Magnifica Humanitas - Full Audio - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Magnifica Humanitas - Full Audio ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/9d2WG0sayr0/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Magnifica Humanitas - Full Audio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d2WG0sayr0) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [artificial-intelligence, social-doctrine, human-dignity] > author: Pope Leo XIV > source: Vatican Encyclical > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d2WG0sayr0 > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: Magnifica Humanitas - Full Audio (audio book) >  ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ## 📝 Summary - Pope Leo XIV issued an encyclical letter addressing the impact of artificial intelligence on human dignity and society - The Pope presents two biblical frameworks: the Tower of Babel (representing technological hubris) vs. Jerusalem's reconstruction (representing collaborative, God-centered building) - The document argues that technology is not neutral but takes on characteristics of its creators, financers, and users - Calls for shared responsibility in guiding AI development toward the common good rather than allowing private interests to dominate - Emphasizes the need to preserve human dignity in an era of increasing technological capability and dehumanization risks - Bottom line: Christians and all people of goodwill must actively participate in shaping AI development to serve human flourishing rather than profit alone ## 📖 Main Content The encyclical "Magnifica Humanitas" represents Pope Leo XIV's response to the challenges posed by artificial intelligence and digital transformation. The document builds upon the Catholic Church's social doctrine tradition, particularly the legacy of Leo XIII's "Rerum Novarum" from 1891. ### Biblical Framework for Technology The Pope employs two contrasting biblical narratives to frame humanity's choices regarding AI: **The Tower of Babel** represents technological development divorced from God, characterized by: - Self-sufficiency and pride - Uniformity that eliminates diversity - Communication breakdown despite shared language and technology - Pursuit of power and recognition rather than service **Jerusalem's Reconstruction** under Nehemiah exemplifies collaborative, God-centered development: - Shared responsibility among all community members - Prayer and discernment before action - Coordination that respects diversity while maintaining unity - Focus on rebuilding relationships alongside physical structures ### Technology's Non-Neutral Nature The document emphasizes that "technology is never neutral because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it." This insight challenges the common assumption that technological tools are morally neutral, arguing instead that AI systems embed the values, biases, and priorities of their creators. ### Shift in Technological Power Unlike previous eras where states primarily guided innovation, the Pope notes that "the main drivers of development are private, often transnational parties that are endowed with resources and the capacity to intervene that surpass those of many governments." This concentration of technological power in private hands raises concerns about democratic oversight and public accountability. ### Principles for AI Development The encyclical outlines key principles for evaluating AI development: - Dignity of the human person - Universal destination of goods - Preferential option for the poor - Care for our common home (environmental stewardship) - Peace and justice ### Church's Role in Social Questions Building on Vatican II's teachings, the document clarifies that the Church engages with technological questions not as "undue interference" but because "the proclamation of the gospel cannot overlook the concrete lives of people." The Church offers principles for discernment rather than technical solutions. ## 🗒️ Notes ### Introduction and Context - Humanity faces a choice between building a new Tower of Babel or constructing a city where God and humanity dwell together - Each generation must shape its era to safeguard human dignity, promote justice, and enable fraternity - Christians look to the Incarnate God as the standard for true humanity when human identity is threatened ### Biblical Frameworks **Tower of Babel Analysis:** - Single language, technology, and direction appeared impressive - Project conceived without reference to God - Uniformity eliminated diversity, choosing homogenization over communion - Result was communication breakdown and dispersion, not unity - Reveals limits of self-sufficient projects that sacrifice human dignity for efficiency **Jerusalem Reconstruction:** - Nehemiah fasted, prayed, and interceded before acting - Examined destroyed areas in silence rather than imposing solutions from above - Convened families, assigned responsibilities, listened to concerns - Coordinated efforts while addressing opposition - Rebuilt relationships before rebuilding with stones - Achieved communion through harmony where all persons assumed their roles ### Technology and Human Power - Scientific discoveries are talents entrusted to humanity to bear fruit - Technology can heal, connect, educate, and protect, but also divide, exclude, and generate injustice - Primary choice is not yes/no to technology, but between Babel and Jerusalem approaches - Must avoid "Babel syndrome": idolatry of profit, uniformity that neutralizes differences, pretense that digital language can translate everything into data ### Common Good Principles **Building on Firm Relationship with God:** - Truth of God's love calls us to life in all its fullness - God inscribed desire for happiness in human hearts - Church dialogues with contemporary humanity to guide this aspiration toward deepest truth **Accepting Human Limits:** - Human desire for fullness often misled by technology promising freedom from all weakness - True fulfillment achieved through harmonious