eyebeleave

7746 words, 35 minute read.

Magnifica Humanitas both is and isn’t about AI. Or, more precisely, it is also about AI since it is the “new thing” (res nova) of our time that needs to be understood so as to be put at the service of humanity. It is primarily about why humanity (and its home) – both individually and collectively – are to be the the focus, what it looks like when the good of all is put first, and what principles ought to guide us towards such a goal. This is the social doctrine of the Catholic Church that Pope Leo sets out afresh here. It talks about dignity, inclusion, representation, justice and a preference for the poor, marginalised and excluded, and I believe it ought to sit well with most humanists, whether they be Christian or otherwise. 

AI then naturally becomes the focus of the second part since its relationship to the common good needs to be reflected on and understood urgently, as its capabilities and ubiquity accelerate. Pope Leo does an excellent job both of recognising the potential good and warning about the dangers and “armed” use of AI, and he sets out a framework for how AI ought to be developed, used, overseen, and taught. I have found his point about AI not being a neutral technology particularly insightful. Take for example knives: they can be used to slice bread, perform life-saving surgery or stab someone to death. As a technology, they are neutral, and the morality of actions performed with them lies with their actors. AI systems, instead, can come with biases, deliberate skews, discrimination, disinformation, etc. already baked in. You may want to use it for good, but it may – often subtly or wholly imperceptibly – skew your good intentions. Something that a knife cannot do.

I wholeheartedly recommend the 43K-word encyclical in its entirety, and would here just like to share some of my favorite passages.

---

8. The Book of Nehemiah […] opens at a time of great vulnerability in the history of ancient Israel. After the Babylonian exile, a portion of the people returned to Jerusalem, but the city was still in ruins, the walls collapsed and the gates burned (cf. Neh 1–2). Nehemiah, a Jew in the service of the Persian King Artaxerxes, received news of the disastrous state of his ancestral city. Before taking action, he fasted, prayed and interceded for the people. He then asked the king for permission to return to Jerusalem and, upon arriving, examined the destroyed areas in silence.  He did not impose solutions from above. He convened the families, assigned each of them a section of the wall to rebuild, listened to their concerns, coordinated their efforts and addressed any opposition. The narrative shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people all play a part. It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones. Thus, ancient Jerusalem rediscovers a common language — not one of uniformity, but one of communion, namely the harmony that arises when all persons assume their own role and recognize that their strength comes from the Lord.

12. Building for the common good means accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without considering them an error to be corrected. 

13. Thirdly, building a world in which everyone can flourish requires shared responsibility and courage. No one can single-handedly bear the weight of the challenges the world is facing, just as no one is so weak that they cannot play their part, for “power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9). All are given their own section of the wall: scientists and researchers, entrepreneurs and workers, educators and legislators, civil society, popular movements and faith communities. This is the logic of subsidiarity, which values the cooperation between generations, peoples, disciplines and cultures as the best way for fostering stability, prosperity and peace. We should not be intimidated by tensions or differences because they can become creative forces when guided by shared responsibility.

14. [B]uilding for the common good requires an evangelical language. We must avoid humiliating or antagonistic words, opting rather for a clarity that sheds light and a frankness that unlocks new possibilities. We cannot condone naïve enthusiasms, nor fuel unfounded fears. Instead, let us establish standards for discernment — the dignity of the human person, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, care for our common home and peace — and let us translate these standards into practices such as responsible planning, the assessment of human and social impact, the inclusion of the most vulnerable, the promotion of digital literacy and guiding research and industry toward justice and peace.

46. I would like to focus on some of the foundations and principles of the Church’s Social Doctrine that will help us to interpret the “new things” of our time, particularly in view of the inherent dignity of the human person. In order to protect the human person in the age of artificial intelligence, I believe that today we must once again reflect on the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. I am convinced that a harmonious relationship between these principles requires that they be considered collectively, so that it becomes clear how they relate to and complement each other.

49. If the mystery of God as Love is the source of Social Doctrine, we see its most concrete expression in the face of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word. By becoming man, the Son of God enters our history and takes on human flesh, bringing with him the love that unites him to the Father and the Holy Spirit. In him, “the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear” because his humanity is completely free, open to others, capable of building healthy and beautiful relationships and committed to the total gift of self. Those who believe in him are engaged in the great work of renewal that began with the mystery of his passion, death and resurrection, and they cooperate in building up the Kingdom of God, learning to embrace all men and women as brothers and sisters, children of one Father. In this way, both the proclamation of the Gospel and Christian life, guided by the action of the Holy Spirit, tend to bring about social consequences in the world.

51. It is important to ensure that this growth in appreciation of human dignity is not obscured by the pressure of new ideologies or very powerful interests in today’s world. Among these ideologies, I consider particularly insidious the one that suggests that every person must earn or justify his or her own worth, to the point of attributing greater value to those who are more efficient or effective. From this perspective, persons end up being reduced to a means of achieving results, a resource to be used and exploited, and are no longer recognized as a proper end in themselves who should never be instrumentalized. The value of persons, however, does not depend on what they achieve or produce. There are rights that apply to everyone simply by virtue of being human, and no human power can legitimately deny or arbitrarily limit them.

52. When we speak of dignity, we do not always use the word in the same way. Sometimes we refer to moral dignity, namely the way in which a person directs his or her choices and actions. At other times, we think of social dignity, which refers to a person’s living conditions and the concrete respect received from society. In other cases, we refer to existential dignity, meaning the way in which a person perceives his or her own worth and the value of life. These aspects of dignity can be enhanced or diminished. In addition to these notions, there is also the more profound and important level of ontological dignity. This is the dignity that belongs to every human being simply by virtue of existing, of having been willed, created and loved by God. No sin, failure, humiliation or exclusion can diminish the profound value of a human life that God has willed and called into being.

59. Recognizing that every man and woman possesses an inalienable dignity, together with rights that no human power can betray or nullify, requires us to shape the way we live together, including our economic and political choices, and the makeup of our cities. From this arises the first major principle of Social Doctrine that I wish to highlight: the common good. We can describe it as the social expression of the dignity recognized in every person. When Benedict XVI referred to the non-negotiable values that the Church must always defend, he included among them “the promotion of the common good.” For a Christian, going beyond the narrow confines of one’s own interests and committing oneself, within the limits of one’s ability, to the common good is a non-negotiable value, as is the promotion of life.

67. Today, among the goods that are universally intended for everyone, we must also include new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data. In a context where the wealth of nations depends increasingly on knowledge and technology, when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without adequate forms of sharing and access, a new imbalance is created that contradicts the universal destination of goods. In turn, it widens the gap between the included and the excluded, between those who can participate in the digital revolution and those who remain on the margins. Furthermore, care for our common home and our responsibility toward the poor and 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, avoid waste and prevent new forms of exploitation.

68. The principle of subsidiarity stems from the very same understanding of the human person that has guided our reflection on dignity and the common good. If every woman and man is called to take ownership of his or her own life and to contribute to the formation of society, then social institutions must also respect and support this responsibility. The Social Doctrine of the Church refers to subsidiarity as the principle according to which the role of individuals, families, local communities and intermediary organizations should not be supplanted by higher-level authorities. Moreover, higher-level institutions must recognize, protect and promote the freedom and creativity of lower-level entities, coordinating their contributions so that they can cooperate effectively for the common good.

70. This principle encourages us to move beyond any form of paternalistic or welfare-based management of societal life, but instead to promote a culture of shared responsibility in a State that values citizens’ initiative, and a civil society capable of forging bonds and mobilizing energies in the service of the common good. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, decisions are made at the closest level possible to the persons involved, thereby fostering community life and avoiding people being presented with decisions that have already been taken. In this way people can participate in the decision-making process. When families, associations, local communities, volunteer organizations and those in the so-called “third sector” are recognized and supported, social life becomes more accessible to people, services become more attuned to real needs, and solutions are more creative and respectful of the dignity of each person.

71. The principle of subsidiarity applies especially in the context of the digital revolution. Here, the highest level is not the State, but rather major economic and technological actors that exercise de facto power over the conditions of everyday life. This level, which monopolizes expertise, data and decision-making authority, involves companies and platforms that define conditions for access, rules of visibility, forms of interaction, and even economic opportunities. The principle of subsidiarity requires that such processes not be imposed from above in an opaque and unilateral manner, but instead be directed toward the common good with transparency, accountability and meaningful forms of participation (including independent checks, transparency regarding algorithms, equitable access to data and avenues for recourse).

72. In this context, States and transnational institutions are called to ensure fair rules and effective safeguards, so that local communities, intermediary organizations, schools, universities, religious institutions and associations have a voice and can contribute to the discernment of choices that affect people’s daily lives, such as employment, access to services, data management and digital environments. When it comes to decisions regarding economic flows and digital platforms, as well as the governance of data and algorithms, we cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own; instead, we must build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make them jointly responsible for the common good.

73 Solidarity, then, is the concrete recognition that the future of each individual is connected to the future of all; indeed, “no one is saved alone.” The close link between subsidiarity and solidarity thereby becomes evident. When subsidiarity is not linked to solidarity, it ends up becoming merely the protection of particular interests; when solidarity is not supported by subsidiarity, it degenerates into a form of welfare that does not foster responsibility. This interconnectedness also pertains to the responsibility of authentic participation. Solidarity is expressed when each person, both individually and collectively, takes part in the life of the community — by staying informed, engaging with others, making their voice heard and contributing to public decisions and choices — while also assuming real responsibility so that the common good is achieved through shared decision-making.

74. In many areas, we are already experiencing a kind of “ de facto solidarity,” for our lives are intertwined; digital networks connect people and communities across the world in real time, and global economies and communications mean that events in one place have a far-reaching impact. This network of relationships, however, only constitutes solidarity in the fullest sense of the word when it becomes a conscious choice. Faith invites us to see this reality as a call: we are not merely neighbors to one another, but entrusted to each other, so that each of us may take responsibility, as best we can, for the lives and wounds of our brothers and sisters. Solidarity arises precisely when we decide not to remain indifferent to what happens to our neighbor but instead to transform unavoidable bonds — economic, cultural and technological — into paths of sharing, cooperation and mutual care, embracing the idea of “thinking and acting in terms of community.”

77. For the Christian community, social justice is a concrete way of following Jesus and remaining faithful to the Gospel. In the New Testament, Jesus proclaims the “good news to the poor” ( Lk 4:18) and identifies himself with the lowly, the sick, the imprisoned and strangers (cf. Mt 25:31-46). He thus teaches us that justice is born from, and fulfilled in, fraternity, because the way we approach and relate to the least among us becomes, in concrete terms, the measure of our relationship with God and with our brothers and sisters. Justice, however, concerns not only the behavior of individuals, but also the way in which the structures of society are conceived and organized. In this regard, the Second Vatican Council reminds us that every institution is called to serve the human person and his or her dignity. Social justice is, therefore, characterized by the capacity of a social, economic and political order to allow everyone — particularly the weakest — to live a truly dignified life, without leaving anyone behind.

80. In this day and age, social justice must also grapple with the environment shaped by digital technologies. The spread of global networks, platforms and artificial intelligence systems is changing the way we obtain information, communicate and access services. Justice demands that we prevent the emergence of new forms of exclusion and deprivation of freedoms: individuals and peoples hindered or denied access to basic technologies, communities exposed to invasive surveillance and social groups penalized by opaque algorithms that perpetuate prejudice and discrimination. In the digital age, a just social order guarantees everyone equal access to opportunities, protects the youngest and weakest members of society, combats hate and misinformation and subjects the use of data and technology to public oversight, so that the guiding principle is not solely profit but the dignity of every person and the common good of all people.

81. A litmus test for social justice today is the treatment of migrants, refugees and those forced to move due to poverty, violence, climate change and environmental disasters. The way a society treats them reveals whether its sense of justice is driven by fear or by the spirit of fraternity. Pope Francis urged us to see migrants not simply as a problem to be managed, but as a living image of the People of God on the move. They are people with dignity, resources and dreams, who have the right to be treated with respect and to ask to become active members of the societies that welcome them. Social justice in this area entails at least two complementary commitments. On the one hand, this means protecting the rightful hopes of those forced to leave by ensuring safe and legal routes, dignified conditions for receiving them, and genuine pathways to integration. On the other hand, it means promoting the right to remain in one’s homeland in peace and security by addressing the root causes that force people to migrate, including those linked to economic injustices and the climate crisis. When these rights are respected, migration can become an opportunity for encounter and mutual enrichment among peoples.

