On Magnifica Humanitas - The Universe of Joshua Blais

The Vatican has just released Leo XIV’s Encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, and I figured I would read through and give my commentary on such a pivotal document in the era of “AI” and the continual lockstep toward dehumanizing all of humanity. I sit at an interesting crossroads between Catholicism and Technology, and try every day to reconcile the two in the way that I work - so this will be a interesting deep dive. Sit back, grab a coffee, and let’s read.

I will provide my commentary below as I read through the various sections of the Encyclical. I was going to read the whole thing on stream, but it’s 42,000 words long, so will just provide the highlights as I read. I’ll provide quotes and things that stuck out to me, as well as my personal thoughts.

I have seen so many surface level takes on Twitter that I wrote a piece about primary sources and the slew of opinion in the modern world. How many people have actually read this piece? I would hazard to guess very few. People think that the Pope is now on the board of Anthropic, or that the Vatican is now investing in this stuff. I kid you not.

But, I digress.

Introduction#

Immediately, the Tower of Babel is mentioned, and discussion of the role of humanity as the steward of the gift that is this life and world toward the Greatest Good. Every era is a unique opportunity for all to build it’s own collapsing tower to the “heavens” without God, and AI is the tower being built currently. Humanity has the potential in it’s own right to grow toward fullness, and the distraction/lie is that AI will help us to grow in that direction. Quite the opposite.

We are living the greatest story ever written, and as characters in the book, we can be active participants in the outcome, by acting in accordance with that which is written for each and every one of us. Everyone has a role to play, in communion with Christ we can can overcome those challenges.

There are real implications here and now to the teachings of the Gospel, and we can find the intersection of Heaven and Earth here and now, it is “already, not yet” - in that we actively create a better or worse world. Science and the Church are not at odds, rather science and faith are two paths up the same mountain, all things done in honest pursuit of The Truth are part of the same conversation and journey. The Church has great history with the sciences, and the teachings are not inert - just like Christ is alive today so too are the teachings.

Technology has always had the ability to free or to enslave. In the cases of social media and the internet, we have slowly been building the cage for ourselves, and LLMs are an overt caging of the human ability and creative nature if we so allow it to become.

There was someone trying to argue that “we” need to “win” the AI race on twitter the other day, to which I simply replied “who is we?”

The only team I want to be a part of is the team that understands that “winning at all costs” is no way to win at all. The only team to be on is team Humanity here. When there are a couple trillion dollar companies that control the entire narrative and advancement, that is not “we”.

Where are we going? This is the first person I have seen ask the simple question. The idea that we should just progress for progresses’ sake is no goal at all. “Just because we can” is not a reason. “Someone else will do it” is not a reason. These are the real questions we need be asking, unless we want to destroy ourselves.

Pope Leo then contrasts the Tower of Babel with he rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. The project of the Tower was a project without the reference to God, as a “human achievement” rather than done for His Glory and does the opposite of unifying humanity - it scatters it. The aim to reach Heaven without God is a failing idea, one that is reflected in technological advances time and time again. Technology is not a cure all, nor is it intrinsically evil, it amplifies and takes on the human characteristics of the creators. Just as nothing is perfect created by man, so too are the technologies that we create - it is the means to an end, but the End must always remain forefront.

We run the risk of dehumanizing our fellow man with technology. I have seen it myself in that one can replace real relationships with communication protocols, but they don’t make up for real face to face interactions, sitting together discussing the intricacies and depths of this life.

Building a city founded on the common good implies, first and foremost, building on a firm

relationship with God. It means recognizing that the truth of his love calls us to life “in all its fullness” ( Jn 10<10>) and communion with him. Like Saint Augustine, we too can say, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.” [8] Indeed, God has inscribed in our hearts a desire for happiness that embraces all the dimensions of life. The Church, in dialogue with the men and women of our time, recognizes the urgent need to safeguard and guide this aspiration toward its deepest truth.

I would make the argument that we are innately incapable of building the Cathedrals of old today not because we don’t have the ability, but because we don’t have the collective goal, the collective pursuit of the transcendent. When something is made to orientate toward the Infinite, you feel it in your being, and we by and far incapable of this today unless we do a hard u-turn toward that which is eternally true.