growth, not eliminating weakness - Progress measured by dignity of each person and good of all peoples **Shared Responsibility:** - Power made perfect in weakness - all have a role to play - Logic of subsidiarity values cooperation between generations, peoples, disciplines, cultures - Tensions and differences can become creative forces when guided by shared responsibility ### Social Doctrine Development The document traces Catholic social teaching from Leo XIII's "Rerum Novarum" (1891) through Vatican II to present day, showing how unchanging truths about human dignity interact with evolving historical situations. **Key Historical Stages:** - Leo XIII: Addressed industrial age conflicts between capital and labor - Pius XI: Formulated subsidiarity principle during economic crisis - Pius XII: Outlined international order based on justice and peace - John XXIII: Emphasized global dimension and human rights language - Vatican II: Church as close to humanity, engaged with world - Paul VI: Development as new name for peace - John Paul II: Work as fundamental good, solidarity as shared responsibility - Benedict XVI: Charity united with truth at heart of social doctrine ## 📚 References - Genesis 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel) - Nehemiah 2:6 (Jerusalem reconstruction) - Matthew 25:14-30 (Parable of talents) - John 10:10 (Life in fullness) - 2 Corinthians 12:9 (Power in weakness) - Psalm 85:10 (Love and faithfulness meet) - Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891) - Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes - John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, Pacem in Terris - Paul VI, Populorum Progressio - John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Centesimus Annus - Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate ## 🗣️ Paraphrase Pope Leo XIV's encyclical addresses the profound challenges artificial intelligence poses to human dignity and social organization. Drawing on the Catholic Church's rich tradition of social teaching, the Pope argues that humanity stands at a crossroads between two approaches to technological development. The first approach, symbolized by the Tower of Babel, represents technological advancement driven by pride, self-sufficiency, and the pursuit of power without reference to God or genuine human community. This path leads to communication breakdown and social fragmentation despite apparent technical unity. The alternative, exemplified by Nehemiah's reconstruction of Jerusalem, involves collaborative effort rooted in prayer, shared responsibility, and recognition that true strength comes from God. This approach rebuilds relationships alongside physical structures and transforms diversity into a resource for community building. The Pope emphasizes that technology is never neutral but reflects the values and priorities of its creators and controllers. With AI development now largely driven by private entities with resources exceeding many governments, there is urgent need for shared discernment about the direction of technological progress. Rather than opposing technology, the Church calls for its development to serve human flourishing, guided by principles including human dignity, universal destination of goods, preferential option for the poor, environmental stewardship, and peace. The goal is not to eliminate human weakness through technology but to achieve harmonious growth that includes all people. ## 📰 Newsletter **Vatican Issues Major Statement on AI Ethics: What Web Developers Need to Know** Pope Leo XIV just dropped a comprehensive encyclical on artificial intelligence that should be required reading for anyone building digital products. "Magnifica Humanitas" doesn't just offer religious perspectives—it provides a framework for ethical tech development that cuts across faith traditions. Key takeaways for the WordPress community: - **Technology isn't neutral**: Our code, plugins, and platforms embed our values whether we intend it or not - **Power concentration matters**: When private entities control technological direction, we need stronger community voices - **Subsidiarity principle**: Empower users and local communities rather than centralizing all decisions - **Dignity-first design**: Measure progress by how well technology serves the most vulnerable The Pope's "Babel vs. Jerusalem" framework offers a powerful lens for evaluating whether we're building inclusive communities or creating new forms of exclusion. Worth reading alongside recent discussions about AI in WordPress Core. **Resources:** - [Full encyclical text](https://example.com/magnifica-humanitas) - [Vatican social doctrine compendium](https://example.com/social-doctrine) - [WordPress AI ethics discussions](https://example.com/wp-ai-ethics) This aligns beautifully with WordPress's democratizing mission—technology that empowers everyone to publish, not just the tech elite. ## ✅ Action Items #### Community - **Maintainers**: Host "technology ethics" sessions in WordCamps to discuss AI integration responsibilities - **Contributors**: Review AI-powered features for bias potential and accessibility impact before implementation - **Sponsors**: Develop transparency standards for AI training data and algorithmic decision-making processes #### WordPress - **Core AI**: Draft responsible AI principles based on subsidiarity and human dignity criteria - **Community**: Create discussion forums for ethical technology development across global WordPress communities - **Training**: Develop curriculum modules on technology ethics for WordPress developer certification programs - **Meta**: Establish AI ethics review board with diverse global representation for major platform decisions #### OSPO - **Policy & Governance**: Draft AI ethics guidelines for open source projects receiving foundation funding - **Community Engagement**: Organize multi-stakeholder dialogues between developers, users, and affected communities - **Strategic Alignment**: Integrate dignity-first metrics into project success evaluation criteria ## 🧪 Hypotheses 1. **Technology reflects creator values**: AI systems systematically embed the biases, priorities, and worldviews of their developers and funders 2. **Private technological power concentration threatens democracy**: When corporations control AI development without public oversight, democratic governance weakens 3. **Subsidiarity improves technology outcomes**: Technological solutions developed closer to affected communities produce better results than centralized approaches 4. **Religious frameworks enhance tech ethics**: Spiritual wisdom traditions offer valuable resources for navigating technological challenges beyond secular approaches 5. **Collaborative development reduces dehumanization**: Technologies developed through inclusive, relationship-building processes better preserve human dignity 6. **Profit-driven AI increases inequality**: AI development primarily motivated by financial returns systematically disadvantages vulnerable populations ### 📊 Methodology - **Empirical studies**: Compare AI bias levels across different development methodologies (profit-driven vs. community-driven) - **Historical analysis**: Examine correlation between technological power concentration and democratic outcomes across different eras - **Cross-cultural research**: Analyze how different ethical frameworks (religious, secular humanist, utilitarian) influence technology design decisions - **Longitudinal tracking**: Monitor WordPress community decisions before and after implementing dignity-first evaluation criteria ### ❓ Questions - How can open source communities implement the subsidiarity principle in AI development governance? - What specific mechanisms would ensure AI development serves the "preferential option for the poor"? - How do we measure whether technology increases or decreases human flourishing beyond economic metrics? - Can religious wisdom traditions contribute to secular technology policy discussions without imposing particular beliefs? - What would "Jerusalem-style" collaborative AI development look like in practice? ### 🔮 Future Research - Develop "dignity impact assessment" methodologies for AI system evaluation - Create frameworks for meaningful community participation in AI governance decisions - Investigate how different cultural and religious traditions approach technology ethics - Study correlation between developer community diversity and AI system fairness outcomes - Explore blockchain-based governance models that implement subsidiarity principles ### 💡 Implications **For Practice:** - Technology teams need ethical frameworks beyond legal compliance and business metrics - Community input should be integrated into AI development from initial design stages - Open source projects should explicitly address power distribution in their governance models **For Policy:** - Democratic institutions need new mechanisms for overseeing private AI development - International cooperation frameworks should include religious and cultural perspectives - Regulations should protect human agency rather than just preventing specific harms **For Education:** - Technology education should include ethical reasoning and cultural humility components - Developer training should emphasize responsibility alongside technical skills - Liberal arts perspectives become more valuable in AI-era technology development **For Funding:** - Investment criteria should include dignity and subsidiarity metrics alongside financial returns - Public funding for AI research should require community benefit demonstration - Grant-making should prioritize projects that strengthen rather than replace human agency ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment **Reading level estimate**: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 12-14 (college/graduate level due to theological terminology and complex sentence structures) #### 👀 Visual learners **Present**: The Babel vs. Jerusalem contrast provides clear visual metaphor for different approaches **Improve**: Architecture diagrams showing centralized vs. distributed AI governance models, infographics comparing current AI power concentration with proposed alternatives #### 🔊 Aural learners **Present**: Audio format available through YouTube presentation **Improve**: Podcast discussion series exploring specific applications of encyclical principles to technology development #### 🗣️ Verbal learners **Present**: Rich theological vocabulary with clear definitions in context, extensive use of analogies **Improve**: Glossary of technical terms bridging religious and technology language, plain-language summary for each major section #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners **Present**: Concrete historical examples and actionable frameworks for evaluation **Improve**: Workshop activities for applying dignity-first assessment to real AI systems, role-playing exercises for collaborative development processes #### 🧠 Logical learners **Present**: Clear progression from principles through historical development to contemporary application **Improve**: Flowcharts for ethical decision-making in AI development, comparative tables of different technological governance approaches #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners **Present**: Emphasis on collaborative development and community discernment processes **Improve**: Discussion guides for faith communities and secular groups, frameworks for interfaith technology ethics dialogue #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners **Present**: Rich material for personal reflection on technology's role in human flourishing **Improve**: Contemplative practices for technology creators, personal assessment tools for evaluating one's role in technological systems #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners **Present**: Care for "common home" as criterion for AI assessment **Improve**: Connections between AI environmental impact and stewardship principles, exploration of biomimetic approaches to AI development ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics **Present**: Clear hierarchical structure with descriptive headings **Improve**: Add ARIA landmarks for major document sections, include alt text for any visual metaphor diagrams #### Keyboard navigation **Present**: Text-based format accessible via keyboard **Improve**: Ensure any interactive elements in digital versions support keyboard navigation #### Contrast and readability **Present**: Standard text formatting **Improve**: Provide high-contrast version option, use sufficient white space around dense theological concepts #### Text resizing and reflow **Present**: Responsive text format **Improve**: Test reflow at 200% zoom with technical terminology, ensure footnotes remain accessible #### Media and captions **Present**: Audio version available **Improve**: Provide complete transcript with speaker attribution, add chapter markers for navigation #### Forms and interactions **Present**: Not applicable (document format) **Improve**: If implementing interactive discussion features, ensure form labels and error handling meet WCAG standards ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth **Present**: Universal human dignity principles applicable across cultures **Improve**: Include examples from non-Western theological traditions, acknowledge diverse approaches to technology ethics #### Inclusive language **Present**: Uses accessible theological language with explanations **Improve**: Provide secular translations of key concepts, avoid assuming Christian background knowledge #### Neurodiversity support **Present**: Well-structured with clear headings and logical progression **Improve**: Add summary bullets for main points, provide multiple ways to navigate complex arguments #### Representation **Present**: Addresses global impact of AI development on all peoples **Improve**: Include voices from Global South in technology development examples, acknowledge digital divide realities #### Psychological safety **Present**: Non-judgmental approach that welcomes dialogue with all people of goodwill **Improve**: Acknowledge legitimate concerns about religious perspectives in secular contexts, provide safe spaces for questions ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning **Deductive strength**: The argument from biblical principles to contemporary AI ethics follows clear logical structure - if human dignity is fundamental (premise) and technology affects dignity (premise), then technology development must consider dignity impact (conclusion). **Analogical strength**: The Babel/Jerusalem metaphor effectively illuminates the contrast between self-sufficient vs. collaborative approaches to technological development, with sufficient parallel elements to support the comparison. **Historical reasoning**: The progression through Catholic social doctrine demonstrates consistent principles applied to changing technological contexts, supporting the claim that these frameworks remain relevant. #### Fallacies **Appeal to authority**: While the document cites papal authority, it also provides rational arguments and invites dialogue with non-Catholics, reducing this concern. **False dichotomy**: The Babel vs. Jerusalem framework might oversimplify the range of possible approaches to AI development, though the document acknowledges complexity in implementation. #### Tone of voice **Tone**: Pastoral and dialogical rather than condemning. Uses inclusive language ("all people of goodwill") while maintaining clear moral positions. Balances confidence in principles with humility about technical solutions. ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis No evidence of DARVO tactics in this document. The encyclical takes responsibility for the Church's role in technological development discussions rather than deflecting criticism. It acknowledges past errors in Church history regarding intolerance and violence, demonstrating accountability rather than defensiveness. ## 🎯 Conclusion "Magnifica Humanitas" offers a comprehensive framework for approaching AI development that prioritizes human dignity and collaborative governance over technological efficiency and private profit. The Pope's core insight—that technology is never neutral but embeds the values of its creators—challenges both naive techno-optimism and pessimistic technophobia. The biblical framework of Babel vs. Jerusalem provides a compelling metaphor for evaluating whether AI development trends toward prideful self-sufficiency or humble collaboration. This religious wisdom tradition offers valuable resources for secular technology ethics, particularly the principle of subsidiarity and preferential option for the vulnerable. For practitioners in the WordPress community and broader open source ecosystem, the encyclical suggests concrete steps: implement dignity impact assessments, strengthen community participation in governance, and measure success by human flourishing rather than just technical metrics. The document's emphasis on shared responsibility resonates with open source values while adding ethical depth to collaborative development practices. --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Encyclical letter Magnifica humanitis of [00:03] his holiness Pope Leo 14 on safeguarding [00:07] the human person in the time of [00:10] artificial intelligence. Introduction [00:13] one. Humanity created by God in all its [00:16] grandeur is today facing a pivotal [00:18] choice either to construct a new tower [00:20] of Babel or to build the city in which [00:22] God and humanity dwell together. Each [00:24] generation inherits the task of shaping [00:26] its own era, of guiding history to [00:28] become a place where the dignity of [00:30] every person is safeguarded. Justice is [00:32] promoted and fraternity is made [00:33] possible. Yet, every era also runs the [00:36] risk of creating an inhumane and more [00:38] unjust world. Whenever humanity is in [00:41] danger of marring its true identity, we [00:43] Christians lift our eyes to the [00:44] incarnate God, knowing that