83 Development is truly human when it places people at the center instead of the accumulation of wealth, and when it concerns peoples as well as individuals. Justice demands the recognition of the rights of society and the rights of peoples, and includes a responsibility toward future generations. Development is not truly human if it increases consumption for some while shifting costs and burdens onto others, or relegates entire regions to subordinate roles, preventing them from realizing their full potential. Development is integral when it is not limited to the economic sphere, but promotes quality of life in its spiritual, cultural, moral and relational dimensions, while respecting our common home, the diversity of peoples and their ways of life.

85. Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral, for they can either foster participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control and exclusion. For this reason, they must be evaluated by asking a crucial question: Do they truly help individuals and peoples to become more humane and fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations?

91. I am convinced that the concrete way of living out social relationships in the light of the Gospel is not established once and for all, but remains a task entrusted, from generation to generation, to the Christian community. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church allows herself to be enlightened by God’s word, reads the signs of the times and creatively seeks new ways for relationships between peoples and nations to become ever more conformed to the demands of the Kingdom of God. For this reason, I encourage all members of the Church not to be afraid of the present challenges, but to listen to one another and firmly embrace their responsibilities in building a more humane and fraternal society.

104. We cannot consider AI to be morally neutral. In reality, every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations. If a system is designed or used in a way that treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes them without the possibility of appeal, then it is not merely a tool “to be used well,” since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the inalienable dignity of the human person. For this reason, ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes; it must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it.

105. For AI to respect human dignity and truly serve the common good, responsibility must be clearly defined at every stage: from those who design and develop these systems to those who use them and rely on them for concrete decisions. In many cases, however, the internal processes leading to a result remain opaque, making it harder to assign responsibility and correct errors. This is where accountability becomes crucial: the possibility of identifying who must “account” for decisions, justify them, monitor them, and, when necessary, challenge them and remedy any harm caused.

108. In fact, as with every major technological shift, AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise and access to data. In light of the common good and the universal destination of goods, this raises serious concerns, since small but highly influential groups can shape information and consumption patterns, influence democratic processes and steer economic dynamics to their own advantage, undermining social justice and solidarity among peoples. For this reason, it is essential that the use of AI, especially when it touches on public goods and fundamental rights, be guided by clear criteria and effective oversight, grounded in participation and subsidiarity. Communities and intermediary organizations must not be reduced to passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere; they must be able to contribute to discernment and oversight. Moreover, ownership of data cannot be left solely in private hands but must be appropriately regulated. Data is the product of many contributors and should not be treated as something to be sold off or entrusted to a select few. It is necessary to think creatively in order to manage data as a common or shared good, in a spirit of participation, as Saint John Paul II already suggested regarding collective goods.

109. The principles of Social Doctrine offer a framework for understanding this new reality. In a world where data, computational resources and regulatory influence remain in the hands of a few, to speak of the common good means exposing this new form of epistemic, economic and political asymmetry and naming the new monopolies of AI. To speak of the universal destination of goods means finding ways of ensuring universal access to both technologies and the education needed to use them. To speak of subsidiarity calls for protecting the ability of communities to make choices and corrections, rather than confining their role to mere oversight after the standards have been set elsewhere. To speak of solidarity obliges us to recognize the hidden, often exploited workers, who sustain algorithmic systems. To speak of justice requires questioning the global distribution of power that decides who in fact can train these models and who is merely subjected to them. Likewise, it means acknowledging that social justice is not only a goal to be safeguarded after technologies are deployed, but a condition that must shape their very design from the outset.

110. Finally, I would like to employ the expression “to disarm,” which is close to my heart. Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of “armed” competition, which today is not limited simply to the military context, but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon. This entails a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire to secure geopolitical or commercial dominance. To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion and debate, therefore making it human-friendly and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life. Our task today is not only ethical or technical. It is ecological in the deepest sense, for it concerns a new dimension of our common home. AI is already an environment in which we are immersed, as well as a force with which we must engage. For this reason, merely regulating it is insufficient; it must be disarmed, welcoming and accessible.

129. Christian humanism does not reject science or technology, but embraces them with gratitude and realism, and grounds them within a higher vocation. The creative intelligence of humanity is a gift that can alleviate suffering and open up new possibilities, but it must remain ordered toward the common good, justice, the care of the vulnerable and creation. In this sense, the true alternative is not between enthusiasm and fear, but between two paths of development: a progress that serves individuals and peoples, or a progress that subjects them to the mentality of power. Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI “make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?” If the answer is yes, then we can recognize it as an opportunity to be embraced responsibly, on a path of patient, shared reconstruction, akin to the rebuilding of Jerusalem narrated in the Book of Nehemiah. If, however, power grows while the heart withers and human bonds fray, then we are faced with a new form of Babel — a construction that is grandiose, yet fundamentally dehumanizing.

131. The digital transformation invites us to rediscover truth as a common good, to protect the dignity of work and to safeguard freedom against all forms of dependence and commercialization.

132. The use of digital platforms and AI systems is driving profound changes in public and political communication. Tools that could foster dialogue and participation are often used to construct distorted narratives and blur the boundaries between truth and falsehood, mixing facts with opinions. Disinformation did not begin with AI, yet today it finds a powerful amplifier in AI. The ability to manipulate content, images and videos exposes people to biased or misleading perspectives. This problem has both cultural and moral dimensions, since the quality of public communication depends directly on social trust and, in turn, shapes it. At the same time, truthful information does not arise from centralized or automated control. In public discourse, the truth of facts has a rational dimension, as it requires verification, cross-checking of sources and responsible argumentation. Moreover, it is deeply relational, built through bonds of trust and shared practices, as well as an honest exchange with others and with the world. Only the shared pursuit of the veracity of facts, perceived as a common good, can provide a solid foundation for just communication.

134. The search for truth is an essential element of democracy, which is itself a means of contributing to the common good. When questions about what is true lose their appeal, and a pragmatism takes hold that is content with what appears useful or effective, then democratic life is weakened. After all, democracy does not consist of rules and procedures alone, but above all of a solid concordance with the facts and a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society as a whole. Indifference to the truth leads, slowly but surely, to a descent into totalitarianism. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote, the ideal subjects of such regimes are not so much those who are ideologically convinced, but rather “people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”

137. Our first task is neither to demonize nor idolize technological tools, but to utilize them on the basis of a fundamental principle, namely that truth is a common good and not the property of those with power or influence.

149. Work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfilment. In this regard, financial assistance to the poor may at times be necessary in emergencies, but it cannot become the sole response, since the goal is to enable each person to live with dignity through his or her own work.

152. It is certainly desirable for technology to relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks and to provide intelligent support for human activity. Yet, the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule. The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good.

153. At the same time, we must acknowledge that every real transition involves discontinuities, for it is uneven, fragmented and sometimes conflictual. Consequently, no single model of change or universal solution exists, since there are places and situations that require different responses. Given the inequality that characterizes our world, the spread of AI and computational systems produces varied effects in different places. Wealthy societies automate rapidly and chaotically, reducing the need for a workforce and creating room for unemployment and institutional friction. Vast regions of the world, by contrast, remain trapped in hybrid economies, where underpaid human labor and partial technologies coexist without achieving genuine transformation. These areas become places of precarious labor, and hotbeds of instability and forced migration. Therefore, solutions must be sought at national and local levels through the involvement of intermediary communities. We need adaptive tools, including well-structured models, local initiatives, progressive redistribution and new rights of access to essential goods. While not pursuing an abstract harmony, we must build concrete forms of human coexistence at this time of transformation.

156. At this time of transition, it is not enough to react only when jobs disappear; we must oversee the transformation in advance. One viable path is, first of all, to establish social criteria for innovation. Here, every introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining and participation of workers. In this way, technology will be oriented toward freeing up human time and capabilities, rather than producing exclusion. Second, we need proactive policies that make continuous training and professional transitions accessible to all, ensuring that the cost of adaptation does not fall solely on individuals. Finally, there needs to be a corporate commitment to include quality and dignity of work among its indicators of success. When these conditions are present, innovation can serve as an ally of safer, more creative and dignified work; without them, innovation tends to become an accelerator of injustice.

161. While the world’s wealth has grown in absolute terms, it is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands, widening inequalities both within and between countries. “There are a few who have too much, and too many who have little, that is the logic of today.” Scientific and technological advances, even in the medical field, are not easily accessible to the vast majority of people, as was dramatically demonstrated during the recent pandemic. While some regions spend heavily on superfluous interventions or dreams of individual enhancement accessible only to a select few, other parts of the world lack the essential equipment needed to save millions of human lives. To think that new technologies will automatically benefit everyone is to ignore the evidence. Unless transformations at the design stage prioritize the prevention of new and further disparities, technological progress will inevitably produce structural inequalities. Today, justice requires access to the benefits of innovation, including care, knowledge, tools and opportunities.

173 A significant part of the digital economy’s functioning relies on the silent work of millions of people engaged in essential yet largely unseen activities, such as data labeling, model training and content moderation, often involving disturbing material. In many cases, these workers are young people, predominantly women, working under demanding conditions for minimal wages. Added to this invisible labor is the even harsher work of extracting the resources required for the production of the devices and microprocessors on which AI depends. In some regions of the world, children and adolescents work in dangerous conditions, crushing the materials from which rare earth elements are extracted. The bodies of these people are scarred, injured and worn down so that computational flow may continue uninterruptedly. Furthermore, criminal networks use online platforms, messaging systems, anonymous payment methods and profiling techniques in order to recruit, control and transport victims of trafficking — very often minors — reducing men and women to “data” to be tracked and “packages” to be moved around 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, nor to celebrate the benefits of innovation, if they are built on a chain of exploitation that remains deliberately hidden. If technology promises emancipation, yet produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity. 

176. In the development of her doctrine, the Church has gradually come to a deeper awareness of the gravity of these issues. It is true that past events cannot be judged anachronistically, as though the moral criteria that matured over time had always been available. Yet neither can we deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce the scourge of slavery. In antiquity and the Middle Ages many individuals and even ecclesiastical institutions had slaves. Already in the early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to requests from Sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, the enslavement of “infidels.” It was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated, notably under Pope Leo XIII. This development offers a clear example of the Church’s growth in understanding the perennial truths of Revelation that she safeguards. Although there was not always consistency in practice — given that slavery was long tolerated before being unequivocally condemned — there has been a continuous affirmation throughout history of the dignity of every human being, created in the image of God, even if it took eighteen centuries for its full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly recognized. This constitutes a wound in Christian memory, one from which we cannot consider ourselves detached. It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord. For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon.

183. The digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict. Alongside conventional warfare, there are hybrid forms such as cyberattacks, information manipulation, campaigns of influence and the automation of strategic decisions. AI acts as an accelerating factor in these processes, particularly within a context where many technologies are intrinsically ambivalent. Consequently, what is created for defense can be rapidly repurposed for offense, and the fine line between protection and aggression becomes blurred. While AI can enhance the defense and protection of civilians, it can also lower the threshold for the use of force, shield people from responsibility and foster a culture in which the enemy is reduced to a statistic and the victim to “collateral damage.” Faced with these transformations, we must recall the principles of Social Doctrine — the dignity of the person, the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and justice — for they are criteria for judging whether technologies truly serve humanity or are subjugating it. We should, therefore, consider these principles as guidelines for our decision-making.

191. We are also witnessing a disconcerting loss of historical memory, as first-hand accounts of the Holocaust and the two World Wars are disappearing. This leads to a selective or distorted rewriting of the past, in a context where fake news and the manipulation of narratives obscure the lessons that have been learned. Without a living memory of the horrors of war, political decisions risk being made on the basis of power alone, without any consideration for the long-term consequences.

