to reiterate the overcoming of the “just war” theory, invoked too frequently to justify any war, without prejudice to the right to self-defense, understood in the strictest sense. [182] Humanity has much more effective instruments capable of promoting human life to confront conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The resort to force, violence and weapons testifies to a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.
193. A decisive element of the current panorama is the growth of the war industry, which has become a key sector of the economy of some countries. The close connection between economic interests, military apparatuses and political decisions generates an “armed nation”, in which war seems almost a natural extension of politics and the arms market becomes an autonomous engine of war decisions. We cannot ignore the enormous economic interests behind the war. Arms industries and countries that supply weapons benefit from a market that thrives precisely because of conflict. In this sense, there is also an economic logic that contributes to fueling tensions in various regions of the world.
194. Military arsenals are in the center of attention. In the past, recognition of the threat posed by weapons capable of destroying all of humanity had favored avenues of détente and negotiations on disarmament. Unfortunately, we have moved beyond that horizon, and the evolution of nuclear arsenals—including the prospect of “tactical” uses—makes recourse to such devices seem an increasingly remote possibility. In this context, the entry into force in 2021 of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, supported by more than seventy countries, represents an important signal, but runs the risk of remaining largely symbolic, since the main atomic powers have not adhered to it. Thus, the erroneous belief has spread that nuclear deterrence is an indispensable condition for security, which has fueled a new and difficult to control arms race, accompanied by the progressive dismantling of nuclear arms reduction agreements and the development of “miniaturized” weapons, which make it easier to consider their use as a viable option.
195. The same logic is observed in conventional conflicts: military force, the weakness of diplomatic initiatives and the complexity of the interests at stake favor conflicts that tend to become chronic, with a very high human and environmental cost. It is much easier to start a war than to stop it, and yet reflection on conflict prevention remains dramatically marginal.
196. The panorama becomes even more unstable due to the presence of new armed actors—jihadist groups, private militias, criminal networks—which mark the end of the state monopoly on force. Often, these subjects intertwine vague ideological motivations with very specific economic interests, transforming war into a true way of life for entire generations of youth and children: the objective is no longer a definitive victory, but the perpetuation of the conflict as a source of power and benefits.
197. Added to this panorama is the incessant development of weapons systems and in particular AI-related weapons. The Holy See has recently pointed out that the increasing ease with which weapons systems with operational autonomy can be used makes war more “viable” and less subject to human control, which contradicts the principle that resorting to armed force should be a last resort in case of self-defense. [183] For this reason, the development and use of AI in the field of warfare must be subject to the most rigorous ethical restrictions, and respect for human dignity and the sacredness of life, avoiding an arms race. [184]
198. Sometimes we speak of “artificial moral agents”, as if a machine could guarantee, with greater consistency than a human being, the distinction between good and evil. But moral judgment cannot be reduced to a calculation: it implies conscience, personal responsibility and recognition of the other as a person. That is why it is not legal to entrust lethal or, in any case, irreversible decisions to artificial systems. There is no algorithm that can make war morally acceptable. AI does not free conflict from its intrinsic inhumanity: it can only make it faster and more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence and transforming defense into operational foresight, with victims reduced to data. Thus, it accustoms us to the idea that violence is inevitable and should only be optimized. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to infuse values and prudent judgment into the programming of the artificial systems we build; These can contribute to a moral ecosystem in which humans are better prepared to listen to their own conscience and in which AI models set appropriate boundaries.
199. It is not enough to invoke ethics in a generic way: it is necessary to indicate precise criteria for discernment. The first refers to personal responsibility. When the decision to attack becomes automated or opaque, the risk of losing a sense of responsibility increases. Therefore, the chain of responsibilities must remain identifiable and verifiable: those who plan, train, authorize and employ must be able to account for their decisions. The second criterion refers to the time of the moral judgment. AI tends to shorten decision times; But, in war, irreversible decisions cannot have speed and efficiency as supreme criteria. The third criterion is the distinction and protection of civilians. Any technology that makes it easier to attack without seeing the other's face lowers the moral threshold of conflict. Targeting and use of force cannot confuse combatants and non-combatants, nor ignore the impact on defenseless populations.