Today, the human desire for fullness of life is at risk of being misled by deceitful goals, such as the prospect of a technology that promises to free us from all weakness, and models of wellbeing that leave behind entire populations. All too often, we place our hope in unlimited “upgrades,” in forms of progress that exacerbate inequalities, and in immediate solutions incapable of healing people’s wounds.

The human being is capable of Sainthood - every single person is. What we actually do by alleviating (perceived) suffering is that we take away the potential to realize this end.

In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human.
True progress always stems from a heart open to others, an intelligence willing to listen and a will that seeks what unites rather than what separates.

This overview, however, would not be very comprehensible if, before reflecting on the

contribution of individual popes and their most relevant documents, we do not first clarify some fundamental principles concerning the way in which the Church exists in history and relates to the world. Failing to do so would expose Social Doctrine to the risk of being perceived as an undue interference in “worldly” matters or as an external code of ethics imposed from above. In reality, it stems from a Church that walks alongside humanity, recognizing the autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction between ecclesial and political communities. Indeed, it is for this very reason that she strives to serve the common good.

The Church does not coerce those to believe but to provide a guidance in worldly matters, for all things can be sacramental. This is a realization I have had in that life is a sacrament, the way in which we conduct ourselves permits us to see God more clearly or to shroud Him away. The Church is a vessel on which we step to journey through time to go beyond.

The Church regards all who sincerely seek “truth, goodness and beauty” as companions on the journey, and considers them as “precious allies” [12] in defending the dignity of every person and in caring for creation.

Much of this is setting the stage of Catholic social teaching and why the Church takes stances due to previous teaching so I will skip ahead to Chapter Three in which Pope Leo discusses Artificial Intelligence directly.

Chapter Three#

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. [118] 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.

With all the fear mongering about loss of jobs, etc. calling one to not be afraid and to face the challenges that abound is a stance which I can get behind.

The danger of humanity becoming a victim of its own achievements was already clearly

recognized by Saint Paul VI, who warned that “the most extraordinary scientific progress, the most astounding technical feats and the most amazing economic growth, unless accompanied by authentic moral and social progress, will in the long run go against man.” [121] For this reason, technological progress — valuable in itself — requires careful discernment of the anthropological vision that guides it and the ends it pursues. If technological development advances without a corresponding ethical and social progress, the result may be an increase in means without a growth in humanity: “having more” without “being more.” In such a scenario, there is a risk that individuals will be evaluated principally according to the outcomes they produce. [122]

Here, we must recognize another crucial aspect, which I have noted earlier. In many cases

within the digital context, control over platforms, infrastructure, data and computing power does not rest with States, but with major economic and technological actors. These entities effectively set the conditions for access, determine the rules of visibility and shape the very possibilities for participation. When such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities.

Faced with this concentration of power in the digital world, the criteria for judgment and

discernment in this new situation are the noble principles of Social Doctrine: the inalienable dignity of the human person, the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. They demand that we assess whether the power of digital infrastructures and algorithms truly fosters participation and responsibility, protects the vulnerable, ensures fair access to opportunities and remains directed toward the good of all. On this basis, we can now examine more closely what artificial intelligence is, the possibilities it opens up and the risks it entails.

Correct. Which is why the internet as it was conceived was an interesting project and allowed for the freeing from institutional influence much of the knowledge of the world, and platforms go directly against this in locking away and censorship of ideas. I would argue the future of the internet is the past of the internet - back to open, freedom respecting protocols.

And, to the core part, on Artificial Intelligence:

There is no such thing as “artificial” intelligence - we are training models on human intelligence - and as such, all intelligence is human would be my initial thoughts. And, would you look at that:

It is not my intention here to offer a comprehensive treatment of artificial intelligence,

nor to give an overview of the extensive relevant literature, since authoritative contributions already exist, including within the ecclesial context. [123] I limit myself to recalling a few essential elements for a moral and social discernment that safeguards the primacy of the human person, in order to ensure that it will always be human intelligence, with its conscience and freedom, that guides technical innovations and responsibly determines their use and limits.

It is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated,

however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligence” with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. Even when these tools are described as capable of “learning,” their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.

It is paramount that we agree on this, otherwise we risk creating “persons” out of computational systems. The moment we do that, we have lost the plot, and we will invoke perhaps the greatest human suffering ever. The issue that occurs here is that those that are “building” these systems are not coming at it from a discernment at all, they are shoehorning in and trying to “accelerate” just because they can. George Hotz was once of that camp, and has recently changed his tune drastically.