192. War is not only fought, but also culturally conditioned through simplistic narratives, a friend-or-foe mentality, disinformation and fear. When historical memory fades and the ethical principles that protect civilians and the most vulnerable are weakened, it becomes easier to justify violence as necessary, inevitable or even “sanitized.” It is in this context that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts. Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.

198. Sometimes there is talk of “artificial moral agents,” as if machines were able to distinguish between right and wrong with greater consistency than a human being. Yet moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the recognition of the other as a person. Therefore, it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems. No algorithm can make war morally acceptable. AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; indeed it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence, transforming defense into threat prediction and thus reducing victims to data. In this way, it will accustom us to the idea that violence is inevitable and needs only to be optimized. This does not diminish the importance of instilling, as far as possible, values and sound judgment into the artificial systems we build, so that they can contribute to a moral ecosystem in which humans are better able to listen to their own consciences, as well as allowing AI models to establish appropriate boundaries.

200. All systems used in a war setting must guarantee the possibility of retracing and reconstructing decision-making processes, so that accountability and blame are not collapsed into “the machine.”

205. At the core of these issues is a false realism, based not only on the prevailing mentality of force, but on the cultural and anthropological belief that war is an inevitable part of human nature. It is said that things have always been this way, except for occasional pauses, and that it will always be so! As a result, the concern is no longer the search for peace — which has been lost as a point of reference on the international stage — but rather how and when to take military action. This same argument maintains that it would be irresponsible not to prepare for conflict. I would argue, however, that what is truly irresponsible is Realpolitik, the form of political “realism” that sows in consciences and in society an attitude of resignation to the inevitability of war, and dismisses peace and dialogue as utopian or irrational positions that ignore the risks at stake. In fact, peace is neither a naïve hope nor merely the absence of war; instead, it is always possible as the fruit of justice and charity.

206. In such a climate, nihilism and pragmatism become intertwined and end up normalizing grave errors. Religious extremism and identity-based fanaticism ally themselves with irrational economic policies, while politics often turns to misinformation and ridiculing opponents, and systematically cultivating fears and resentments. Thus, diversity is increasingly perceived as a threat, which fuels a desire for possession, a will to dominate, hegemonic ambitions, abuses of power and a fear of those who are different, thereby creating an environment in which new conflicts can develop almost imperceptibly.

212. At this point, however, a subtle temptation may emerge, namely the thought that the problems are too big and we are too small, and that our choices, therefore, cannot make a difference. This is a polite form of resignation, often disguised as realism. Certainly, not everyone has the same power to make a difference. There are those who govern, make investment decisions, lead institutions, conduct research, educate, produce or provide information, and then there are those who only seem to live their daily lives. Yet, no one is without responsibility. We all have our own areas for action, and it is precisely there — and nowhere else — that we must choose whether to fuel the mentality of force (even if only through indifference, cynicism, lies or hatred), or to preserve the mindset of peace (with truth, moderation, closeness and care).

213. The twentieth-century Catholic author J.R.R. Tolkien, in the words of a protagonist in one of his novels, described our responsibility in this way: “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.” The civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization.

The need to disarm words

214. The first contribution we can make toward a more humane civilization is to be mindful of our words. “Let us disarm words and we will help to disarm the world.” Words have enormous power, something we experience in our daily interactions; for example, spoken words can change our mood for better or for worse. “Peace begins with each one of us: in the way we look at others, listen to others and speak about others. 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.” We must all, therefore, examine our conscience regarding the words we use, the prejudices we have and the explicit or implicit aggression that lies within them. We have a real opportunity to contribute to the common good each time we speak the truth, offer wise advice, support those in need of comfort, denounce injustice and give a voice to the voiceless.

Building peace through justice

215. All of us, at every level, can contribute to building the foundation of peace, which is justice. We do not merely seek any kind of peace — such as an absence of conflict at any cost — but instead, the true peace born of justice. “There exists a very close connection between the justice of the individual and the peace of everyone.” Commenting on the psalm verse “justice and peace have embraced” ( Ps84:11), Saint Augustine wrote: “There is no one who shuns the desire for peace, yet not everyone is willing to practice justice… But perform the works of justice, keeping in mind that justice and peace have embraced; they are not at odds with one another. Why do you set yourself against justice? Here, for example, is justice telling you not to steal, but you pay no heed; not to commit adultery, and you turn a deaf ear; not to do to others what you would not want done to yourself; not to say about your neighbor the things you would not want said about yourself… Do you therefore wish to attain peace? Then practice justice!” Let us never grow weary of seeking justice!

Adopting the perspective of victims

216. There are times when, in order to remain human, we must set aside our reservations and take a stand. In some conflicts, it is unjust to remain neutral, nor is it enough merely to claim that we are not complicit. When we witness the bombing of civilians, attacks on hospitals, schools or vital infrastructure, and violence that affects children, we are confronted with scandals that wound humanity itself. For this reason, we cannot limit ourselves to the level of abstract analysis. Pope Francis encouraged us to “touch the wounded flesh” of those who suffer, look at their faces, listen to their stories and acknowledge their wounds. Painful events require both history and memory, the former to recount the facts, the latter to bear witness to lived experiences.

217. Giving space to the perspectives and voices of victims through communication and education helps us to become aware of the abyss of evil inherent in war, and generally in all forms of violence. It helps us to reject the normalization of conflict; not to turn away when human dignity is violated; and to restore to victims the dignity of being recognized and heard. Paying attention to these voices strengthens the conviction that, apart from violent minorities, humanity does not desire war. In a particular way, the Church can be a place of living memory for victims. As Saint Paul VI recalled, the Church feels she must make her own both the voice of those who died in past wars and the voice of the living who still bear wounds today, so that their cries may become an appeal for peace and harmony and not a prelude to new conflicts.

Cultivating a healthy realism

218. We are in need of a healthy realism that avoids both political idealism and cynicism. There is a kind of idealism that, in order to preserve its own worldview, tends to choose facts selectively, distorting and renaming them. Its proponents eventually, inhabit a reality constructed to fit their own convictions. Conversely, there is also a debased form of realism that confuses observation with resignation, arguing that since force prevails, it will always prevail. Authentic realism does not give up on changing the world; indeed, it starts by clearly identifying interests, fears, constraints and power dynamics, precisely in order to determine what can be achieved, and the measures needed to achieve it. It does not reduce politics to morality; neither does it surrender to violence. Instead, it seeks viable paths for making peace more than a mere word, through credible institutions, verifiable guarantees, patient negotiations, conflict prevention and the protection of civilians.

2584 words, 14 minute read.

Today Pope Leo’s first apostolic exhortation, Dilexi te, was published. It addresses the centrality of love for the poor and is the work of four hands. The text was started by Pope Francis and completed by Pope Leo. As usual, I wholeheartedly recommend reading its 21K words in full. If you are in a hurry, or would like to have a first sense of it through my favorite passages, you can find their 2.5K words here:

---

3. [I]n continuity with the Encyclical Dilexit Nos, Pope Francis was preparing in the last months of his life an Apostolic Exhortation on the Church’s care for the poor, to which he gave the title Dilexi Te, as if Christ speaks those words to each of them, saying: “You have but little power,” yet “I have loved you” ( Rev 3:9). I am happy to make this document my own — adding some reflections — and to issue it at the beginning of my own pontificate, since I share the desire of my beloved predecessor that all Christians come to appreciate the close connection between Christ’s love and his summons to care for the poor. I too consider it essential to insist on this path to holiness, for “in this call to recognize him in the poor and the suffering, we see revealed the very heart of Christ, his deepest feelings and choices, which every saint seeks to imitate.”

4. Jesus’ disciples criticized the woman who poured costly perfumed oil on his head. They said: “Why this waste? For this ointment could have been sold for a large sum, and the money given to the poor.” However, the Lord said to them in response: “You always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me” (Mt 26:8-9,11). That woman saw in Jesus the lowly and suffering Messiah on whom she could pour out all her love. What comfort that anointing must have brought to the very head that within a few days would be pierced by thorns! It was a small gesture, of course, but those who suffer know how great even a small gesture of affection can be, and how much relief it can bring. Jesus understood this and told the disciples that the memory of her gesture would endure: “Wherever this good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her” (Mt 26:13). The simplicity of that woman’s gesture speaks volumes. No sign of affection, even the smallest, will ever be forgotten, especially if it is shown to those who are suffering, lonely or in need, as was the Lord at that time.

5. Love for the Lord, then, is one with love for the poor. The same Jesus who tells us, “The poor you will always have with you” (Mt 26:11), also promises the disciples: “I am with you always” (Mt 28:20). We likewise think of his saying: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). This is not a matter of mere human kindness but a revelation: contact with those who are lowly and powerless is a fundamental way of encountering the Lord of history. In the poor, he continues to speak to us.

9. [T]here are many forms of poverty: the poverty of those who lack material means of subsistence, the poverty of those who are socially marginalized and lack the means to give voice to their dignity and abilities, moral and spiritual poverty, cultural poverty, the poverty of those who find themselves in a condition of personal or social weakness or fragility, the poverty of those who have no rights, no space, no freedom.

16. God is merciful love, and his plan of love, which unfolds and is fulfilled in history, is above all his descent and coming among us to free us from slavery, fear, sin and the power of death. Addressing their human condition with a merciful gaze and a heart full of love, he turned to his creatures and thus took care of their poverty. Precisely in order to share the limitations and fragility of our human nature, he himself became poor and was born in the flesh like us. We came to know him in the smallness of a child laid in a manger and in the extreme humiliation of the cross, where he shared our radical poverty, which is death. It is easy to understand, then, why we can also speak theologically of a preferential option on the part of God for the poor, an expression that arose in the context of the Latin American continent and in particular in the Puebla Assembly, but which has been well integrated into subsequent teachings of the Church. This “preference” never indicates exclusivity or discrimination towards other groups, which would be impossible for God. It is meant to emphasize God’s actions, which are moved by compassion toward the poverty and weakness of all humanity. Wanting to inaugurate a kingdom of justice, fraternity and solidarity, God has a special place in his heart for those who are discriminated against and oppressed, and he asks us, his Church, to make a decisive and radical choice in favor of the weakest.

20. There are some clues about Jesus’ social status. First of all, he worked as a craftsman or carpenter, téktōn (cf. Mk 6:3). These were people who earned their living by manual labor. Not owning land, they were considered inferior to farmers. When the baby Jesus was presented in the Temple by Joseph and Mary, his parents offered a pair of turtledoves or pigeons (cf. Lk 2:22-24), which according to the prescriptions of the Book of Leviticus (cf. 12:8) was the offering of the poor. A fairly significant episode in the Gospel tells us how Jesus, together with his disciples, gathered heads of grain to eat as they passed through the fields (cf. Mk 2:23-28). Only the poor were allowed to do this gleaning in the fields. Moreover, Jesus says of himself: “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20; Lk 9:58). He is, in fact, an itinerant teacher, whose poverty and precariousness are signs of his bond with the Father. They are also conditions for those who wish to follow him on the path of discipleship. In this way, the renunciation of goods, riches and worldly securities becomes a visible sign of entrusting oneself to God and his providence.

41. Among the Eastern Fathers, perhaps the most ardent preacher on social justice was Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople from the late 300s to the early 400s. In his homilies, he exhorted the faithful to recognize Christ in the needy: “Do you wish to honor the body of Christ? Do not allow it to be despised in its members, that is, in the poor, who have no clothes to cover themselves. Do not honor Christ’s body here in church with silk fabrics, while outside you neglect it when it suffers from cold and nakedness… [The body of Christ on the altar] does not need cloaks, but pure souls; while the one outside needs much care. Let us therefore learn to think of and honor Christ as he wishes. For the most pleasing honor we can give to the one we want to venerate is that of doing what he himself desires, not what we devise… So you too, give him the honor he has commanded, and let the poor benefit from your riches. God does not need golden vessels, but golden souls.” Affirming with crystal clarity that, if the faithful do not encounter Christ in the poor who stand at the door, they will not be able to worship him even at the altar, he continues: “What advantage does Christ gain if the sacrificial table is laden with golden vessels, while he himself dies of hunger in the person of the poor? Feed the hungry first, and only afterward adorn the altar with what remains.” He understood the Eucharist, therefore, as a sacramental expression of the charity and justice that both preceded and accompanied it. That same charity and justice should perpetuate the Eucharist through love and attention to the poor.