200. Some unavoidable requirements arise from these criteria. First of all, for each system used in the field of war, traceability and the possibility of reconstructing decisions must be guaranteed, so that responsibility and possible blame are not dissolved “in the machine.” Second, the decision to use lethal force cannot be delegated to shady or automated processes, but must remain under effective, conscious and responsible human control. Finally, it is necessary to establish shared rules, even at the international level, that stop the technological arms race and ensure special protection for civilians and the infrastructures essential for their survival.
201. The culture of power also arises from the crisis of the multilateral system. The institutions created to safeguard the idea of a common destiny of peoples and a common good at the global level seem weakened, not only because of structural limitations, but because there is often a lack of a shared will to support them, reform them and recognize their moral authority. Instead of moving forward, we are moving backwards with respect to the historical turn of the 20th century. After 1989, the collapse of communist regimes in Europe was accompanied by predominantly economic globalization, lacking an adequate political architecture capable of sustaining dialogue and peace. Markets were almost blindly entrusted with the capacity to produce well-being, democracy and stability, while, in reality, globalization has not automatically generated unity and peace, but has instead given rise to fundamentalist, identity-based and nationalist reactions. The result is far from authentic multilateralism: it is rather presented as a disorderly and conflictive multipolarism, where distrust of others prevails.
202. The temptation to build a collective identity against an enemy reappears, feeding narratives in which each person presents himself as a legitimized victim for revenge. Simplification into schemes – “me first”, “friend-enemy”, “we-you” – facilitates decisions, often irresponsible, that undermine mutual trust between nations. The force of international law is thus replaced by the supposed “law of the strongest,” and its instruments—from the courts competent in war crimes to the courts called to resolve disputes between states—are often evaded or weakened, with devastating consequences for political culture and coexistence. [185]
203. In this context, peacebuilding has taken a backseat: cooperation for development, disarmament, conflict prevention and the promotion of mutual trust are relegated, in the name of power logic. This also weakens the achievements of humanitarian law: the principle of proportionality in the response to aggression, the protection of access to water, food and essential goods, and respect for the lives of civilians and children are treated as naive reminiscences of the past.
204. We live in a time of notable spiritual and cultural blindness. A false pragmatism invites us to cut the roots of memory, as if a kind of “new creation” detached from the past could be inaugurated; Even those who invoke great moral principles can fall into this historical nihilism, illusorily believing that the atrocities of the 20th century can no longer be repeated. In reality, the same dynamics resurface in new forms. The logic of armed balance and deterrence seems to be imposed once again. But, unlike the bipolar scenario of the Cold War, today the multiplication of actors and conflict fronts makes this logic increasingly fragile. The exacerbated conflict pushes towards asymmetric and “hybrid” wars, also waged in the economic, financial and information fields, with the use of disinformation and campaigns that fuel fear to influence public opinion. In many countries, including in the global South, increased military spending is presented as the only response to an uncertain future or perceived threats, while the real cost falls on the poorest, who see resources allocated to health, education and social services shrink.
205. Behind all this lies a false “realism”, based not only on the ingrained logic of force, but also on a cultural and anthropological conviction, as if war were inevitably part of human nature. It has always been this way, it is said, except for brief parentheses, and this is how it will always be! Therefore, the problem is no longer peace, lost as a reference on the international horizon, but how and when to act militarily, while maintaining that it would be irresponsible not to prepare for confrontation. On the other hand, what is truly irresponsible is the Realpolitik, this form of political “realism”, which sows resignation in consciences and culture in the face of an unavoidable war, and describes peace and dialogue as utopian or irrational positions, which ignore the risks at stake. On the contrary, peace is not a naive hope nor just an absence of war: it is the fruit, always possible, of justice and charity.
206. In this climate, nihilism and pragmatism end up intertwining and normalizing very serious errors: religious extremism and identity fanaticism are allied with an irrational economism, while politics easily resorts to misinformation, ridicule of the adversary and the systematic construction of fears and resentments. Thus, the diversity of the other is increasingly experienced as a threat, fueling the desire for possession, the will to dominate, hegemonic ambitions, abuses of power and fear of difference, and preparing a terrain in which new conflicts can mature without us hardly realizing it. [186]
207. This is fertile ground for new wars, perhaps even more dangerous than previous ones, since they tend to lose all ethical limits. What was previously considered unacceptable can today be carried out almost without hesitation, while the international reaction adapts to the convenience of each government rather than to the objective seriousness of the events. Decisions now seem to be guided almost exclusively by economic calculations, defended through media illusions, artificial euphoria and “dreams” that inevitably fade, generating frustration and new violence. When one is persuaded that nothing is truly real and that “principles” are nothing more than an empty shell, the fuse of new explosions of intolerance and aggressiveness is lit in the very hearts of people.