That is not to say that LLMs don’t offer tangible benefits. They do. One can be both a naysayer and LLM user (I am one myself!) But we cannot get disillusioned with technology into thinking it is something that it is not.

In light of what has been said, we can better understand why AI can be a valuable tool and,

at the same time, why it calls for a measured and vigilant approach. In recent years, its private use has expanded significantly, prompting growing reflection on both the opportunities it offers and the risks tied to its rapid spread. In personal use, three aspects in particular deserve careful consideration: the ease with which results are obtained, the impression of objectivity and the simulation of human communication. The speed and simplicity with which information, complex analyses, media content and practical assistance can be accessed undoubtedly makes life easier. Yet they can also encourage excessive reliance and the search for ready-made answers, and weaken personal creativity and judgment. The apparent objectivity of the responses and suggestions these systems provide can lead us to overlook the fact that they reflect the cultural assumptions of those who designed and trained them, with all their strengths and limitations. The artificial imitation of positive human communication — words of advice, empathy, friendship and even love — can be engaging and at times genuinely helpful. However, for less discerning users, it can also be misleading, creating the illusion of a relationship with a real personal subject. When words are simulated, they do not build genuine relationships, but only their appearance. The artificial imitation of care or support can become particularly risky when it enters contexts where real relationships and emotional bonds are lacking. Here, the danger is not so much that a person may believe they are communicating with another person, but rather that they may gradually lose the very desire to form genuine human connections.

In the next section, Leo discusses how AI systems are built with implicit biases and limitations. This cannot be understated. In addition, the sycophantic nature of these systems in their incessant validation of the user is potentially detrimental to the mental health of some users.

Indeed, entrusting an algorithm in practice with the power to select who is worthy or not,

without anyone bearing responsibility for that judgment, is to hand over the task of redefining the boundaries of human possibilities. In this process, political responsibility is also lost, not just empathy toward those excluded, which can, after all, be simulated. The exclusion of the vulnerable becomes cloaked in a veneer of neutrality and objectivity, against which it becomes difficult to raise objections. In this way, injustice goes unnoticed, and compassion, mercy and forgiveness — understood not as mere appearances but as real political actions — gradually disappear from view.

We risk in having “AI” be the final word on anything to create a sterile hellhole. Because Grok said so is now the way we have conversations, dunking on one another instead of compassionately reaching shared conclusion.

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. [127]

Calling for prudence, rigorous evaluation and even, at times, a slower pace in adopting AI

does not mean opposing progress; instead, it is an exercise of responsible care for the human family. This need is all the more urgent given the frequent imbalance between the speed of technological growth and the slower development of awareness, norms, safeguards and institutions capable of governing its effects. It is not enough to invoke ethics in the abstract; robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility are required. Otherwise, change will be governed only by technocratic thinking and presented as necessary and inevitable, ultimately imposing rules shaped by those who control data, infrastructure and computing power.

The call for disarmament of AI systems is one which needs to be universally held - the moment you trust a system to make a decision for you, you end up double tapping a girl’s school in Iran. And, you will be accountable in eternity for that decision. Autonomous weapons are the responsibility of their creators, this is not the same as an inanimate object being used for ill.

Having considered the issues of responsibility and governance of AI, we must now return to

our central question: what does it mean to safeguard our humanity? The risk extends beyond the misuse of certain technologies. More gravely, the pervasive technocratic paradigm in which we are immersed, and that is amplified by the digital revolution and AI, threatens to normalize an anti-human vision. In that vision, the fullness of life is equated with having more, reducing weakness, eliminating uncertainty and exerting total control. When efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion.

This is the battlecry of many - to optimize. At the expense of one’s humanity. To the point of “leaving humanity behind” in the transhumanist sense. To “enhance” humanity “beyond itself”.