75. The Church’s tradition of working for and with migrants continues, and today this service is expressed in initiatives such as refugee reception centers, border missions and the efforts of Caritas Internationalis and other institutions.  […] The Church, like a mother, accompanies those who are walking. Where the world sees threats, she sees children; where walls are built, she builds bridges. She knows that her proclamation of the Gospel is credible only when it is translated into gestures of closeness and welcome. And she knows that in every rejected migrant, it is Christ himself who knocks at the door of the community.

91. Charity has the power to change reality; it is a genuine force for change in history. It is the source that must inspire and guide every effort to “resolve the structural causes of poverty,” and to do so with urgency. It is my hope that we will see more and more “politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots — and not simply the appearances — of the evils in our world.” For “it is a matter of hearing the cry of entire peoples, the poorest peoples of the earth.”

92. We must continue, then, to denounce the “dictatorship of an economy that kills,” and to recognize that “while the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies that defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is being born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules.” There is no shortage of theories attempting to justify the present state of affairs or to explain that economic thinking requires us to wait for invisible market forces to resolve everything. Nevertheless, the dignity of every human person must be respected today, not tomorrow, and the extreme poverty of all those to whom this dignity is denied should constantly weigh upon our consciences.

97. All the members of the People of God have a duty to make their voices heard, albeit in different ways, in order to point out and denounce such structural issues, even at the cost of appearing foolish or naïve. Unjust structures need to be recognized and eradicated by the force of good, by changing mindsets but also, with the help of science and technology, by developing effective policies for societal change. It must never be forgotten that the Gospel message has to do not only with an individual’s personal relationship with the Lord, but also with something greater: “the Kingdom of God (cf. Lk 4:43); it is about loving God who reigns in our world. To the extent that he reigns within us, the life of society will be a setting for universal fraternity, justice, peace and dignity. Both Christian preaching and life, then, are meant to have an impact on society. We are seeking God’s Kingdom.”

104. No Christian can regard the poor simply as a societal problem; they are part of our “family.” They are “one of us.” Nor can our relationship to the poor be reduced to merely another ecclesial activity or function. In the words of the Aparecida Document, “we are asked to devote time to the poor, to give them loving attention, to listen to them with interest, to stand by them in difficult moments, choosing to spend hours, weeks or years of our lives with them, and striving to transform their situations, starting from them. We cannot forget that this is what Jesus himself proposed in his actions and by his words.”

115. I would like to close by saying something about almsgiving, which nowadays is not looked upon favorably even among believers. Not only is it rarely practiced, but it is even at times disparaged. Let me state once again that the most important way to help the disadvantaged is to assist them in finding a good job, so that they can lead a more dignified life by developing their abilities and contributing their fair share. In this sense, “lack of work means far more than simply not having a steady source of income. Work is also this, but it is much, much more. By working we become a fuller person, our humanity flourishes, young people become adults only by working. The Church’s social doctrine has always seen human work as a participation in God’s work of creation that continues every day, also thanks to the hands, mind and heart of the workers.” On the other hand, where this is not possible, we cannot risk abandoning others to the fate of lacking the necessities for a dignified life. Consequently, almsgiving remains, for the time being, a necessary means of contact, encounter and empathy with those less fortunate.

116. Those inspired by true charity know full well that almsgiving does not absolve the competent authorities of their responsibilities, eliminate the duty of government institutions to care for the poor, or detract from rightful efforts to ensure justice. Almsgiving at least offers us a chance to halt before the poor, to look into their eyes, to touch them and to share something of ourselves with them. In any event, almsgiving, however modest, brings a touch of pietas into a society otherwise marked by the frenetic pursuit of personal gain. In the words of the Book of Proverbs: “Those who are generous are blessed, for they share their bread with the poor” (22:9).

119. Our love and our deepest convictions need to be continually cultivated, and we do so through our concrete actions. Remaining in the realm of ideas and theories, while failing to give them expression through frequent and practical acts of charity, will eventually cause even our most cherished hopes and aspirations to weaken and fade away. For this very reason, we Christians must not abandon almsgiving. It can be done in different ways, and surely more effectively, but it must continue to be done. It is always better at least to do something rather than nothing. Whatever form it may take, almsgiving will touch and soften our hardened hearts. It will not solve the problem of world poverty, yet it must still be carried out, with intelligence, diligence and social responsibility. For our part, we need to give alms as a way of reaching out and touching the suffering flesh of the poor.

120. Christian love breaks down every barrier, brings close those who were distant, unites strangers, and reconciles enemies. It spans chasms that are humanly impossible to bridge, and it penetrates to the most hidden crevices of society. By its very nature, Christian love is prophetic: it works miracles and knows no limits. It makes what was apparently impossible happen. Love is above all a way of looking at life and a way of living it. A Church that sets no limits to love, that knows no enemies to fight but only men and women to love, is the Church that the world needs today.

1681 words, 9 minute read.

Continuing with my reading of Pope Leo’s homilies and speeches, I would here like to share my favorite passages from the last week or so. To my mind they continue to demonstrate a close alignment with Pope Francis’ vision of a Church that embraces intimacy with Jesus and closeness to the world as it is today. What is also emerging ever more clearly is a sense of careful, deep thinking, coupled with boldness and an emphasis on friendship and peace.

Let’s start by taking a look at Pope Leo’s first General Audience on 28th May during which he spoke beautifully about the Good Samaritan, emphasizing the compassionate, human help that he offered the wounded man:

“[L]ife is made up of encounters, and in these encounters, we emerge for what we are. We find ourselves in front of others, faced with their fragility and weakness, and we can decide what to do: to take care of them or pretend nothing is wrong. […] 

It is indeed haste, so present in our lives, that very often prevents us from feeling compassion. Those who think that their own journey must take precedence are not willing to stop for another.

But here comes someone who is actually able to stop: he is a Samaritan, hence a person belonging to a despised people (cf. 2 Kings 17). In his case, the text does not specify the direction, but only says that he was travelling. Religiosity does not enter into this. This Samaritan simply stops because he is a man faced with another man in need of help.

[… I]f you want to help someone, you cannot think of keeping your distance, you have to get involved, get dirty, perhaps be contaminated. […]

Dear brothers and sisters, when will we too be capable of interrupting our journey and having compassion? When we understand that the wounded man in the street represents each one of us. And then the memory of all the times that Jesus stopped to take care of us will make us more capable of compassion.”

A couple of days later, Pope Leo then gave some powerful advice to candidates for the priesthood before ordaining them. Even though they are addressed at future priests, the call to step out of ourselves, to make space for others and to not possessing others applies to everyone:

“To belong to God – to be servants of God, the people of God – ties us to the earth: not to an ideal world, but to the real one. Like Jesus, it is flesh-and-blood people whom the Father places along your path. To them, consecrate yourselves, without separating from them, without isolating yourselves, without turning the gift you have received into a kind of privilege. Pope Francis has warned us many times about this, because self-referentiality extinguishes the fire of the missionary spirit.

The Church is by its very nature outward-looking, just as outward-looking are the life, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In every Eucharist, you will make His words your own: it is ‘for you and for all.’ No one has ever seen God. He turned to us, He went out of Himself. The Son became His exegesis, His living narrative. And He gave us the power to become children of God. Let us not seek – let us not desire – any other power!

[…]

Paul passes on to them the secret of every mission: ‘The Holy Spirit has made you guardians’ (Acts 20:28). Not masters, but guardians. The mission belongs to Jesus. He is Risen, therefore He is alive and goes before us. None of us is called to replace Him. The day of the Ascension teaches us to recognize His invisible presence. He trusts us, He makes room for us; He even went so far as to say: ‘It is better for you that I go’ (John 16:7). We bishops, dear ordinands, by involving you in the mission today, are also making room for you. And you, in turn, make room for the faithful and for every creature, to whom the Risen One is close and in whom He loves to visit us and surprise us. The people of God are more numerous than what we can see. Let us not set boundaries on them.”

[…]

‘For the love of Christ urges us on,’ dear brothers and sisters! It is a possession that sets us free and enables us not to possess anyone. To liberate, not to possess. We belong to God: there is no greater wealth to treasure and to share. It is the only wealth that multiplies when shared. We want to bring it together into the world that God so loved that He gave His only Son (cf. John 3:16).”

Yesterday, Pope Leo then shared a clear picture of what Jesus means by speaking about unity in John 17:20 – a unity that does not homogenize, but that draws us into the inner life of God, who loves “loves us as he loves himself”:

Christ prays that we may “all be one” (v. 21). This is the greatest good that we can desire, for this universal union brings about among his creatures the eternal communion of love that is God himself: the Father who gives life, the Son who receives it and the Spirit who shares it.

The Lord does not want us, in this unity, to be a nameless and faceless crowd. He wants us to be one: “As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us” (v. 21). The unity for which Jesus prays is thus a communion grounded in the same love with which God loves, which brings life and salvation into the world. As such, it is firstly a gift that Jesus comes to bring. From his human heart, the Son of God prays to the Father in these words: “I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (v. 23).

Let us listen with amazement to these words. Jesus is telling us that God loves us as he loves himself. The Father does not love us any less than he loves his only-begotten Son. In other words, with an infinite love. God does not love less, because he loves first, from the very beginning! Christ himself bears witness to this when he says to the Father: “You loved me before the foundation of the world” (v. 24). And so it is: in his mercy, God has always desired to draw all people to himself. It is his life, bestowed upon us in Christ, that makes us one, uniting us with one another.

Today he then addressed the following words to the participants of a seminar organized by the Dicastery for the Laity, the Family and Life that is suffuses by the spirit of Amoris Lætitia:

What great need there is to promote an encounter with God, whose tender love values and loves the story of every person! It is not a matter of giving hasty answers to difficult questions, but of drawing close to people, listening to them, and trying to understand together with them how to face their difficulties. And this requires a readiness to be open, when necessary, to new ways of seeing things and different ways of acting, for each generation is different and has its own challenges, dreams and questions. Yet amid all these changes, Jesus Christ remains “the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb 13:8). Consequently, if we want to help families experience joyful paths of communion and be seeds of faith for one another, we must first cultivate and renew our own identity as believers.

Finally, Pope Leo also spoke during a commemoration of Blessed Iuliu Hossu, a Romanian bishop who saved the lives of many Jews during the Nazi persecution and who was later himself persecuted by the Communists:

We are meeting today […] to commemorate an Apostle of Hope: Blessed Iuliu Hossu, the Greek-Catholic Bishop of Cluj-Gherla and a martyr for the faith during the Communist persecution in Romania.  Today, in a certain sense, he enters [the Sistine] Chapel, having been created a Cardinal in pectore by Saint Paul VI on 28 April 1969, while imprisoned for his fidelity to the Church of Rome.

[…]

At enormous risk to himself and to the Greek-Catholic Church, Blessed Hossu undertook extensive activities on behalf of the Jews aimed at preventing their deportation.  In the spring of 1944, as preparations were being made in Cluj-Napoca (in Hungarian Kolozsvár) and other cities in Transylvania, to establish ghettos for the Jews, he mobilized the Greek-Catholic clergy and faithful through a pastoral letter published on 2 April 1944.  […]  In that letter, he launched a vibrant and deeply human appeal.  “Our plea”, he wrote, “is addressed to all of you, venerable brothers and beloved children, to help the Jews not only with your thoughts, but also with your sacrifice, knowing that there is no act more noble to be carried out today than providing Christian and Romanian assistance, born of ardent human charity.  Our first concern in the present moment must be this work of relief.”  According to the personal testimony of [Moshe Carmilly-Weinberger,] the former Chief Rabbi [of the Jewish community of Cluj-Napoca], Cardinal Hossu helped save the lives of thousands of Jews in northern Transylvania between 1940 and 1944.

[…]

[H]e was beatified by Pope Francis on 2 June 2019 in Blaj.  In the homily on that occasion, the Pope quoted a phrase of the Cardinal that summed up his entire life: “God has sent us into this darkness of suffering in order to offer forgiveness and to pray for the conversion of all.”