it is only [00:46] in the mystery of the word made flesh [00:48] that the mystery of humanity truly [00:50] becomes clear in Jesus Christ. This [00:53] humanity in its grandeur becomes the [00:54] way, the truth, and the life, opening [00:57] the path for each of us to grow toward [00:59] fullness. Two, founded on Christ, the [01:02] living stone, we experience the powerful [01:04] and mysterious action of the Holy [01:06] Spirit. And we believe that every [01:07] authentic human effort to cooperate with [01:09] him for the good will be blessed by our [01:11] heavenly father in whom we place our [01:12] hope. For this reason, we can diligently [01:15] contribute to every initiative that [01:17] builds a more just world. And we can [01:19] call others to collaborate in promoting [01:20] the integral development of every human [01:22] being. We wish to engage in dialogue [01:25] with all men and women of our time with [01:27] whom we share in the events, questions [01:29] and aspirations of humanity. Together [01:31] with them, we seek to identify new paths [01:34] for the common good and for promoting a [01:36] dignified life for all. Indeed, openness [01:38] to dialogue is an integral part of the [01:40] church's vocation because constituted in [01:43] Christ as a sacrament of communion with [01:45] God and of the unity of the entire human [01:47] race. She recognizes history as the [01:49] place where the gospel challenges and [01:51] directs human experience. Three, in this [01:54] spirit, Pope Leo I 13th published his [01:56] encyclical reirum in 1891, the 135th [02:00] anniversary of which we celebrate with [02:02] deep gratitude this year. With that [02:04] document, my beloved predecessor gave [02:07] impetus to the reflection on society, [02:09] the economy, and politics, which is now [02:11] known as the social doctrine of the [02:13] church. When some objected that the [02:15] church should not waste energy on [02:16] worldly matters, but instead focus on [02:18] communicating the message of eternal [02:20] life, Leo I 13th responded with realism [02:23] and wisdom, saying that the proclamation [02:25] of the gospel cannot overlook the [02:26] concrete lives of people. Many decades [02:29] have passed since then, and the [02:30] magisterium, pastors, theologians, and [02:33] faithful have continued to reflect on [02:35] social issues in the light of the [02:36] gospel. Today, the social doctrine of [02:39] the church is a legacy of wisdom where [02:41] we find principles for thought, criteria [02:43] for discernment and judgment, and [02:45] concrete guidelines for action. Founded [02:47] on sacred scripture and tradition and in [02:49] engagement with the sciences, it helps [02:51] us clearly interpret the challenges of [02:53] the present and identify appropriate [02:54] ways for living out a clear Christian [02:56] witness with joy and in service to the [02:59] world. It is not an inert set of [03:00] concepts, but a living corpus of truth [03:02] that safeguards and interprets [03:04] humanity's vocation to a full and just [03:06] life. I therefore wish to add my own [03:08] voice to this living tradition invoking [03:11] the help of the spirit of wisdom who has [03:13] dwelt in the world since its beginning [03:14] compared to proverbs 8 22 to31 the [03:18] residential novi of our time four while [03:22] Leo I 13th spoke in his time of new [03:24] things Raman noam today we cannot limit [03:27] ourselves simply to repeating his [03:28] insightful teachings instead we must ask [03:32] God for the wisdom to interpret the [03:33] great trends of our time particularly [03:35] technological advances [03:37] In recent years, it has become [03:39] increasingly evident how rapidly and [03:41] profoundly digitalization, artificial [03:43] intelligence, AI, and robotics are [03:46] transforming our world. Technology [03:48] should not be considered in itself as a [03:50] force antagonistic to humanity. On the [03:53] contrary, it has formed part of our [03:55] history since the beginning as a [03:56] profoundly human reality linked to the [03:58] autonomy and freedom of man. Over the [04:01] centuries, technological development has [04:03] significantly improved the living [04:05] conditions of humanity. At the same [04:07] time, each phase of progress has also [04:09] revealed the ambiguity of tools that can [04:11] cause harm when not oriented toward the [04:13] good. Today, however, we find ourselves [04:17] facing a new situation. The power and [04:19] prevalence of emerging technologies are [04:21] interwoven into the fabric of daily [04:23] life, shaping decision-making processes [04:25] and deeply affecting the collective [04:27] imagination. Never has humanity had such [04:29] power over itself. New technologies open [04:32] up a horizon extending in directions [04:34] that are imaginable but not yet fully [04:36] predictable. This complicates the [04:38] assessment of their potential impact and [04:40] the long-term effects they may have on [04:42] both the dignity of individuals and the [04:43] common good. Five, it now falls to us to [04:47] face the challenges of our time with [04:48] clarity of thought and responsibility. [04:50] It is necessary to establish adequate [04:52] regulatory tools capable of upholding [04:54] justice and curbing the distorting [04:56] effects of technological power. [04:58] Nevertheless, the issue is not limited [05:01] to regulation. As Pope Francis warned, [05:04] we must realistically ask ourselves who [05:06] holds this power today and how they use [05:07] it. It must also be recognized that [05:10] nuclear energy, biotechnology, [05:12] information technology, knowledge of our [05:14] own DNA, and many other abilities which [05:16] we have acquired have given those with [05:18] the knowledge and especially the [05:19] economic resources to use them an [05:21] impressive dominance over the whole of [05:23] humanity and the entire world. In the [05:26] past, it was largely up to the state to [05:28] guide and direct