From the perspective of the Church’s Social Doctrine, the key issue is not the use of

technology as such, but the vision that underlies it. If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy. In the name of progress, “necessary sacrifices” may begin to be justified, placing the burden on the most vulnerable in pursuit of a supposed optimization of the species. In this regard, the aforementioned warning of Saint Paul VI retains great foresight: indeed, scientific and technological advances, when detached from moral and social progress, end up turning against humanity. [130] For this reason, a clear distinction must be made. It is one thing to integrate technology within a human-centered, relational vision; it is quite another to be guided by an outlook that devalues human limits and promises a purely technical form of “salvation.”
The limit, the heart and the grandeur of the human person

Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis today. Everything that appears as a

“limit” — incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability — tends to be seen primarily as a defect to be corrected, rather than as a reality through which our humanity matures and opens itself to relationship. And yet we must remember that humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them. The light of faith offers a perspective on reality that helps us recognize what we call the “contingency” of the things of this world. While it is right to strive to alleviate the suffering that marks human life, it is also wise to acknowledge our fundamental finitude, knowing that “religious experience, and in particular Christian faith, propose that we live, without oversimplification, this ambivalence between human greatness and limitation, interpreting it in the light of our original and fundamental relationship with God.” [131]

Suffering allows a place where we have collective understanding. To stop all suffering would be to stop living itself. I know that this is difficult to comprehend, but suffering creates spiritual growth; were it not for my own personal suffering, I would be a materialist atheist. It allows us to be compassionate, to be loving of one another, in effect, to be human.

Even when limitations are experienced as inner suffering, human wisdom teaches us not to

deny or suppress it, but to integrate it. To eliminate suffering entirely would mean, in the end, extinguishing love and desire as well. Those who love and desire cannot avoid passing through trial and suffering; and over the years, we carry within us lessons that leave their mark like scars, the memories of a journey shaped by freedom and failure, dreams and disappointments. It is only thanks to the interplay of these elements that the wonders of the soul occur within us, allowing us to sense the richness of our humanity. [132] To renounce this adventure, both tragic and splendid, in the name of a presumed transcendence of all limits, could mean many things, but it would no longer be human.

Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognizing the face of

God and others. Indeed, precisely because we experience limits — vulnerability, suffering and failure — we can recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of others. In this same experience, we remain capable of intuiting a fraternity greater than ourselves and of perceiving injustice as a scandal. Authentic culture and art preserve this spark, resisting the normalization of evil.

The endgoal of humanity should be to be fully human - something that is increasingly rare in this day and age. Self transcendence is what is the common goal:

The expression “more than human” is not an exclusive domain of technological promise. For

centuries, the Christian tradition has maintained that human beings are not confined by the boundaries of their own nature; rather, they are called to self-transcendence, not through an escape from reality or a contempt for their limitations, but through their fulfillment in love. Faith recognizes an openness toward the “beyond,” which originates as a gift from God. This transformation is a work of the Holy Spirit. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, this process of elevation and transformation “surpasses every capability of created nature,” [134] for an infinite disparity separates our finite nature from the life of God. [135] Nevertheless, it remains possible to enter into the heart of that inexhaustible life, even as we journey through the limitations of this world. The one who makes this passage possible can only be the Eternal One who gives of himself. Indeed, it is God himself who overcomes the “infinite” disproportion. [136] In him, the re-creation of the human person happens. “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new” ( 2 Cor 5<17>).

When we embrace the possibility of transcending ourselves through God’s grace, we do not

deny our nature, nor do we become less human. On the contrary, as Pope Francis explained, “We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being.” [137] Herein lies the radical departure from Promethean dreams: what saves humanity is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms. In this light, a technology that merely classifies and optimizes what already exists can, however unintentionally, become an obstacle to change and growth. For an algorithm, an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, however, an error can be a catalyst for profound change. A person’s future is not calculable, but depends on one’s freedom — elevated by the inexhaustible grace of God — and on the relationships cultivated.

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?” [138] 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.

Questioning this alternative path of progress and how we interpret and live it is

ultimately a matter of examining our own hearts. The way we understand and shape relationships, work and institutions, in practice reveals our fundamental values. In the end, it all stems from what we hold most dear. This is a love that guides us as to what we truly cherish, both as individuals and as a society, and directs our lives and actions. Saint Augustine described human history as a struggle between two loves, which give rise to two ways of inhabiting the world and living together — or two “cities,” as it were: on the one hand, the love of God and neighbor; on the other, the exclusive love of self. “Two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God even to the contempt of self.” [139] As throughout history, these two loves continue to contend for dominance in our hearts today. The age of AI is no exception: the construction of Babel or the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins within each one of us.