208. In this scenario, the question about real guarantees against new violence remains open. When a culture normalizes and justifies conflict, a dangerous drift opens: what seems unthinkable today may become acceptable tomorrow based on calculations of utility or security. In countries marked by serious social tensions, we cannot exclude that someone ends up considering armed conflict as an effective way to divert attention from internal problems and as an instrument for cynical management of difficulties.
209. A particular responsibility falls on those who work in the world of research. All the protagonists in this area—scientists, businessmen, investors, academic authorities, politicians, among others—are called to work with a logic of transparency and responsibility, keeping alive the awareness of the broad framework in which the technological advances to which they contribute are inscribed, including those related to AI. When one limits oneself to looking only at one's own sector, one deceives oneself into believing that one is carrying out a morally neutral task and avoids questions about the ultimate goals that guide certain experiments: thus one runs the risk of cooperating, perhaps unwittingly, in dark projects that fuel new forms of violence, manipulation and domination.
Build the civilization of love
210. The construction of a world in a state of permanent belligerence is an evil, and it must be called by its name. This way of describing the reality we live in may seem gloomy or pessimistic, but I believe it is a necessary denunciation. The Christian perspective, however, does not end in the denunciation of evil. We look at history in the light of the Risen Crucified One, to whom the Father has given "all power in heaven and on earth" (Mt 28,18). We do not interpret the present as a closed destiny, but as an open field for personal and collective conversion. And we believe in the power of the Kingdom, which develops from the smallness of a mustard seed, like a seed that, once sown, sprouts and grows (cf. Mc 4,26-32). While the noise of confusion surrounds us, good grows silently from the earth. With the words of the prophet: "I am about to do something new: it is already germinating, don't you realize?" (mercy is the name of God par excellence 43,19).
211. A careful reading of history confirms this. Even in the darkest nights, the Lord raises up men and women capable of not giving up and persevering in good: people who protect the fragile and open paths of reconciliation. The memory of the saints and the righteous, of the often forgotten peacemakers, shows that grace does not eliminate conflict with a magical gesture, but rather generates active resistance to evil and surprising creativity in good. Christians see the darkness and call it by name, but they do not remain paralyzed contemplating it: they know the light and they know that the darkness did not receive it and cannot overcome it (cf. Jn 1.5). Therefore, they serve the good even where pain seems to have the last word, sustained by a theological hope that gives reality a horizon and a direction.
We can all give our contribution
212. At this point, however, a subtle temptation creeps in: to think that the problems are too big and we are too small, and that, therefore, our decisions change nothing. It's an elegant way of surrender, often disguised as realism. Of course, not everyone has the same power to influence reality: there are those who govern, those who decide on investments, those who direct institutions, those who investigate, those who educate, those who inform, those who produce; and there are those who seem to have only their own daily life. However, no one is exempt from responsibility. Each one has his or her own sphere of action, and there—not anywhere else—he or she is called to choose whether to feed the logic of force—even if only with indifference, cynicism, lies and hatred—; or if it promotes the logic of peace—with truth, sobriety, closeness and care.
213. A Catholic writer of the 20th century, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, through the mouth of one of the protagonists of one of his novels, described our responsibility this way: "It is not for us to dominate all the tides of the world, but to do what is in our power for the good of the days in which we have lived, extirpating evil in the fields we know, and leaving for those who will come after us a clean land for tillage." [187] The civilization of love is not born from a single and spectacular gesture, but from a sum of small and tenacious fidelities, which confront dehumanization. That is why it is worth stopping and considering some aspects of how, each of us in our own area, we can collaborate in its construction. Without attempting to exhaust the topic, I propose five ways of daily and public responsibility: dismantling words, building peace in justice, assuming the perspective of the victims, cultivating a healthy realism and relaunching dialogue and multilateralism.