These words embody the spirit of the martyrs: an unshakeable faith in God, devoid of hatred and coupled with a spirit of mercy that turns suffering into love for one’s persecutor.  Even now, those words remain as a prophetic invitation to overcome hatred through forgiveness and to live one’s faith with dignity and courage.

2246 words, 12 minute read.

Over the last two weeks I have continued to closely follow the words of Pope Leo XIV, with the desire to understand the way he looks at the challenges of the world and the Church today. With every address and homily I hear, I am getting a stronger sense of someone who thinks carefully and deeply, someone who is well informed about a breadth of topics and deeply rooted in the Gospel and in St. Augustine, and someone who lives a joyous and close relationship with Jesus that he desires to share with all. To show you what is leading me to these conclusions, I have picked out some of my favorite passages from these last 10 days of Pope Leo’s talks, plus a bonus from an interview with Fr. Bob from 2012 that I particularly enjoyed.

Let’s start with Pope Leo’s explanation of what doctrine means and how it relates to science, knowledge and dialogue that he gave during an audience with members of the “Centesimus Annus Pro Pontifice” foundation:

For many of our contemporaries, the words “dialogue” and “doctrine” can seem incompatible.  Perhaps when we hear the word “doctrine,” we tend to think of a set of ideas belonging to a religion.  The word itself makes us feel less disposed to reflect, call things into question or seek new alternatives.

In the case of the Church’s social doctrine, we need to make clear that the word “doctrine” has another, more positive meaning, without which dialogue itself would be meaningless.  “Doctrine” can be a synonym of “science,” “discipline” and “knowledge.”  Understood in this way, doctrine appears as the product of research, and hence of hypotheses, discussions, progress and setbacks, all aimed at conveying a reliable, organized and systematic body of knowledge about a given issue. Consequently, a doctrine is not the same as an opinion, but is rather a common, collective and even multidisciplinary pursuit of truth.

“Indoctrination” is immoral.  It stifles critical judgement and undermines the sacred freedom of respect for conscience, even if erroneous.  It resists new notions and rejects movement, change or the evolution of ideas in the face of new problems.  “Doctrine,” on the other hand, as a serious, serene and rigorous discourse, aims to teach us primarily how to approach problems and, even more importantly, how to approach people.  It also helps us to make prudential judgements when confronted with challenges.  Seriousness, rigour and serenity are what we must learn from every doctrine, including the Church’s social doctrine.

He then goes on to extoll the virtues of critical thinking, which is needed to counter the many sources of disinformation and intellectual distortion that act on us today, and call for recognizing the value of the words of the poor and marginalized:

In the context of the ongoing digital revolution, we must rediscover, emphasize and cultivate our duty to train others in critical thinking, countering temptations to the contrary, which can also be found in ecclesial circles.  There is so little dialogue around us; shouting often replaces it, not infrequently in the form of fake news and irrational arguments proposed by a few loud voices.  Deeper reflection and study are essential, as well as a commitment to encounter and listen to the poor, who are a treasure for the Church and for humanity.  Their viewpoints, though often disregarded, are vital if we are to see the world through God’s eyes.  Those born and raised far from the centers of power should not merely be taught the Church’s social doctrine; they should also be recognized as carrying it forward and putting it into practice.  Individuals committed to the betterment of society, popular movements and the various Catholic workers’ groups are an expression of those existential peripheries where hope endures and springs anew.  I urge you to let the voice of the poor be heard.

During his inaugural mass on 18th May, Pope Leo then professes his own unworthiness and highlights the pillars of his mission: “I was chosen, without any merit of my own, and now, with fear and trembling, I come to you as a brother, who desires to be the servant of your faith and your joy, walking with you on the path of God’s love, for he wants us all to be united in one family.” Faith, joy, love, unity.

Next, he sets out his vision of who St. Peter, whom he now succeeds, was and how his ministry is to be exercised, leading to a beautifully broad and fundamental definition of the Church in St. Augustine’s words:

Peter is thus entrusted with the task of “loving more” and giving his life for the flock.  The ministry of Peter is distinguished precisely by this self-sacrificing love, because the Church of Rome presides in charity and its true authority is the charity of Christ.  It is never a question of capturing others by force, by religious propaganda or by means of power.  Instead, it is always and only a question of loving as Jesus did.

The Apostle Peter himself tells us that Jesus “is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, and has become the cornerstone” (Acts 4:11).  Moreover, if the rock is Christ, Peter must shepherd the flock without ever yielding to the temptation to be an autocrat, lording it over those entrusted to him (cf. 1 Pet 5:3).  On the contrary, he is called to serve the faith of his brothers and sisters, and to walk alongside them, for all of us are “living stones” (1 Pet 2:5), called through our baptism to build God’s house in fraternal communion, in the harmony of the Spirit, in the coexistence of diversity.  In the words of Saint Augustine: “The Church consists of all those who are in harmony with their brothers and sisters and who love their neighbour” (Serm. 359,9).

Pope Leo then calls for a mission that subsumes diversity in God’s love:

This is the missionary spirit that must animate us; not closing ourselves off in our small groups, nor feeling superior to the world.  We are called to offer God’s love to everyone, in order to achieve that unity which does not cancel out differences but values the personal history of each person and the social and religious culture of every people.

On the next day, 19th May, Pope Leo then addressed representatives of various Churches, Ecclesial Communities and other religions. He started with a clear and strong statement of his commitment to full communion among Christians:

While we are on the journey to re-establishing full communion among all Christians, we recognise that this unity can only be unity in faith.  As Bishop of Rome, I consider one of my priorities to be that of seeking the re-establishment of full and visible communion among all those who profess the same faith in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. [… O]ur communion is realised to the extent that we meet in the Lord Jesus.  The more faithful and obedient we are to him, the more united we are among ourselves.  We Christians, then, are all called to pray and work together to reach this goal, step by step, which is and remains the work of the Holy Spirit.

To conclude, Pope Leo emphasised our shared values and fraternity:

In a world wounded by violence and conflict, each of the communities represented here brings its own contribution of wisdom, compassion and commitment to the good of humanity and the preservation of our common home.  I am convinced that if we are in agreement, and free from ideological and political conditioning, we can be effective in saying “no” to war and “yes” to peace, “no” to the arms race and “yes” to disarmament, “no” to an economy that impoverishes peoples and the Earth and “yes” to integral development.

Dear friends, thank you again for your closeness.  Let us ask for God’s blessing in our hearts: may his infinite goodness and wisdom help us to live as his children and as brothers and sisters to each other, so that hope may grow in the world. 

During his first General Audience on 21st May, he provides an exegesis of the parable of the sower, underlining his surprising wastefulness:

We are used to calculating things – and at times it is necessary – but this does not apply in love! The way in which this “wasteful” sower throws the seed is an image of the way God loves us. Indeed, it is true that the destiny of the seed depends also on the way in which the earth welcomes it and the situation in which it finds itself, but first and foremost in this parable Jesus tells us that God throws the seed of his Word on all kinds of soil, that is, in any situation of ours: at times we are more superficial and distracted, at times we let ourselves get carried away by enthusiasm, sometimes we are burdened by life’s worries, but there are also times when we are willing and welcoming. God is confident and hopes that sooner or later the seed will blossom. This is how he loves us: he does not wait for us to become the best soil, but he always generously gives us his word. Perhaps by seeing that he trusts us, the desire to be better soil will be kindled in us. This is hope, founded on the rock of God’s generosity and mercy.

In telling the way in which the seed bears fruit, Jesus is also talking about his life. Jesus is the Word, he is the Seed. And the seed, to bear fruit, must die. Thus, this parable tells us that God is ready to “waste away” for us and that Jesus is willing to die in order to transform our life.

Yesterday, Pope Leo then spoke beautifully about how the Gospel offers an response to the anxiety of feeling inadequate, the anxiety of imposter syndrome:

[I]n both our daily lives and our journey of faith, there are times when we feel inadequate.

On the eve of the Master’s death, the Apostles, in their bewilderment and distress, wondered how they were to continue to bear witness to the kingdom of God. Jesus then spoke to them of the gift of the Holy Spirit. He made this wonderful promise: “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them” (v. 23).

In this way, Jesus freed the disciples from their anxiety, telling them: “Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid” (v. 27). For if we remain in his love, he comes to dwell in us and our life will become a temple of God. His love enlightens us, influences the way we think and act, spreads outwards to others and embraces every situation in our lives. […]

It is wonderful to think that […] each of us can say with confidence: “Despite my weakness, the Lord is not ashamed of my humanity. Instead, he comes to dwell within me. He accompanies me with his Spirit; he enlightens me and makes me an instrument of his love for others, for society and for the world.”

Dear friends, on the basis of that promise, let us walk in the joy born of faith, in order to become a holy temple of the Lord. Let us resolve to bring his love everywhere, never forgetting that each of our sisters and brothers is a dwelling place of God and that his presence is manifested above all in the little ones, in the poor and the suffering, who ask us to be thoughtful and compassionate Christians.

Finally, I would like to go back to an interview that then–Father Robert Prevost gave in 2012 when he attended the Synod of Bishops on the New Evangelization as prior general of the Augustinians. It is an extensive and wide-ranging interview that I recommend in full and from which I would just like to pick out one passage in which he calls to critical thinking in the face of the distortions acting on us through a variety of media:

How do we teach people to become critical thinkers? How do we teach people to understand that not everything you hear or everything you read should be taken at face value? And how do we come to give people the formation that they need to read something or to hear something and to be able to discern, if you will, to understand that underlying the message that’s being communicated is a very different message or a very subtle message that has severe consequences for the future of society, let’s say, that can or cannot be understood as a part of a much bigger picture, if you will.

I began reflecting on this topic myself because of having lived outside the United States now for a number of years, and then when I would go back to the United States and perhaps just watch a TV show at random or visiting friends or relatives, seeing the change that has taken place in the kinds of content that are in sitcoms, that are spoken about on your regular TV programs, even on news shows, the kinds of messages that seem to be portrayed, and the slant that is taken at times in whichever direction, the kinds of even polemical argumentation that is presented on TV in the United States.

1343 words, 7 minute read.

To get a closer sense of Pope Leo XIV, I have been following his various activities over the last days and would here like to share some highlights from his homilies and speeches.

First, on Sunday 11th May he said a private mass at the tomb of St. Peter, from which Vatican press office shared the text of his homily, which concludes with the following call to humble listening:

“How important it is to listen! Jesus says: ‘My sheep listen to my voice.’ And I think it’s important that all of us learn more and more to listen, in order to enter into dialogue. First of all with the Lord: always listening to the Word of God. Then also listening to others, knowing how to build bridges, knowing how to listen so as not to judge, not to close doors thinking that we possess the whole truth and no one else can tell us anything. It is very important to listen to the voice of the Lord, to listen to one another in this dialogue, and to see where the Lord is calling us.”

On Monday, Pope Leo then addressed the media, present in Rome to cover the conclave and his election. There he first underlined a close link between peace and communication and the choices that it implies:

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus proclaimed: “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Mt 5:9). This is a Beatitude that challenges all of us, but it is particularly relevant to you, calling each one of you to strive for a different kind of communication, one that does not seek consensus at all costs, does not use aggressive words, does not follow the culture of competition and never separates the search for truth from the love with which we must humbly seek it. Peace begins with each one of us: in the way we look at others, listen to others and speak about others. 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.

Then he declared unequivocal support for imprisoned journalists and asked for their release:

Let me, therefore, reiterate today the Church’s solidarity with journalists who are imprisoned for seeking to report the truth, and with these words I also ask for the release of these imprisoned journalists. The Church recognises in these witnesses – I am thinking of those who report on war even at the cost of their lives – the courage of those who defend dignity, justice and the right of people to be informed, because only informed individuals can make free choices. The suffering of these imprisoned journalists challenges the conscience of nations and the international community, calling on all of us to safeguard the precious gift of free speech and of the press. […] Saint Augustine reminds of this when he said, “Let us live well and the times will be good. We are the times” (Discourse 80.8).