This is the crux of the issue - we are attacking our very humanity with these technologies without questioning if it is Good or not.

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.

Those who command powerful technological and economic resources, along with substantial

human capital for intervention, possess significant capabilities for influencing cultural change. Ultimately, they can influence a significant number of people concerning the truth about humanity, the world, the meaning of existence, the family and even God. This is pure power detached from truth, which subtly or overtly imposes what it wishes others to accept as true. At its root lies a deeper and often unrecognized “sickness”: the fact that “modern man is wrongly convinced that he is the sole author of himself, his life and society. This is a presumption that follows from being selfishly closed in upon himself.” [140] Consequently, people believe that they can construct reality, and that whatever best suits their claims corresponds to what is true. Saint John Paul II reflected on the consequences of this “crisis of truth,” going so far as to state that “once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes.” [141] In such a context, universally valid truths, which precede us and which conscience must accept, are no longer recognized. This led Pope Francis to ask with realism: “What is law without the conviction, born of age-old reflection and great wisdom, that each human being is sacred and inviolable?” To which he concluded: “If society is to have a future, it must respect the truth of our human dignity and submit to that truth. Murder is not wrong simply because it is socially unacceptable and punished by law, but because of a deeper conviction. This is a non-negotiable truth attained by the use of reason and accepted in conscience. A society is noble and decent, not least for its support of the pursuit of truth and its adherence to the most basic of truths.” [142]

Social media first did this, and we have not learned anything. The issue is that AI systems have ubiquity, and the attempt to strong arm them everywhere as we are seeing with Google et al. is going to blur the lines of truth. Much of this is echoing in history, yet on a global scale, one which can impact every single person alive today. The will to power is not Truth. This is a realization that must come to all that seek Truth.

Our culture is obsessed with trying to create “our own reality” - but in order to actually see reality, we have to submit ourselves to Him. We are living in a time in which many would argue that truth doesn’t matter, or that it is what we make it, and that is dangerous, indeed.

In view of this, it is important to recall that communication “is not only the transmission

of information, but it is also the creation of a culture.” [144] The content that circulates within digital environments shapes how people perceive the world and introduces into the collective consciousness images and narratives that direct our desires and influence our daily choices. This is “not a parallel or purely virtual world,” [145] since what originates online now becomes a part of people’s lives, especially of the youngest.

In times past, the internet was not so ingrained in every day life, but more and more, we believe what we see online to be true. With the advent of deepfakes and video created by artificial intelligence, we will not know what actually is. We will devolve into a world which is completely devoid of truth if we continue down this path. What you consume will consume you.

In an era when truth is often distorted in order to serve particular interests and

communication strategies, the field of education assumes decisive importance. Yet rapid technological transformations reveal just how unprepared we are on the educational level. The pervasiveness of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper-stimulation, which gives rise to fatigue, boredom and apathy concerning the effort required for seeking the truth.

Education, by contrast, is a long journey requiring patience, and therefore needs time for

development and for engagement with reality beyond appearances. This is a fundamental issue because every technology shapes those who use it. Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used. The speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained risk extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which is a process that bears fruit only over time. As Plato wrote, the deepest and most important things are learned only after much time and effort, by engaging in discussion with others, “striking upon” ideas and experiences together like flint until the spark of understanding is kindled within us. [147] We must learn, then, how to exercise restraint in the use of AI and to protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed.

In recent years, psychological and psychiatric literature has documented with growing

insistence how early and unsupervised exposure to digital devices and social media can negatively impact sleep, attention span, control of emotions and relationships, especially during the most vulnerable stages of life, at times with tragic consequences. This is further aggravated by easy access to violent or degrading content that offends sensibility, to pornographic and hypersexualized material, to messages that trivialize the body and emotions, and to proposals that normalize risky behavior. Online phenomena such as grooming, blackmail and the sexual exploitation of minors are not uncommon, and are made more insidious by the use of fake profiles, algorithms that facilitate dangerous contact, and AI tools capable of manipulating images and videos. Having a personal mobile device at too early an age and using it without adult supervision can exacerbate young people’s vulnerabilities, foster addiction and expose them to isolation, bullying and cyberbullying, as well as to pressures to share intimate images or sensitive information.