innovation. Today, [05:31] however, the main drivers of development [05:33] are private, often transnational parties [05:35] that are endowed with resources and the [05:37] capacity to intervene that surpass those [05:39] of many governments. Technological power [05:41] thus takes on an unprecedented, [05:43] predominantly private aspect, which [05:45] makes it even more challenging to [05:47] discern, govern, and direct such power [05:49] toward the common good. Six, for this [05:52] reason, it is necessary to begin a [05:54] shared discernment process for [05:55] identifying the spiritual and cultural [05:57] roots of ongoing transformations. If we [06:00] focus only on contingencies, we risk [06:02] letting the succession of emergencies [06:04] dictate the direction of our path. We [06:06] are living through a rapid phase of [06:07] transition, a change of era in which [06:10] while some are vying for the future of [06:12] new technologies and others dedicate [06:13] themselves to reflecting on the matter, [06:15] most people are watching and waiting, [06:17] observing from afar and merely hoping [06:19] for the best. For this very reason, [06:21] crucial questions impose themselves on [06:23] our conscience and can no longer be [06:24] avoided. Where are we going toward? What [06:27] goal do we wish to orient ourselves? [06:30] What direction should we choose as a [06:32] people and as a human community? Two [06:34] biblical images. Seven. In order to [06:37] answer these questions and discern how [06:39] to navigate responsibly the era of AI, I [06:41] would like to bring to mind two scenes [06:43] from the Bible. The construction of the [06:44] tower of Babel compared to Gen 11 1-9 [06:48] and the rebuilding of the walls of [06:50] Jerusalem compared to nitu to 6. The [06:53] story of Babel appears in the book of [06:55] Genesis at the origins of humanity. [06:57] Immediately after the genealogies of [06:59] Noah's sons, after settling in a plane [07:01] in the land of Shinar, the people [07:03] decided to build a city and a tower with [07:05] its top in the heavens. Gen 11:4. [07:09] Fearing being scattered across the [07:10] earth, they sought to guarantee [07:12] stability and power for themselves, and [07:14] above all to make a name for themselves. [07:16] It was an impressive feat. A single [07:18] language, a single technology, a single [07:21] direction. However, the project [07:23] concealed a profound danger. It was a [07:26] project conceived without reference to [07:28] God, supported by a uniformity that [07:30] eliminated diversity and that chose [07:32] homogenization over communion. When a [07:34] city is built on pride and the claim to [07:36] self-sufficiency, communication breaks [07:38] down, languages are confused, and people [07:41] no longer understand each other. The [07:43] result is not unity, but dispersion. [07:45] Babel thus reveals the limits of any [07:47] effort that however grandiose arises [07:50] from self-affirmation, sacrifices human [07:52] dignity for efficiency and aspires to [07:54] reach heaven without God's blessing. 8. [07:57] The book of Nehemiah in turn opens at a [08:00] time of great vulnerability in the [08:02] history of ancient Israel. After the [08:04] Babylonian exile, a portion of the [08:06] people returned to Jerusalem, but the [08:08] city was still in ruins. The walls [08:09] collapsed and the gates burned compared [08:11] to no one to two. Nehemiah, a Jew in the [08:15] service of the Persian king Arderxes, [08:17] received news of the disastrous state of [08:19] his ancestral city. Before taking [08:21] action, he fasted, prayed, and [08:24] interceded for the people. He then asked [08:26] the king for permission to return to [08:27] Jerusalem, and upon arriving, examined [08:30] the destroyed areas in silence. He did [08:33] not impose solutions from above. He [08:35] convened the families, assigned each of [08:37] them a section of the wall to rebuild, [08:39] listened to their concerns, coordinated [08:41] their efforts, and addressed any [08:43] opposition. The narrative shows how the [08:45] city is reborn, not through the [08:47] initiative of one man, but through the [08:48] shared responsibility of all men, women, [08:51] priests, artisans, heads of households, [08:54] and young people all play a part. It is [08:56] an undertaking with God at the center, [08:58] which rebuilds relationships before [09:00] rebuilding with stones. Thus, ancient [09:03] Jerusalem rediscovers a common language, [09:05] not one of uniformity, but one of [09:07] communion, namely the harmony that [09:09] arises when all persons assume their own [09:11] role and recognize that their strength [09:13] comes from the Lord. Nine. In light of [09:15] these two images, the Holy Spirit [09:17] challenges us today regarding our [09:19] relationship with technology and the [09:21] ongoing digital revolution. Scientific [09:23] discoveries are talents entrusted to [09:25] humanity so that they may bear fruit [09:27] compared to MT2514-30. [09:30] Technology has the power to heal, [09:33] connect, educate, and protect our common [09:35] home, but it can also divide, exclude, [09:38] and generate new forms of injustice. In [09:40] the abstract, technology in and of [09:42] itself is not a solution to humanity's [09:45] problems, just as it is not inherently [09:47] evil. In practice, however, technology [09:50] is never neutral because it takes on the [09:52] characteristics of those who devise, [09:54] finance, regulate, and use it. [09:56] Therefore, the primary choice is not [09:58] between a yes or no to technology, but [10:01] rather between constructing Babel or [10:02] rebuilding Jerusalem, between a power [10:04] that claims to dominate the heavens and [10:06] a people who work together in the [10:08] presence of God to rebuild the walls of [10:09] fraternal coexistence. 