214. The first contribution we can make to a more humane civilization is to pay attention to our words. "Let us disarm the words and we will contribute to disarm the earth." [188] The power of words is enormous and we experience it in our daily communication, when someone tells us something that changes our mood, whether for better or worse. «Peace begins with each one of us, with the way we look at others, listen to others, talk about others; and, in this sense, the way we communicate is of fundamental importance; We must say “no” to the war of words and images, we must reject the paradigm of war. [189] We must all, therefore, examine our conscience about the words we use, about the prejudices with which they are impregnated and about the aggressiveness, open or covert, that motivates them. We have a real possibility of contributing to good every time we tell the truth, give wise advice, support those who need comfort, denounce injustice or give a voice to those who do not have one.
215. Everyone, at any level, can contribute to the foundation of peace, which is justice. In fact, we do not seek just any peace, an absence of conflict at any price, but that true peace that is born from justice. "There is a close relationship between justice for each person and peace for all." [190] Commenting on the psalm verse “justice and peace will kiss” ( Sal 85,11b), Saint Augustine writes: «There is no one who does not want to be at peace, but not everyone wants to practice justice. […] But you must practice justice, since peace and justice kiss each other, they are not in discord. And you, why don't you agree with justice? For example, justice tells you: do not steal, and you do not listen to it; do not commit adultery, and turn deaf; do not do to another what you do not want done to you; Don't say about others what you don't want them to say about you. […] Do you want to find peace? Practice justice. [191] Let us not get tired, then, of seeking justice!
Assume the gaze of the victims
216. There are situations in which, to remain human, we must abandon hesitations and take sides. There are conflicts in which it is not fair to remain neutral and it is not enough to think about “not being complicit.” [192] When we face bombings against civilians, attacks against hospitals, schools or vital infrastructure, abuses that affect children, we find ourselves facing scandals that hurt humanity itself. That is why we cannot remain at the level of abstract analysis. As he recalled Pope Francisco, we must “touch the flesh” of those who suffer: [193] look at the faces, listen to the stories, recognize the wounds. Painful events require both history and memory: one to try to relate the facts, the other to bear witness to what was experienced.
217. Giving space, in information and education, to the gaze and voice of the victims helps to become truly aware of the abyss of evil that war and, in general, all forms of violence contain; to not accept the logic of conflict as normal; to not look away when an affront to human dignity is committed; and to give affected people back the dignity of being recognized and heard. [194] Attention to these voices fuels the conviction that, beyond violent minorities, humanity does not want war. The Church can be in a special way a place of living memory of the victims. As Saint remembered Paul VI, she feels that she must make her own both the voice of the dead from past wars and that of the living who still carry their wounds, so that her cry becomes a call for peace and harmony, and not a prelude to new conflicts. [195]
218. We need a healthy realism, which avoids both political idealism and cynicism. In fact, there is an idealism that, to save its own vision of the world, selects the facts, manipulates them, renames them and ends up inhabiting a reality built to the measure of its own convictions. On the other hand, there is also a degraded realism that confuses confirmation with resignation: since force dominates, it concludes that it must dominate. Authentic realism does not give up changing the world: it begins by clearly seeing interests, fears, limitations and power relations, precisely to calculate what can be achieved and with what steps. It does not reduce politics to morality, but neither does it surrender to violence: it seeks viable ways to make peace more than a word, that is, credible institutions, verifiable guarantees, patient negotiations, conflict prevention and protection of civilians.
219. To build the civilization of love we must exercise dialogue. This is the main instrument of coexistence between people and between peoples, and is the alternative to open conflict. I already remembered Pius XII on the eve of the Second World War, when he stated that with peace nothing is lost, while with war everything can be lost, and that men must dialogue again, because sincere and persevering dialogue always opens the possibility of an honorable solution. [196]
220. Dialogue is an ordinary dimension of human life, and does not refer only to relations between states. It is about acquiring an attitude to build bonds of brotherhood, made of listening, of sincere looks, of time dedicated, even of time wasted together. Because, if we experience the authentic encounter with the other, the different, the foreigner, the migrant, it becomes even more difficult to even imagine war.
221. At the political level, it is urgent to move from the “culture of power” to an authentic “culture of negotiation”, in which dialogue and diplomatic relations become the usual way to confront conflicts, as Giorgio La Pira wanted: «The method of war will have to be replaced by the method of peace: the method of negotiation, of encounter, of convergence; that is, the authentically human method! [197] The awareness of a common destiny of peoples demands that the culture of negotiation increasingly becomes a shared political and cultural commitment, capable of gradually moving humanity away from the spiral of violence.