It is difficult for parents by themselves to resist the influence of business models that

monetize attention and time. Therefore, it is essential to form an alliance among policy-makers, educational institutions and families that is capable of concretely supporting adults in this task. Far-sighted public policies are needed to oppose the immediate interests of platforms, concentrated in a few hands, when they conflict with the wellbeing of minors. In this regard, interventions by legislators are appropriate for setting age limits, holding service providers accountable rather than shifting the whole burden of control onto families, and for providing specific protections against all forms of online sexual exploitation and violence. Thus can children and adolescents, who are entrusted to our care, be genuinely protected as a precious treasure. [148] At the same time, it is also necessary to teach children, adolescents and young people how to recognize manipulation, defend their dignity and respect that of others in digital environments. [149]

We’re getting into the issue of digital addiction, nice. The discussion about education and what that truly entails is an interesting point. Something that I’ve seen in myself with use of LLMs is that I don’t remember the answer I was given 5 minutes ago, because I didn’t have to fight for it.

Work as a dignity enhancement for the human being. This is why devs feel their souls leaving their bodies as they vibe code away. Leo discusses unemployment as a grave evil as it creates an environment in which the human being is “without value” - which is never true. We are creating an envirionment of fear that is continually being propogated that “everyone will lose their jobs” but nobody is asking “then what?”

You may have grand technological improvement, but you create the cyberpunk dystopia in which you’re “high tech, low life”. The founders and creators of this will not be able to live a good life, either, see what happens when mass social unrest occurs. Money won’t be able to save people.

Having considered how AI is transforming certain aspects of life and society, in particular

the serious implications for human dignity, we must now turn our attention to the yet more tragic issue of war. Here the question is not merely the efficiency of new tools, but also the risk that technology, detached from ethics and responsibility, will render decisions about life and death more rapid and impersonal, and will present the use of force as an immediate and viable option. In an increasingly interdependent world, peace is not simply one issue among others, but a prerequisite for the universal common good and a test of the moral maturity of peoples, especially of those who bear responsibility for governing.

Again, the accountability of these systems cannot go forward without intense scrutiny.

“A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.” – IBM Training Manual, 1979.

Force without limits

The growth of the military-industrial complex has become a defining feature of the current

political landscape and has become a key sector in the economy of various countries. The close link between economic interests, the military apparatus and political decisions produces an “armed nation,” in which war appears as a natural extension of politics, and the arms market becomes an autonomous driving force behind military decisions. Nor can we ignore the enormous economic interests behind war. The armaments industry, and countries that supply weapons, profit from a market that thrives precisely on conflicts. In this sense, there are also financial interests that contribute to fueling tensions in various regions of the world.

Military arsenals are receiving renewed attention. In the past, recognition of the threat

posed by weapons capable of destroying all of humanity had promoted paths toward détente and disarmament negotiations. Unfortunately, this approach has been left behind, and the evolution of nuclear arsenals — including the prospect of its “tactical” use — makes the use of such weapons seem less improbable. In this context, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force in 2021 with the support of over seventy countries, is an important step. However, it risks remaining largely symbolic since the major nuclear powers have not agreed to it. This has led to the widespread yet erroneous belief that nuclear deterrence is an indispensable prerequisite for security. This has also contributed to a new arms race, which is hard to control and accompanied by the gradual dismantling of nuclear reduction agreements, as well as the development of “miniaturized” weapons, that make their use seem like a more viable option.

The same logic applies to conventional warfare. Military force, weak diplomatic initiatives

and the complexity of the interests at stake contribute to conflicts that tend to become protracted, with extremely high human and environmental costs. It is much easier to start a war than to stop it, and yet, discussion on conflict prevention remains tragically marginal.

The person pushing the button from thousands of miles away on the drone strike that kills the family at a wedding feels nothing. Pretty soon there will be no button, and no one to feel at all.

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. [186]

People become a means to an end, and this is text book dehumanization.

We can all do our part

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).

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.” [187] 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. For this reason, it is worthwhile pausing to reflect on some aspects of how we, each in our own way, can cooperate in building the civilization of love. Without presuming to exhaust this theme, I would like to propose five paths toward daily and public responsibility: the need to disarm words, building peace through justice, adopting the perspective of victims, cultivating a healthy realism and reviving dialogue and multilateralism.