10. We must then [10:13] avoid the Babel syndrome, namely the [10:16] idolatry of prophet that sacrifices the [10:18] weak, a uniformity that neutralizes [10:20] differences and the pretense that a [10:21] single language, even a digital one, can [10:24] translate everything, including the [10:26] mystery of the person, into data and [10:28] performance. The risk of dehumanization, [10:30] of building a future that excludes God [10:32] and reduces the other to a means, is an [10:35] ancient and ever new temptation that [10:36] today takes on a technical guise. [10:39] Instead, let us choose the way of [10:41] Nehemiah, which highlights the [10:42] importance of working together to make [10:44] the city of God a safe place for [10:46] returning exiles. Rebuilding today means [10:48] recognizing that precisely from the [10:50] plurality of voices and visions, which [10:52] even though they sometimes remind us of [10:54] the confusion caused by the diversity of [10:56] spoken languages, a bright possibility [10:58] emerges. Indeed, this is the possibility [11:01] of building together, of transforming [11:03] diversity into a resource, and of making [11:05] listening and dialogue the common ground [11:07] upon which to cultivate justice and [11:09] fraternity. Within this shared task, [11:11] Christians discover their unique role of [11:13] guiding actions toward God. So that in [11:15] his light, pluralism does not dissipate [11:17] into disorder, but instead through the [11:19] practice of codelity, it becomes the [11:21] space in which humanity rediscovers its [11:23] solid foundations and its final end. In [11:26] the book of Revelation, John sees the [11:28] new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven [11:30] from God, Revelation 21:2, as a gift for [11:34] all humanity. And this vision of grace [11:36] is an invitation for us Christians to [11:38] work together in order to foster a [11:39] peaceful, just, and dignified life in [11:42] community within today's cities. [11:44] Building for the common good. 11. [11:47] Building a city founded on the common [11:48] good implies first and foremost building [11:51] on a firm relationship with God. It [11:53] means recognizing that the truth of his [11:55] love calls us to life in all its [11:57] fullness. John 10:10. And communion with [12:00] him. Like St. Augustine, we too can say, [12:03] "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, [12:05] and our heart is restless until it rests [12:07] in you." Indeed, God has inscribed in [12:10] our hearts a desire for happiness that [12:12] embraces all the dimensions of life. The [12:14] church, in dialogue with the men and [12:16] women of our time, recognizes the urgent [12:19] need to safeguard and guide this [12:20] aspiration toward its deepest truth. 12. [12:24] Secondly, building for the common good [12:26] means accepting the limits and weakness [12:27] of humanity without considering them an [12:29] error to be corrected. Today, the human [12:32] desire for fullness of life is at risk [12:34] of being misled by deceitful goals, such [12:36] as the prospect of a technology that [12:38] promises to free us from all weakness [12:40] and models of well-being that leave [12:41] behind entire populations. All too [12:44] often, we place our hope in unlimited [12:46] upgrades, in forms of progress that [12:48] exacerbate inequalities, and in [12:50] immediate solutions incapable of healing [12:52] people's wounds. As a result, while some [12:55] pursue the illusion of unlimited self [12:57] assertion, many are deprived of basic [12:59] necessities. The church reminds us with [13:02] a firm yet humble voice that true [13:04] fulfillment is not achieved by [13:05] eliminating weakness, but through [13:06] harmonious growth. It is found where [13:09] freedom and responsibility are [13:10] intertwined with mutual care and true [13:12] solidarity and where progress is [13:14] measured by the dignity of each person [13:16] and the good of all peoples. 13. [13:19] Thirdly, building a world in which [13:21] everyone can flourish requires shared [13:23] responsibility and courage. No one can [13:25] single-handedly bear the weight of the [13:27] challenges the world is facing just as [13:29] no one is so weak that they cannot play [13:30] their part. For power is made perfect in [13:33] weakness. 2 core 12 cola 9 all are given [13:36] their own section of the wall. [13:38] Scientists and researchers, [13:40] entrepreneurs and workers, educators and [13:42] legislators, civil society, popular [13:45] movements and faith communities. This is [13:47] the logic of subsidiarity which values [13:50] the cooperation between generations, [13:52] peoples, disciplines and cultures as the [13:54] best way for fostering stability, [13:56] prosperity and peace. We should not be [13:58] intimidated by tensions or differences [14:00] because they can become creative forces [14:02] when guided by shared responsibility. [14:04] 14. Finally, building for the common [14:07] good requires an evangelical language. [14:10] We must avoid humiliating or [14:12] antagonistic words, opting rather for a [14:14] clarity that sheds light and a frankness [14:16] that unlocks new possibilities. We [14:18] cannot condone naive enthusiasms, nor [14:21] fuel unfounded fears. Instead, let us [14:24] establish standards for discernment, the [14:26] dignity of the human person, the [14:27] universal destination of goods, the [14:29] preferential option for the poor, care [14:31] for our common home, and peace. And let [14:33] us translate these standards into [14:35] practices such as responsible planning, [14:37] the assessment of human and social [14:38] impact, the inclusion of the most [14:40] vulnerable, the promotion of digital [14:42] literacy, and guiding research and [14:43] industry toward justice and peace, [14:46] remaining human. 