222. To those who have the honor and responsibility of governing, I would like to repeat some words that I said at the beginning of my Pontificate: «The people want peace and I, with my heart in my hand, say to those responsible for the people: let us meet, let us dialogue, let us negotiate! War is never inevitable, weapons can and should remain silent, because they do not solve problems, but rather increase them; because those who sow peace will go down in history, not those who reap victims; because others are not primarily enemies, but human beings: they are not bad guys to hate, but people to talk to. Let us reject the typical Manichean visions of violent stories, which divide the world between good and bad. [198]
223. By rejecting the logic of violence, dialogue between religions has a decisive role, because at the center of the great spiritual paths is a message of peace. [199] Whoever uses the name of God to legitimize terrorism, violence or war betrays his face; Fighting in the name of religion means, in reality, hitting religion itself. [200] The “spirit of Assisi”, promoted by Saint John Paul II and continued commitment to Pope Francisco —for example, in the dialogue with the Grand Imam of al-Azhar—shows that believers can once again drink from the most authentic sources of their spiritual traditions, where there is no place for sacred hatred.
The need for diplomacy and multilateralism
224. In international relations, dialogue is the irreplaceable instrument of diplomacy to prevent conflicts and restore ties of trust. In the face of impulsive communications, aggressive rhetoric and the logic of power that mark our times, “the vocation of diplomacy is to promote dialogue with everyone, including interlocutors who are considered most “uncomfortable” or who are not considered legitimate to negotiate,” [201] using humility and patience to the extreme to recover the most tenuous signs of good will from the parties in conflict, in order to initiate pacification.
225. Cyberspace has also become a terrain of confrontation: computer attacks, data manipulation and influence campaigns orchestrated with the help of AI can destabilize entire countries, even before an open armed confrontation occurs. In this area, moreover, the attribution of responsibilities is often uncertain: when it is not clear who has attacked, the risk of disproportionate reactions, errors of assessment and escalation spirals increases. That is why we need diplomacy capable of operating also in this new environment, negotiating shared rules on the use of digital technologies, protecting civilians and the most vulnerable from invisible, but no less real, forms of violence.
226. International organizations, in particular the UN, continue to be essential instruments to promote a civilization of love, by supporting dialogue between nations, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the integral development of peoples, the protection of the most vulnerable people, disarmament and the care of creation. Through these instances, the international community can try to reduce inequalities, defend the rights of refugees and minorities, free up resources destined for weapons to be used for human promotion and protect the common Home. The Holy See supports and accompanies this commitment, although it recognizes that the current weakness of the UN and the international political system reveals the need for profound reforms: these are not just technical adjustments, because the crisis of convictions and values also affects the ethical foundations of the life of nations and makes it difficult to guide multilateralism towards the true common good. [202]
227. In the international context, the diplomacy of the Holy See assumes the evangelical principle of mercy as a concrete criterion for political action. It is one of the ways in which the Holy See places itself at the service of humanity, calling consciences to charity and truth, defending the dignity of each person and becoming a voice for the poor, migrants and victims of wars. In this way, pontifical diplomacy expresses the catholicity of the Church and contributes to the construction of a civilization of love in which new technologies are also oriented towards the common good.
228. These ways of commitment are nourished by prayer and feed it. For us, in fact, peace, above all, "comes from God, God who loves us all unconditionally." [203] It is a gift given by Jesus to his disciples on Easter Day: «Peace be with you! This is the peace of the risen Christ, a disarming peace and a disarming, humble and persevering peace. [204] With these words I greeted the Church and the world on the day of my election to the See of Peter, and I wish to repeat them to invite everyone to ask for this gift. Let us not tire of praying for peace and committing to making it a reality in our relationships and in society.
229. "Let each one pay careful attention to the way he builds" (1 Co 3:10): these are the words of Saint Paul, who exhorts the Christians of Corinth to guard unity. Dear brothers and sisters, we have questioned ourselves about the world we are building, asking ourselves what it means to guard the human person in the time of AI. At the end of this path, I wish to give you a sober and demanding Christian life itinerary with which to live this change of era in the light of the Gospel. It is a path that is born from the contemplation of God's plan, lives ecclesial unity nourished by the Word and the Eucharist, builds good in the world and prays together with the Virgin Mary.