Pope Leo then emphasised that communication is not a neutral transmission of facts, but that how it is done creates culture. He also returned to the challenges of AI, which presents opportunities but also calls for responsibility and discernment:

Today, one of the most important challenges is to promote communication that can bring us out of the “Tower of Babel” in which we sometimes find ourselves, out of the confusion of loveless languages that are often ideological or partisan. Therefore, your service, with the words you use and the style you adopt, is crucial. As you know, communication is not only the transmission of information, but it is also the creation of a culture, of human and digital environments that become spaces for dialogue and discussion. In looking at how technology is developing, this mission becomes ever more necessary. I am thinking in particular of artificial intelligence, with its immense potential, which nevertheless requires responsibility and discernment in order to ensure that it can be used for the good of all, so that it can benefit all of humanity. This responsibility concerns everyone in proportion to his or her age and role in society.

Finally, he called for a “disarmed and disarming” communication that gives a voice to the voiceless:

We do not need loud, forceful communication, but rather communication that is capable of listening and of gathering the voices of the weak who have no voice. Let us disarm words and we will help to disarm the world. Disarmed and disarming communication allows us to share a different view of the world and to act in a manner consistent with our human dignity.

This morning Pope Leo then addressed representatives of Eastern Churches, present in Rome for the Jubilee. After expressing his profound appreciation for them and the gift that they are for the whole Church, he went on to connect their suffering to a universal desire for peace:

Who, better than you, can sing a song of hope even amid the abyss of violence?  Who, better than you, who have experienced the horrors of war so closely that Pope Francis referred to you as “martyr Churches” (Address to ROACO, ibid.)?  From the Holy Land to Ukraine, from Lebanon to Syria, from the Middle East to Tigray and the Caucasus, how much violence do we see!  Rising up from this horror, from the slaughter of so many young people, which ought to provoke outrage because lives are being sacrificed in the name of military conquest, there resounds an appeal: the appeal not so much of the Pope, but of Christ himself, who repeats: “Peace be with you!” (Jn 20:19, 21, 26).  And he adds: “Peace I leave you; my peace I give to you.  I do not give it to you as the world gives it” (Jn 14:27).  Christ’s peace is not the sepulchral silence that reigns after conflict; it is not the fruit of oppression, but rather a gift that is meant for all, a gift that brings new life.  Let us pray for this peace, which is reconciliation, forgiveness, and the courage to turn the page and start anew.

From there Pope Leo expanded his call for peace and decried the futility of war, also connecting it with negating the anti-immigrant trope repeated ad nauseam by Trump and MAGA that identifies foreigners with crime:

For my part, I will make every effort so that this peace may prevail.  The Holy See is always ready to help bring enemies together, face to face, to talk to one another, so that peoples everywhere may once more find hope and recover the dignity they deserve, the dignity of peace.  The peoples of our world desire peace, and to their leaders I appeal with all my heart:  Let us meet, let us talk, let us negotiate!  War is never inevitable.  Weapons can and must be silenced, for they do not resolve problems but only increase them.  Those who make history are the peacemakers, not those who sow seeds of suffering.  Our neighbours are not first our enemies, but our fellow human beings; not criminals to be hated, but other men and women with whom we can speak.  Let us reject the Manichean notions so typical of that mindset of violence that divides the world into those who are good and those who are evil.

The Church will never tire of repeating: let weapons be silenced.  I would like to thank God for all those who, in silence, prayer and self-sacrifice, are sowing seeds of peace.  I thank God for those Christians – Eastern and Latin alike – who, above all in the Middle East, persevere and remain in their homelands, resisting the temptation to abandon them.  Christians must be given the opportunity, and not just in words, to remain in their native lands with all the rights needed for a secure existence.  Please, let us strive for this!

What is becoming crystal clear is the emergence of key themes in Pope Leo XIV’s words of peace, dialogue and a discerning attitude towards AI.

747 words, 4 minute read.

This morning Pope Leo briefly addressed the college of cardinals, before inviting them to open dialogue. He first underlined the role of the pope and paid homage to and declared continuity with Pope Francis:

Beginning with Saint Peter and up to myself, his unworthy Successor, the Pope has been a humble servant of God and of his brothers and sisters, and nothing more than this. It has been clearly seen in the example of so many of my Predecessors, and most recently by Pope Francis himself, with his example of complete dedication to service and to sober simplicity of life, his abandonment to God throughout his ministry and his serene trust at the moment of his return to the Father’s house. Let us take up this precious legacy and continue on the journey, inspired by the same hope that is born of faith.

He the invited to a close listening to God’s voice that speaks in “sheer silence”:

It is the Risen Lord, present among us, who protects and guides the Church, and continues to fill her with hope through the love “poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom 5:5). It is up to us to be docile listeners to his voice and faithful ministers of his plan of salvation, mindful that God loves to communicate himself, not in the roar of thunder and earthquakes, but in the “whisper of a gentle breeze” (1 Kings 19:12) or, as some translate it, in a “sound of sheer silence.” It is this essential and important encounter to which we must guide and accompany all the holy People of God entrusted to our care.

Next he spoke beautifully about the Church who has also shown herself prominently during the events of the last days:

She is the womb from which we were born and at the same time the flock (cf. Jn 21:15-17), the field (cf. Mk 4:1-20) entrusted to us to protect and cultivate, to nourish with the sacraments of salvation and to make fruitful by our sowing the seed of the Word, so that, steadfast in one accord and enthusiastic in mission, she may press forward, like the Israelites in the desert, in the shadow of the cloud and in the light of God’s fire (cf. Ex 13:21).

Then followed a commitment to and lucid synthesis of the Second Vatican Council, seen through the lens of Pope Francis’ Evangelii Gaudium:

In this regard, I would like us to renew together today our complete commitment to the path that the universal Church has now followed for decades in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Francis masterfully and concretely set it forth in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, from which I would like to highlight several fundamental points: the return to the primacy of Christ in proclamation (cf. No. 11); the missionary conversion of the entire Christian community (cf. No. 9); growth in collegiality and synodality (cf. No. 33); attention to the sensus fidei (cf. Nos. 119-120), especially in its most authentic and inclusive forms, such as popular piety (cf. No. 123); loving care for the least and the rejected (cf. No. 53); courageous and trusting dialogue with the contemporary world in its various components and realities (cf. No. 84; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 1-2).

Pope Leo also shared his central reason for choosing to point to Leo XIII in his choice of name, which is motivated by defending the dignity of humanity, justice and work on the threshold of the nascent AI-powered industrial revolution:

Sensing myself called to continue in this same path, I chose to take the name Leo XIV. There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution. In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defence of human dignity, justice and labour.

In summary, this brief speech continues to unveil the vision that Pope Leo XIV has for the Church. It is a vision that is firmly rooted in that of his predecessor, a vision irradiated by beauty and closeness to all, a forward-looking vision, fully aware of the epochal challenges that are unfolding as we speak.

1688 words, 9 minute read.

This morning I listened with anticipation to Pope Leo XIV’s first homily since his election, in which he addressed the college of cardinals. I remember vividly listening to Popes Benedict XVI and Francis do likewise, and in all these cases, this morning’s one included, the first papal sermons set out visions of who we are as Church, what the world needs and how the freshly installed pontiff sees the road ahead.

Even before he spoke, I was pleased to see that both readings were proclaimed by women. The first clearly a nun and the second perhaps not. A key element of the mass – the proclamation of the Word of God – was shared between the pope and two women.

The homily then started with a brief foreword in English, delivered by Pope Leo – referred to by his friends as Bob – in an appropriately unmistakeable US accent. It might sound like an exaggeration, but that brief prelude alone already spoke volumes to me.

It starts with thanksgiving for God’s generosity:

I want to repeat the words from the Responsorial Psalm: “I will sing a new song to the Lord, because he has done marvels.”

And indeed, not just with me but with all of us. My brother Cardinals, as we celebrate this morning, I invite you to recognize the marvels that the Lord has done, the blessings that the Lord continues to pour out on all of us through the Ministry of Peter.

And then spells out who we are (Jesus’ friends) and what we are supposed to do (announce the Good News):

You have called me to carry that cross, and to be blessed with that mission, and I know I can rely on each and every one of you to walk with me, as we continue as a Church, as a community of friends of Jesus, as believers to announce the Good News, to announce the Gospel.

Pope Leo then switches to Italian and proceeds to unfold the homily proper. Here too we start with a beautiful, simple and kerygmatically succinct proclamation:

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God: the one Saviour, who alone reveals the face of the Father.

In him, God, in order to make himself close and accessible to men and women, revealed himself to us in the trusting eyes of a child, in the lively mind of a young person and in the mature features of a man (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22), finally appearing to his disciples after the resurrection with his glorious body. He thus showed us a model of human holiness that we can all imitate, together with the promise of an eternal destiny that transcends all our limits and abilities.

Jesus is the Father’s closeness, a human, divinizing example to follow. “Peter, in his response, understands both of these things: the gift of God and the path to follow in order to allow himself to be changed by that gift.”

What role does the Church, administered by Pope Leo, play here?

In a particular way, God has called me by your election to succeed the Prince of the Apostles, and has entrusted this treasure to me so that, with his help, I may be its faithful administrator (cf. 1 Cor 4:2) for the sake of the entire mystical Body of the Church. He has done so in order that she may be ever more fully a city set on a hill (cf. Rev 21:10), an ark of salvation sailing through the waters of history and a beacon that illumines the dark nights of this world.

City on a hill. Ark. Beacon. But how?

And this, not so much through the magnificence of her structures or the grandeur of her buildings – like the monuments among which we find ourselves – but rather through the holiness of her members. For we are the people whom God has chosen as his own, so that we may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called us out of darkness into his marvellous light (cf. 1 Pet 2:9).

What is to shine is God’s light, through our individual and joint holiness, not structures or pomp.

Pope Leo then circles back to the question of who Jesus is, which Jesus himself addressed to Peter: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Mt 16:13) He then offers two alternative answers – that of “the world” and that of “ordinary people”.

First, there is the world’s response. Matthew tells us that this conversation between Jesus and his disciples takes place in the beautiful town of Caesarea Philippi, filled with luxurious palaces, set in a magnificent natural landscape at the foot of Mount Hermon, but also a place of cruel power plays and the scene of betrayals and infidelity. This setting speaks to us of a world that considers Jesus a completely insignificant person, at best someone with an unusual and striking way of speaking and acting. And so, once his presence becomes irksome because of his demands for honesty and his stern moral requirements, this “world” will not hesitate to reject and eliminate him.

The Jesus of “the world” is a character, a celebrity perhaps, but insignificant. Here I was struck by Pope Leo’s choice of “eliminate” as the manner in which the world disposes of Jesus. It had echoes of genocide in my ears. An impersonal, systematic, blanket killing by a state or regime to whom those whom it eliminates don’t register as individuals, as humans. The elimination is in service of ideology, power, domination.

Pope Leo next turns to an alternative response to the Christological question:

Then there is the other possible response to Jesus’ question: that of ordinary people. For them, the Nazarene is not a charlatan, but an upright man, one who has courage, who speaks well and says the right things, like other great prophets in the history of Israel. That is why they follow him, at least for as long as they can do so without too much risk or inconvenience. Yet to them he is only a man, and therefore, in times of danger, during his passion, they too abandon him and depart disappointed.

This is a step up. A recognition of another I, another person, even of righteousness, greatness, truth, but limited by convenience. These same attitudes that Jesus’ contemporaries exhibited persist into the present, where preference is given to “other securities […] like technology, money, success, power, or pleasure”.

How is such rejection to be responded to:?

These are contexts where it is not easy to preach the Gospel and bear witness to its truth, where believers are mocked, opposed, despised or at best tolerated and pitied. Yet, precisely for this reason, they are the places where our missionary outreach is desperately needed. A lack of faith is often tragically accompanied by the loss of meaning in life, the neglect of mercy, appalling violations of human dignity, the crisis of the family and so many other wounds that afflict our society.

Today, too, there are many settings in which Jesus, although appreciated as a man, is reduced to a kind of charismatic leader or superman. This is true not only among non-believers but also among many baptized Christians, who thus end up living, at this level, in a state of practical atheism.

Note the important twist at the end: Pope Leo is not drawing a distinction between the Church and the World, but between friendship with Jesus and his reductive distortions. The distinction is not a rejection or shunning though, but a recognition of the calling for encounter.