“Let each builder choose with care how to build” (1 Cor 3<10>). With these words, Saint Paul

encouraged the Christians of Corinth to preserve unity. Dear brothers and sisters, we have reflected on the world we are building, and we asked ourselves what it means to safeguard the human person in the era of artificial intelligence. At the end of this reflection, I would like to propose a sober yet demanding program of Christian life with which we can navigate this epochal change in the light of the Gospel. This avenue emerges through contemplating God’s plan, living ecclesial unity by partaking of the Eucharist, building a world centered on the common good and praying in union with the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The Word became flesh

Our world is filled with attempts to seize control of markets and spheres of influence,

often shrouded in reassuring rhetoric and seductive ideologies. Yet our hearts yearn for an approach that is wise and benevolent, akin to that which Mary praises in her Magnificat, when she proclaims that God’s mercy extends in every generation to those who fear him. [205] This plan of mercy continues to unfold throughout history today, even amid the rapid and unsettling changes brought by algorithms and global networks, and it becomes a compass in the digital era for living our lives according to the Gospel.

At the heart of everything is the mystery of the Incarnation, the Word who became flesh and

dwelt among us. The flesh of the Son, poor and vulnerable, evokes the flesh of so many brothers and sisters stripped of their dignity and reduced to silence. [206] Through the Lord’s closeness, the gift of peace enters into the world in a paradoxical way. It does so through the power to become children of God, and is awakened when we allow ourselves to be moved by the tears of the little ones, the fragility of the elderly, the silence of victims and the struggle of those who fight against the evil they do not wish to commit. [207] In this wounded yet beloved flesh, the Father shows us the true humanity of a life fulfilled through openness and communion, which leads us to desire that his will be done on earth as it is in heaven. [208]

In the promises of transhumanism and some posthumanist currents of thought, which seek an

enhanced and almost disembodied humanity, we recognize a yearning that is of concern to us, namely the need for a fuller life, less exposed to limitations and suffering. Yet the Incarnation opens a different pathway. On the one hand, old and new ideologies alike urge humanity to overcome limitations through technology, and to rise above others by asserting dominance. Contrary to this, the mystery of the Son of God entering into our human condition promises something quite different. The living God descends into our history in order to free us from all forms of slavery. [209] He takes upon himself our weakness and transforms it into a setting for salvation. There is no moment or human situation that is not worthy of God. “According to the teaching of our faith, we have and adore, in our mysteries, a God who is born in a manger, a God who lives and travels in Judea, a God who dies on the cross, a dead God who lies in the tomb.” [210] The future of humanity, therefore, finds its standard in the ability to welcome this divine way of drawing near, of sharing the burden of the world, of transforming relationships from within. “O wonder… man is God and this God-Man passes through all those stages, endures all those states and ennobles them, sanctifies them, deifies them in himself!” [211] What saves humanity is the divine love that descends into the most fragile point of our history and renews it from within.

For this reason, as a believer among believers, I invite everyone to contemplate, in the

face of the Son of God, the grandeur of humanity that shines a light also on the era of AI. In Christ, we are called to cooperate in the work of creation, rather than be disinterested observers of technological processes that limit our freedom and responsibility. [212] The dignity inscribed in each of us by the Holy Spirit can also be seen in our capacity to reflect critically, choose and love freely, and form authentic relationships. No computational system, however sophisticated, can create a heart that gives itself, or a conscience that discerns good from evil. Even when machines excel in efficiency, a human face that asks to be gazed upon remains the center of our history. This human face is the fullness toward which history is moving. It is the mystery of “recapitulation”: the certainty that the Father has decreed to bring all things, those in heaven and those on earth, back to Christ, the one Head (cf. Eph 1<10>). In this plan, nothing will be lost that is authentically human. Indeed, everything will be purified and reunited in the One, who gathers every fragment of life, every tear and every authentically human achievement, rescuing them from nothingness and delivering them, redeemed, to the Father.

I will say that in my very humble layman opinion, Pope Leo has done a fantastic job with this Encyclical. I agree wholeheartedly with much of the sentiment. We are all in spiritual warfare whether we know it or not, and all of us were born at the right time for the soul that we each possess.

Let us run the Good race toward all that is Good in this life and the next.

As always, God bless, and until next time.

If you enjoyed this post, consider Supporting my work, Checking out my book, Working with me, or sending me an Email to tell me what you think.