230. In a world crossed by so many maneuvers aimed at conquering markets and spaces of influence, often covered with reassuring rhetoric and seductive ideological constructions, our hearts feel the need to discover a different, wise and benevolent project, similar to the one that Mary contemplates in the Magnificent, when he proclaims that God's mercy extends from generation to generation on those who fear him. [205] This plan of mercy also runs through history today, within the most rapid and frenetic changes marked by algorithms and global networks, and becomes the compass to guide an evangelical existence in the digital age.
231. At the center is the mystery of the Incarnation: the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. The flesh of the Son, poor and vulnerable, evokes the flesh of so many brothers and sisters stripped of their dignity and reduced to silence. [206] And through this closeness, the gift of peace enters the world in a paradoxical way: like the power of becoming children of God, which is revived when we allow ourselves to be moved by the cry of the little ones, by the fragility of the elderly, by the silence of the victims, by the efforts of those who fight against the evil they would not want to do. [207] In this wounded and loved flesh, the Father shows us the true humanity of a life that is fulfilled in openness and communion, to the point of making us desire that his will be fulfilled on earth as it is in heaven. [208]
232. In the promises of transhumanism and some posthumanist currents, which pursue an enhanced and almost disembodied humanity, we recognize a desire that challenges us: the need for a fuller life, less exposed to fragility and suffering. But the Incarnation opens a different path. While old and new ideologies push man to technically overcome the limit and rise above others to establish dominance, the mystery of the Son of God who enters our condition narrates an opposite movement: the living God who descends into our history to free us from all slavery, [209] It assumes our weakness and transforms it into a place of salvation. There is no moment or human condition that is not worthy of God: "So we have, as our faith teaches us and we elucidate in our mysteries, a God who is born in the cradle, a God who lives and travels through Judea, a God who dies on the cross and a God who is dead and buried." [210] The future of humanity thus finds its criterion in the ability to embrace this divine way of becoming close, of sharing the weight of the world, of transforming relationships from within. How wonderful! "This man is God, and God-Man passes through these steps, sanctifies them and deifies them in himself!" [211] What saves man is divine love that descends to the most fragile point of his history and regenerates it from the depths.
233. Therefore, as a believer among believers, I invite you to contemplate in the face of the Son a magnificent humanity which also illuminates the age of AI. In Christ we understand that man is called to be a collaborator in the work of creation, and not a resigned spectator in the face of technological processes that limit his freedom and responsibility. [212] The dignity that the Holy Spirit sculpts in each of us is also recognized in the ability to reflect critically, to choose and love freely, and to establish authentic relationships. No system of calculation, no matter how sophisticated, generates a heart that surrenders, nor a conscience capable of discerning good. Even when the machines excel in efficiency, the center of the story remains a human face that demands to be contemplated. This human face is the plenitude toward which history moves. It is the mystery of recapitulation, the certainty that the Father has established to recapitulate in Christ - the only Head - all things, those of heaven and those of earth (cf. That the XXX World Day of the Sick —whose final celebration will not take place in Arequipa 1,10). In this plan, nothing that is truly human will be lost, but everything will be purified and reunited in Him who collects every fragment of life, every tear and every authentic human achievement to extract them from nothingness and deliver them, redeemed, to the Father.
234. The spirituality we need is a Eucharistic spirituality, that is, a spirituality of ecclesial unity in love. The Incarnation and Easter reveal God who enters our human condition and transfigures it in the gift of himself. This gift remains present and operative in the Eucharist, in which the Lord communicates and brings together the Church, so that his delivery becomes a principle of unity and a source of new life. Christian solidarity is also born from this communion, because "union with Christ is at the same time union with all the others to whom he gives himself." [213] As Saint Augustine explains to the new Christians of his Church, the bread and wine on the altar are the sacrament of the unity of the faithful in Christ: «What we see has a corporal aspect; what we understand, spiritual fruit. Therefore, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle who says to the faithful: You are the body of Christ and its members February 10, 2022 1 Co 12,27). Consequently, if you are the body of Christ and its members, the mystery that you yourselves are is placed on the Lord's table: you receive the mystery that you are. To that which you are, you respond “Amen,” and by responding (like this) you sign it. You hear, then: “Body of Christ”, and you respond: “Amen”. Be a member of the body of Christ, so that your “Amen” answers the truth. [214]
235. The “Amen” that we say in the liturgy, the Body that we eat and the Blood that we drink, shape our entire life. The Eucharist "is a very personal encounter with the Lord and, however, it is never a mere act of individual devotion." [215] In it it is visibly shown that we “are the Church of Christ, we are his members, his body. We are brothers and sisters in Him. And in Christ, although we are many and different, we are one: “ In that one one”». [216]The Eucharist moves us to justice and sharing, with preferential attention to those who suffer the weight of poverty and marginalization. And while new economic and technological networks can generate exclusion, isolation and dependencies, the Church, nourished by the Eucharist, is called to make another type of measure visible, guarding the links, giving voice to the invisible and directing processes towards the dignity of people.