This is the world that has been entrusted to us, a world in which, as Pope Francis taught us so many times, we are called to bear witness to our joyful faith in Jesus the Saviour. Therefore, it is essential that we too repeat, with Peter: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16).

It is essential to do this, first of all, in our personal relationship with the Lord, in our commitment to a daily journey of conversion. Then, to do so as a Church, experiencing together our fidelity to the Lord and bringing the Good News to all (cf. Lumen Gentium, 1).

It is the joy of the Gospel that is to be shared, as Pope Francis also taught so clearly, which starts with my own personal and daily conversion (i.e., allowing myself to be changed by that gift of God’s closeness).

The homily is then brought to its conclusion with a powerful and stark reminder of what it takes to access divine joy:

I say this first of all to myself, as the Successor of Peter, as I begin my mission as Bishop of Rome and, according to the well-known expression of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, am called to preside in charity over the universal Church (cf. Letter to the Romans, Prologue). Saint Ignatius, who was led in chains to this city, the place of his impending sacrifice, wrote to the Christians there: “Then I will truly be a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world no longer sees my body” (Letter to the Romans, IV, 1). Ignatius was speaking about being devoured by wild beasts in the arena – and so it happened – but his words apply more generally to an indispensable commitment for all those in the Church who exercise a ministry of authority. It is to move aside so that Christ may remain, to make oneself small so that he may be known and glorified (cf. Jn 3:30), to spend oneself to the utmost so that all may have the opportunity to know and love him.

The self-noughting that Pope Leo proposes here to the cardinals and to those who exercise authority is in fact the invitation Jesus extends to everyone. Knowing Jesus, being his friend, requires “to spend oneself to the utmost so that all may have the opportunity to know and love him.” This is what leads to joy, a joy that invites imitation and closeness and that leads to God. And Pope Leo XIV does not mince his words about it.

5251 words, 25 minute read.

Last week, the Vatican released a document entitled Antiqua et Nova about the ethical and philosophical implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI). It was initially written with technological experts and ethicists in mind but, as I read it, I realized that its reflections on intelligence, creativity, and human dignity apply to all of us. In fact, I found it to be a profound reflection more broadly on the human experience and its relationship with technological advancement.

What stood out to me was how the document encourages a thoughtful and hopeful approach to AI. Rather than seeing it as something to fear or blindly embrace, the Church invites us to consider how it can serve humanity when guided by ethics, empathy, and moral responsibility. The tone of the text felt inclusive and bridge-building, offering a perspective that welcomes questions and dialogue.

While the document is fairly extensive at 21K words, I would nonetheless recommend reading it in full. But if you’d like to start with the passages that spoke to me most, you can find them below:¹

---

3. The Church encourages the advancement of science, technology, the arts, and other forms of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the “collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.” As Sirach affirms, God “gave skill to human beings, that he might be glorified in his marvelous works” (Sir. 38:6). Human abilities and creativity come from God and, when used rightly, glorify God by reflecting his wisdom and goodness. In light of this, when we ask ourselves what it means to “be human,” we cannot exclude a consideration of our scientific and technological abilities.

5. [T]echnological advances should be directed toward serving the human person and the common good.

7. The concept of “intelligence” in AI has evolved over time, drawing on a range of ideas from various disciplines. While its origins extend back centuries, a significant milestone occurred in 1956 when the American computer scientist John McCarthy organized a summer workshop at Dartmouth University to explore the problem of “Artificial Intelligence,” which he defined as “that of making a machine behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving.”  This workshop launched a research program focused on designing machines capable of performing tasks typically associated with the human intellect and intelligent behavior.

8. Since then, AI research has advanced rapidly, leading to the development of complex systems capable of performing highly sophisticated tasks. These so-called “narrow AI” systems are typically designed to handle specific and limited functions, such as translating languages, predicting the trajectory of a storm, classifying images, answering questions, or generating visual content at the user’s request. While the definition of “intelligence” in AI research varies, most contemporary AI systems—particularly those using machine learning—rely on statistical inference rather than logical deduction. By analyzing large datasets to identify patterns, AI can “predict” outcomes and propose new approaches, mimicking some cognitive processes typical of human problem-solving. Such achievements have been made possible through advances in computing technology (including neural networks, unsupervised machine learning, and evolutionary algorithms) as well as hardware innovations (such as specialized processors). Together, these technologies enable AI systems to respond to various forms of human input, adapt to new situations, and even suggest novel solutions not anticipated by their original programmers.

9. Due to these rapid advancements, many tasks once managed exclusively by humans are now entrusted to AI. These systems can augment or even supersede what humans are able to do in many fields, particularly in specialized areas such as data analysis, image recognition, and medical diagnosis. While each “narrow AI” application is designed for a specific task, many researchers aspire to develop what is known as “Artificial General Intelligence” (AGI)—a single system capable of operating across all cognitive domains and performing any task within the scope of human intelligence. Some even argue that AGI could one day achieve the state of “superintelligence,” surpassing human intellectual capacities, or contribute to “super-longevity” through advances in biotechnology. Others, however, fear that these possibilities, even if hypothetical, could one day eclipse the human person, while still others welcome this potential transformation.

10. Underlying this and many other perspectives on the subject is the implicit assumption that the term “intelligence” can be used in the same way to refer to both human intelligence and AI. Yet, this does not capture the full scope of the concept. In the case of humans, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his or her entirety, whereas in the context of AI, “intelligence” is understood functionally, often with the presumption that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that machines can replicate.

11. This functional perspective is exemplified by the “Turing Test,” which considers a machine “intelligent” if a person cannot distinguish its behavior from that of a human. However, in this context, the term “behavior” refers only to the performance of specific intellectual tasks; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the aesthetic, moral, and religious sensibilities. Nor does it encompass the full range of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the “intelligence” of a system is evaluated methodologically, but also reductively, based on its ability to produce appropriate responses—in this case, those associated with the human intellect—regardless of how those responses are generated.

12. AI’s advanced features give it sophisticated abilities to perform tasks, but not the ability to think. This distinction is crucially important, as the way “intelligence” is defined inevitably shapes how we understand the relationship between human thought and this technology. To appreciate this, one must recall the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian theology, which offer a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of intelligence—an understanding that is central to the Church’s teaching on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human person.

14. In the classical tradition, the concept of intelligence is often understood through the complementary concepts of “reason” (ratio) and “intellect” (intellectus). These are not separate faculties but, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, they are two modes in which the same intelligence operates: “The term intellect is inferred from the inward grasp of the truth, while the name reason is taken from the inquisitive and discursive process.” This concise description highlights the two fundamental and complementary dimensions of human intelligence. Intellectus refers to the intuitive grasp of the truth—that is, apprehending it with the “eyes” of the mind—which precedes and grounds argumentation itself. Ratio pertains to reasoning proper: the discursive, analytical process that leads to judgment. Together, intellect and reason form the two facets of the act of intelligere, “the proper operation of the human being as such.”

15. Describing the human person as a “rational” being does not reduce the person to a specific mode of thought; rather, it recognizes that the ability for intellectual understanding shapes and permeates all aspects of human activity.  Whether exercised well or poorly, this capacity is an intrinsic aspect of human nature. In this sense, the “term ‘rational’ encompasses all the capacities of the human person,” including those related to “knowing and understanding, as well as those of willing, loving, choosing, and desiring; it also includes all corporeal functions closely related to these abilities.” This comprehensive perspective underscores how, in the human person, created in the “image of God,” reason is integrated in a way that elevates, shapes, and transforms both the person’s will and actions.

16. Christian thought considers the intellectual faculties of the human person within the framework of an integral anthropology that views the human being as essentially embodied. In the human person, spirit and matter “are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.” In other words, the soul is not merely the immaterial “part” of the person contained within the body, nor is the body an outer shell housing an intangible “core.” Rather, the entire human person is simultaneously both material and spiritual.

18.  Human beings are “ordered by their very nature to interpersonal communion,”  possessing the capacity to know one another, to give themselves in love, and to enter into communion with others. Accordingly, human intelligence is not an isolated faculty but is exercised in relationships, finding its fullest expression in dialogue, collaboration, and solidarity. We learn with others, and we learn through others.

19. The relational orientation of the human person is ultimately grounded in the eternal self-giving of the Triune God, whose love is revealed in creation and redemption. The human person is “called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life.”

21. Moving beyond the limits of empirical data, human intelligence can “with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable.” While reality remains only partially known, the desire for truth “spurs reason always to go further; indeed, it is as if reason were overwhelmed to see that it can always go beyond what it has already achieved.” Although Truth in itself transcends the boundaries of human intelligence, it irresistibly attracts it. Drawn by this attraction, the human person is led to seek “truths of a higher order.”

26. human intelligence becomes more clearly understood as a faculty that forms an integral part of how the whole person engages with reality. Authentic engagement requires embracing the full scope of one’s being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational.

27. This engagement with reality unfolds in various ways, as each person, in his or her multifaceted individuality, seeks to understand the world, relate to others, solve problems, express creativity, and pursue integral well-being through the harmonious interplay of the various dimensions of the person’s intelligence. This involves logical and linguistic abilities but can also encompass other modes of interacting with reality. Consider the work of an artisan, who “must know how to discern, in inert matter, a particular form that others cannot recognize” and bring it forth through insight and practical skill. Indigenous peoples who live close to the earth often possess a profound sense of nature and its cycles. Similarly, a friend who knows the right word to say or a person adept at managing human relationships exemplifies an intelligence that is “the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons.” As Pope Francis observes, “in this age of artificial intelligence, we cannot forget that poetry and love are necessary to save our humanity.”

30. In light of the foregoing discussion, the differences between human intelligence and current AI systems become evident. While AI is an extraordinary technological achievement capable of imitating certain outputs associated with human intelligence, it operates by performing tasks, achieving goals, or making decisions based on quantitative data and computational logic. For example, with its analytical power, AI excels at integrating data from a variety of fields, modeling complex systems, and fostering interdisciplinary connections. In this way, it can help experts collaborate in solving complex problems that “cannot be dealt with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests.”

31. However, even as AI processes and simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which imposes inherent limitations. Human intelligence, in contrast, develops organically throughout the person’s physical and psychological growth, shaped by a myriad of lived experiences in the flesh. Although advanced AI systems can “learn” through processes such as machine learning, this sort of training is fundamentally different from the developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the unique context of each moment. These elements shape and form individuals within their personal history.In contrast, AI, lacking a physical body, relies on computational reasoning and learning based on vast datasets that include recorded human experiences and knowledge. 

32. Consequently, although AI can simulate aspects of human reasoning and perform specific tasks with incredible speed and efficiency, its computational abilities represent only a fraction of the broader capacities of the human mind. For instance, AI cannot currently replicate moral discernment or the ability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that fundamentally shapes the individual’s perspective, encompassing the physical, emotional, social, moral, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI cannot offer this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely solely on this technology or treat it as the primary means of interpreting the world can lead to “a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the broader horizon.”

35. Considering all these points, as Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading” and risks overlooking what is most precious in the human person. In light of this, AI should not be seen as an artificial form ofhuman intelligence but as a product ofit.

38. Like any human endeavor, technological development must be directed to serve the human person and contribute to the pursuit of “greater justice, more extensive fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations,” which are “more valuable than advances in the technical field.”

40. Like any product of human creativity, AI can be directed toward positive or negative ends. When used in ways that respect human dignity and promote the well-being of individuals and communities, it can contribute positively to the human vocation. Yet, as in all areas where humans are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human freedom allows for the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the moral evaluation of this technology will need to take into account how it is directed and used.

41. At the same time, it is not only the ends that are ethically significant but also the means employed to achieve them. Additionally, the overall vision and understanding of the human person embedded within these systems are important to consider as well. Technological products reflect the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, and have the power to “shape the world and engage consciences on the level of values.” On a societal level, some technological developments could also reinforce relationships and power dynamics that are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the human person and society. 