236. The spirituality that I wish to deliver is that of the “wise architect” who, animated by hope in the Kingdom of God, is committed to building good in the world (cf. 1 Co 3,10). As I wrote at the beginning of this reflection, [217] Today our construction must be based on the relationship with God, as a norm the acceptance of the human limit as a natural and positive reality, and as a style on co-responsibility and evangelical language. At the end of the path, the project of a civilization of love is outlined more clearly and the work appears to have already begun, especially thanks to so many living stones solidly united in Christ, the cornerstone (cf. 1 P 2,4-6). In this work we are called to assume an active role, without taking refuge in spiritualism or in our small worlds: we must be faithful to the truth, invest in education, take care of relationships, and love justice and peace.
237. Let us remain faithful to the truth! Living immersed in incessant flows of information, opinions and images, we know how easy it is to influence decisions and preferences through increasingly sophisticated algorithms. [218] In this scenario it is important to guard a heart that loves the truth, that desires what is just more than the most attractive content, that seeks wisdom more than the immediate impact. The truth that we must not lose is that of God and that of the human being, as Christ has revealed it to us. It is necessary to abandon an individualistic and technical vision of man, as if reality were only matter to be modeled based on selfish interests, both individual and group. [219] Let us cultivate instead what Pope Francisco has defined as a «situated anthropocentrism», [220] that recognizes the human being as a creature inserted in a web of relationships with other living beings and with the entirety of creation. Fidelity to the truth requires integrating the possibilities offered by technology in a path of wisdom, capable of safeguarding together the dignity of each person and the future of our common Home.
238. Let's invest in education that begins with ourselves! We all need to be trained to live in the digital world in a human way, as an integral part of education in the faith and in the virtuous life of the Gospel. We must educate ourselves to consider the digital world as a new continent to evangelize, which requires generous and mature missionaries in the faith. In a particular way, in addition, adults are needed who rediscover their vocation as artisans of education, willing to work daily, patiently and sustained by broad and shared educational alliances. Accompanying children and young people to use technologies as a space for responsible relationships, helping them to recognize the risks and choose what makes inner freedom grow, today represents a concrete form of charity and safeguarding their dignity. Educating new generations so that they can believe that the evolution of technologies does not follow an inevitable path, but can be guided by personal and collective responsibility, constitutes one of the most valuable services to the common good.
239. Let's take care of relationships! In an era that tends to accelerate and fragment, human flesh continues to ask to be cared for and recognized by hands capable of tenderness, by attentive minds and good words. Digital culture multiplies connections and offers new meeting possibilities; However, the human heart retains an inalienable need for proximity. I invite you to safeguard the spaces and moments in which physical presence continues to be decisive: the shared table, the Christian community that meets, the visit to those who are alone, the service to the poor. They are signs of a humanity that continues to believe that each body is a temple of the Spirit and house of God, and precisely this alliance between glory and fragility becomes a criterion for evaluating the anthropological models proposed by current culture.