42. Therefore, the ends and the means used in a given application of AI, as well as the overall vision it incorporates, must all be evaluated to ensure they respect human dignity and promote the common good. As Pope Francis has stated, “the intrinsic dignity of every man and every woman” must be “the key criterion in evaluating emerging technologies; these will prove ethically sound to the extent that they help respect that dignity and increase its expression at every level of human life,” including in the social and economic spheres. In this sense, human intelligence plays a crucial role not only in designing and producing technology but also in directing its use in line with the authentic good of the human person. The responsibility for managing this wisely pertains to every level of society, guided by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.

44. An evaluation of the implications of this guiding principle could begin by considering the importance of moral responsibility. Since full moral causality belongs only to personal agents, not artificial ones, it is crucial to be able to identify and define who bears responsibility for the processes involved in AI, particularly those capable of learning, correction, and reprogramming. While bottom-up approaches and very deep neural networks enable AI to solve complex problems, they make it difficult to understand the processes that lead to the solutions they adopted. This complicates accountability since if an AI application produces undesired outcomes, determining who is responsible becomes difficult. To address this problem, attention needs to be given to the nature of accountability processes in complex, highly automated settings, where results may only become evident in the medium to long term. For this, it is important that ultimate responsibility for decisions made using AI rests with the human decision-makers and that there is accountability for the use of AI at each stage of the decision-making process.

45. In addition to determining who is responsible, it is essential to identify the objectives given to AI systems. Although these systems may use unsupervised autonomous learning mechanisms and sometimes follow paths that humans cannot reconstruct, they ultimately pursue goals that humans have assigned to them and are governed by processes established by their designers and programmers. Yet, this presents a challenge because, as AI models become increasingly capable of independent learning, the ability to maintain control over them to ensure that such applications serve human purposes may effectively diminish. This raises the critical question of how to ensure that AI systems are ordered for the good of people and not against them. 

46. While responsibility for the ethical use of AI systems starts with those who develop, produce, manage, and oversee such systems, it is also shared by those who use them. As Pope Francis noted, the machine “makes a technical choice among several possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical inferences. Human beings, however, not only choose, but in their hearts are capable of deciding.” Those who use AI to accomplish a task and follow its results create a context in which they are ultimately responsible for the power they have delegated. Therefore, insofar as AI can assist humans in making decisions, the algorithms that govern it should be trustworthy, secure, robust enough to handle inconsistencies, and transparent in their operation to mitigate biases and unintended side effects. Regulatory frameworks should ensure that all legal entities remain accountable for the use of AI and all its consequences, with appropriate safeguards for transparency, privacy, and accountability. Moreover, those using AI should be careful not to become overly dependent on it for their decision-making, a trend that increases contemporary society’s already high reliance on technology.

48. [T]he use of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be “accompanied by an ethic inspired by a vision of the common good, an ethic of freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of fostering the full development of people in relation to others and to the whole of creation.”

51. Viewed through this lens, AI could “introduce important innovations in agriculture, education and culture, an improved level of life for entire nations and peoples, and the growth of human fraternity and social friendship,” and thus be “used to promote integral human development.” AI could also help organizations identify those in need and counter discrimination and marginalization. These and other similar applications of this technology could contribute to human development and the common good.

52. However, while AI holds many possibilities for promoting the good, it can also hinder or even counter human development and the common good. Pope Francis has noted that “evidence to date suggests that digital technologies have increased inequality in our world. Not just differences in material wealth, which are also significant, but also differences in access to political and social influence.” In this sense, AI could be used to perpetuate marginalization and discrimination, create new forms of poverty, widen the “digital divide,” and worsen existing social inequalities.

53. Moreover, the concentration of the power over mainstream AI applications in the hands of a few powerful companies raises significant ethical concerns. Exacerbating this problem is the inherent nature of AI systems, where no single individual can exercise complete oversight over the vast and complex datasets used for computation. This lack of well-defined accountability creates the risk that AI could be manipulated for personal or corporate gain or to direct public opinion for the benefit of a specific industry. Such entities, motivated by their own interests, possess the capacity to exercise “forms of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process.”

55. Therefore, rather than merely pursuing economic or technological objectives, AI should serve “the common good of the entire human family,” which is “the sum total of social conditions that allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”

59. Because “true wisdom demands an encounter with reality,” the rise of AI introduces another challenge. Since AI can effectively imitate the products of human intelligence, the ability to know when one is interacting with a human or a machine can no longer be taken for granted. Generative AI can produce text, speech, images, and other advanced outputs that are usually associated with human beings. Yet, it must be understood for what it is: a tool, not a person. This distinction is often obscured by the language used by practitioners, which tends to anthropomorphize AI and thus blurs the line between human and machine. 

60. Anthropomorphizing AI also poses specific challenges for the development of children, potentially encouraging them to develop patterns of interaction that treat human relationships in a transactional manner, as one would relate to a chatbot. Such habits could lead young people to see teachers as mere dispensers of information rather than as mentors who guide and nurture their intellectual and moral growth. Genuine relationships, rooted in empathy and a steadfast commitment to the good of the other, are essential and irreplaceable in fostering the full development of the human person.

61. In this context, it is important to clarify that, despite the use of anthropomorphic language, no AI application can genuinely experience empathy. Emotions cannot be reduced to facial expressions or phrases generated in response to prompts; they reflect the way a person, as a whole, relates to the world and to his or her own life, with the body playing a central role. True empathy requires the ability to listen, recognize another’s irreducible uniqueness, welcome their otherness, and grasp the meaning behind even their silences. Unlike the realm of analytical judgment in which AI excels, true empathy belongs to the relational sphere. It involves intuiting and apprehending the lived experiences of another while maintaining the distinction between self and other. While AI can simulate empathetic responses, it cannot replicate the eminently personal and relational nature of authentic empathy.

62. In light of the above, it is clear why misrepresenting AI as a person should always be avoided; doing so for fraudulent purposes is a grave ethical violation that could erode social trust. Similarly, using AI to deceive in other contexts—such as in education or in human relationships, including the sphere of sexuality—is also to be considered immoral and requires careful oversight to prevent harm, maintain transparency, and ensure the dignity of all people.

66. Another area where AI is already having a profound impact is the world of work. As in many other fields, AI is driving fundamental transformations across many professions, with a range of effects. On the one hand, it has the potential to enhance expertise and productivity, create new jobs, enable workers to focus on more innovative tasks, and open new horizons for creativity and innovation. 

67. However, while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines rather than machines being designed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, current approaches to the technology can paradoxically deskillworkers, subject them to automated surveillance, and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks. The need to keep up with the pace of technology can erode workers’ sense of agency and stifle the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work.

68. AI is currently eliminating the need for some jobs that were once performed by humans. If AI is used to replace human workers rather than complement them, there is a “substantial risk of disproportionate benefit for the few at the price of the impoverishment of many.” Additionally, as AI becomes more powerful, there is an associated risk that human labor may lose its value in the economic realm. This is the logical consequence of the technocratic paradigm: a world of humanity enslaved to efficiency, where, ultimately, the cost of humanity must be cut. Yet, human lives are intrinsically valuable, independent of their economic output. Nevertheless, the “current model,” Pope Francis explains, “does not appear to favor an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak, or the less talented to find opportunities in life.” In light of this, “we cannot allow a tool as powerful and indispensable as Artificial Intelligence to reinforce such a paradigm, but rather, we must make Artificial Intelligence a bulwark against its expansion.”

85. AI could be used as an aid to human dignity if it helps people understand complex concepts or directs them to sound resources that support their search for the truth.

86. However, AI also presents a serious risk of generating manipulated content and false information, which can easily mislead people due to its resemblance to the truth. Such misinformation might occur unintentionally, as in the case of AI “hallucination,” where a generative AI system yields results that appear real but are not. Since generating content that mimics human artifacts is central to AI’s functionality, mitigating these risks proves challenging. Yet, the consequences of such aberrations and false information can be quite grave. For this reason, all those involved in producing and using AI systems should be committed to the truthfulness and accuracy of the information processed by such systems and disseminated to the public. 

87. While AI has a latent potential to generate false information, an even more troubling problem lies in the deliberate misuse of AI for manipulation. This can occur when individuals or organizations intentionally generate and spread false content with the aim to deceive or cause harm, such as “deepfake” images, videos, and audio—referring to a false depiction of a person, edited or generated by an AI algorithm. The danger of deepfakes is particularly evident when they are used to target or harm others. While the images or videos themselves may be artificial, the damage they cause is real, leaving “deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it” and “real wounds in their human dignity.”

102. At the same time, while the theoretical risks of AI deserve attention, the more immediate and pressing concern lies in how individuals with malicious intentions might misuse this technology. Like any tool, AI is an extension of human power, and while its future capabilities are unpredictable, humanity’s past actions provide clear warnings. The atrocities committed throughout history are enough to raise deep concerns about the potential abuses of AI.

103. Saint John Paul II observed that “humanity now has instruments of unprecedented power: we can turn this world into a garden, or reduce it to a pile of rubble.” Given this fact, the Church reminds us, in the words of Pope Francis, that “we are free to apply our intelligence towards things evolving positively,” or toward “decadence and mutual destruction.” To prevent humanity from spiraling into self-destruction, there must be a clear stand against all applications of technology that inherently threaten human life and dignity. This commitment requires careful discernment about the use of AI, particularly in military defense applications, to ensure that it always respects human dignity and serves the common good. The development and deployment of AI in armaments should be subject to the highest levels of ethical scrutiny, governed by a concern for human dignity and the sanctity of life.

104. Technology offers remarkable tools to oversee and develop the world’s resources. However, in some cases, humanity is increasingly ceding control of these resources to machines. Within some circles of scientists and futurists, there is optimism about the potential of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical form of AI that would match or surpass human intelligence and bring about unimaginable advancements. Some even speculate that AGI could achieve superhuman capabilities. At the same time, as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment—longings that can only be truly satisfied in communion with God.

105. However, the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry, a practice Scripture explicitly warns against (e.g., Ex. 20:4; 32:1-5; 34:17). Moreover, AI may prove even more seductive than traditional idols for, unlike idols that “have mouths but do not speak; eyes, but do not see; ears, but do not hear” (Ps. 115:5-6), AI can “speak,” or at least gives the illusion of doing so (cf. Rev. 13:15). Yet, it is vital to remember that AI is but a pale reflection of humanity—it is crafted by human minds, trained on human-generated material, responsive to human input, and sustained through human labor. AI cannot possess many of the capabilities specific to human life, and it is also fallible. By turning to AI as a perceived “Other” greater than itself, with which to share existence and responsibilities, humanity risks creating a substitute for God. However, it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humanity itself—which, in this way, becomes enslaved to its own work.

108. Considering the various challenges posed by advances in technology, Pope Francis emphasized the need for growth in “human responsibility, values, and conscience,” proportionate to the growth in the potential that this technology brings—recognizing that “with an increase in human power comes a broadening of responsibility on the part of individuals and communities.”

109. At the same time, the “essential and fundamental question” remains “whether in the context of this progress man, as man, is becoming truly better, that is to say, more mature spiritually, more aware of the dignity of his humanity, more responsible, more open to others, especially the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all.”

110. As a result, it is crucial to know how to evaluate individual applications of AI in particular contexts to determine whether its use promotes human dignity, the vocation of the human person, and the common good. As with many technologies, the effects of the various uses of AI may not always be predictable from their inception. As these applications and their social impacts become clearer, appropriate responses should be made at all levels of society, following the principle of subsidiarity. Individual users, families, civil society, corporations, institutions, governments, and international organizations should work at their proper levels to ensure that AI is used for the good of all.

112. AI should be used only as a tool to complement human intelligence rather than replace its richness.

117. From this perspective of wisdom, believers will be able to act as moral agents capable of using this technology to promote an authentic vision of the human person and society. This should be done with the understanding that technological progress is part of God’s plan for creation—an activity that we are called to order toward the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, in the continual search for the True and the Good.

Notes

93. The term “bias” in this document refers to algorithmic bias (systematic and consistent errors in computer systems that may disproportionately prejudice certain groups in unintended ways) or learning bias (which will result in training on a biased data set) and not the “bias vector” in neural networks (which is a parameter used to adjust the output of “neurons” to adjust more accurately to the data).

1. The introduction to this article was written by ChatGPT, while this footnote is written directly by me, Irene. Or is it? Can you tell? ↩︎