240. Let us love justice and peace! The same technologies that facilitate communication and access to resources can support models that exploit the most vulnerable, fuel new slavery and transform conflict into an opportunity for profit. Each technical or economic decision becomes a point of spiritual discernment, an occasion to verify whether AI advances open spaces for justice and participation or concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few. I invite you to look lucidly at the networks of digital production, the working conditions hidden behind our devices, the mechanisms that take advantage of manipulation and war and, at the same time, to look for concrete ways to grow equity, participation and care for creation. "The hope that we announce [...] comes from heaven, but to generate a new history here below": precisely for this reason, those who believe commit themselves so that, instead of inequalities, there is more justice and so that "instead of the industry of war, the craftsmanship of peace is affirmed." [221]
241. Looking to tomorrow, I wish to evoke the image of Nehemiah, who at the beginning of this journey we chose as companion and guide. Nehemiah hears the cry of a wounded city, brings that pain to prayer, discerns before God, asks for help, obtains permission to set out, organizes the work, faces internal and external resistance and, brick after brick, rebuilds the walls of Jerusalem with the people. In it I recognize a luminous parable of our vocation to be, in the time of digital transformation, not resigned spectators to social and cultural fractures, nor simple commentators on the ruins, but women and men who enter the works of history - research laboratories, technological companies, schools, media, institutions, local communities - to raise what has collapsed and protect what is exposed. Like Nehemiah, we too are called to unite listening and courage, prayer and responsibility, so that the city of men becomes more habitable, even when technocratic logic and partisan interests seem to prevail.
242. The image of the rebuilding of Jerusalem evokes the promise of the New Testament, of the holy city that is given to us above all as a gift. In the Apocalypse, the new Jerusalem descends toward us as a gift to all of God's People, "beautified as a bride prepared to receive her husband" (Ap 21,2). The walls of Jerusalem are no longer fortifications for defense, but precious ornaments of the Wife of the Lamb. Its gates, which Nehemiah so carefully protected, are kept permanently open to all nations. The presence of God offers everyone light and life. The city is a new Eden, with its living water donated to the thirsty and with its tree of life, whose leaves They serve "to heal the people" (Ap 22,2). Pending its fullness, this vision is before us as an exhortation, a call to overcome our divisions and to work together: this is the way of Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and always.
The song of hope: the “Magnificat”
243. The fourth point of this program of Christian life—after faith that contemplates the Father's plan of love, charity that unites us in a single ecclesial body, and hope that sustains our action in the world—is prayer. Mary's song accompanies our commitment. Before Elizabeth, who announces that she has become the mother of the Lord, Mary bursts into a hymn of praise and joy: her soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord and her spirit exults in God her Savior, because He chose a poor and small girl for His plan of salvation. Suddenly, Maria sees the whole story through the eyes of this discovery. Nothing has changed around him: the sociopolitical situation of his time remains the same, with the Romans dominating his land and his people divided and humiliated. However, everything has changed within her, and that allows her to see the invisible. God of He has done mighty things with the power of his arm, of He has scattered the proud, he has defeated the powerful, he has elevated the humble, he has filled the hungry with good things, and he has sent the rich away empty-handed. He of He has helped Israel, his servant. God “stands on the side of the last. His project is often hidden under the opaque terrain of human vicissitudes, in which “the proud, the powerful and the rich” triumph. However, his secret strength is expected to be revealed in the end. [222]
244. The Virgin Mary not only teaches us to see the invisible work of God, but also directs our gaze "to the points of fracture of humanity, where the distortion of the world occurs, in the contrast between the humble and the powerful, between the poor and the rich, between the satiated and the hungry", teaching us "to acquire a different point of view to look at the world from below, with the eyes of those who suffer, not with the optics of the powerful; to see history with the eyes of the little ones and not with the perspective of the powerful; to interpret the events of history from the point of view of the widow, the orphan, the stranger, the wounded child, the exile, the fugitive. [223] In this way, the Virgin becomes "poetess and prophetess of redemption", because from her lips flows "the strongest and most innovative hymn that has ever been pronounced, the Magnificat; It is she who reveals the transformative design of the Christian economy, the historical and social result, which even today derives its origin and its strength from Christianity. [224]
245. With the same faith as Mary, let us become weavers of hope in our world, sharing what we are and what we have, so that the presence of Jesus grows among us and his Kingdom takes shape. In the humble fidelity of each day, the time of AI can also be a step in which the Spirit matures the civilization of love in our lives; The Lord continues to make all things new and keeps open for each era the possibility of becoming a history of salvation in the light of the Incarnation. I entrust this wish to the Mother of Christ, to the woman of the Magnificent, so that it may accompany our steps in the changing present and guard in each of us trust in the Gospel, so that we can witness the beauty of a magnificent humanity inhabited by God.
Given in Rome, next to Saint Peter, on May 15, 2026, second of my Pontificate.
LE ONE PP. XIV
January 26, 2022