15. In the recent [14:49] ordinary jubilee year of 2025, we walked [14:52] as pilgrims of hope and were blessed [14:54] with many graces. Strengthened by these [14:56] gifts, we can move forward with [14:58] confidence to face the arduous tasks and [15:00] demanding challenges that lie ahead. In [15:02] the era of artificial intelligence, when [15:04] human dignity is threatened by new forms [15:06] of dehumanization, ours is the pressing [15:09] duty to remain profoundly human. We must [15:12] lovingly safeguard the grandeur of [15:13] humanity bestowed upon us and revealed [15:15] in its fullness in Christ, the splendor [15:17] of which no machine can ever replace. [15:20] True progress always stems from a heart [15:22] open to others, an intelligence willing [15:24] to listen, and a will that seeks what [15:26] unites rather than what separates. 16. I [15:29] address this heartfelt appeal to all the [15:31] Catholic faithful, to all Christians, [15:33] and to all men and women of goodwill. [15:35] Let us not be afraid to get our hands [15:37] dirty on the construction site of our [15:39] time. Like Nehemiah, let us pray, plan [15:42] wisely, and work perseveringly, placing [15:45] God at the forefront of our actions and [15:46] the human person at the center of our [15:48] choices. Thus, the rejected stones, the [15:51] poor, the sick, the migrants, and the [15:53] least among us will become the [15:55] cornerstone, and a solid welcoming [15:57] common home will emerge on the earth [15:59] where love and faithfulness will finally [16:01] meet and righteousness and peace will [16:03] embrace. compared to PS85 10. This is [16:07] the blessing we implore from God. And [16:09] the task that stands before us is that [16:10] of being builders of communion rather [16:12] than architects of Babel. We are to be [16:15] servants of the coming kingdom instead [16:17] of lords of towers destined for ruin. [16:19] With the heart of a shepherd and a [16:21] father, I ask everyone to abandon the [16:23] construction of yet another tower of [16:24] Babel and to join forces in building up [16:26] the common good so that humanity will [16:28] never lose its beauty and the world once [16:30] again will come to recognize the human [16:32] heart as the place where God desires to [16:34] dwell. Chapter 1. A dynamic approach [16:37] faithful to the gospel. 17. In this [16:40] first chapter, I intend to present [16:42] synthetically how the social doctrine of [16:44] the church has taken shape in the recent [16:46] papal magisterium and in the second [16:47] Vatican council in order to demonstrate [16:49] its dynamic character. Indeed, in each [16:52] era, the residential novi require that [16:54] this teaching address historical [16:56] questions in the light of revealed [16:57] truth. In this regard, artificial [17:00] intelligence too should not be [17:02] considered as merely yet another theme [17:03] to be studied or a crisis to be managed, [17:06] but rather as a development that [17:07] challenges the categories of social [17:09] doctrine from within, calling for their [17:10] further development in fidelity to the [17:12] gospel. 18. This overview, however, [17:15] would not be very comprehensible if, [17:17] before reflecting on the contribution of [17:19] individual popes and their most relevant [17:21] documents, we do not first clarify some [17:23] fundamental principles concerning the [17:25] way in which the church exists in [17:26] history and relates to the world. [17:28] Failing to do so would expose social [17:30] doctrine to the risk of being perceived [17:32] as an undue interference in worldly [17:34] matters or as an external code of ethics [17:36] imposed from above. In reality, it stems [17:39] from a church that walks alongside [17:40] humanity, recognizing the autonomy of [17:43] earthly realities and the distinction [17:44] between ecclesial and political [17:46] communities. Indeed, it is for this very [17:49] reason that she strives to serve the [17:50] common good. A church journeying through [17:53] human history. 19. The church is present [17:56] in the world as a sign of unity for the [17:58] entire human family. She recognizes [18:00] today's questions and challenges as the [18:02] current setting in which to carry out [18:04] her particular vocation of listening, [18:06] dialogue, and service, and of being [18:08] responsive to everything concerning the [18:09] lives of contemporary men and women. [18:12] This involvement in people's lives helps [18:13] the church understand ever more clearly [18:15] that her mission has a historical scope [18:17] and entails a responsibility for the way [18:19] in which social relations are built. For [18:21] this reason, she cannot consider herself [18:23] a stranger to the forces shaping [18:25] society. On the contrary, the church [18:27] actively participates in the processes [18:29] by which society grows and is organized, [18:32] and she offers her own contribution to [18:34] the creation of a more just and [18:35] fraternal society. Pope Francis [18:37] emphasized this historical dimension of [18:39] the church's mission. No one can demand [18:41] that religion should be relegated to the [18:43] inner sanctum of personal life without [18:45] influence on societal and national life, [18:48] without concern for the soundness of [18:49] civil institutions, without a right to [18:51] offer an opinion on events affecting [18:53] society. 20. The church's vocation and [18:56] duty to accompany humanity in the [18:58] specifics of history leads her to [19:00] recognize that earthly realities possess [19:02] their own proper character and order. [19:04] The second Vatican council expressed [19:06] this principle with particular precision [19:07] in the pastoral constitution Gordium et [19:10] whose 60th anniversary we remembered and [19:12] celebrated with gratitude on the 7th of [19:14] December 2025. If by the autonomy of [19:17] earthly affairs is meant that created [19:19] things and societies themselves enjoy [19:20] their own laws and values, then the [19:22] demand for autonomy is perfectly in [19:24] order. This affirmation shows that [19:27] creation bears the imprint of an [19:28] original goodness that our human outlook [19:30] must preserve, cultivate, and bring to [19:32] fulfillment. In this regard, the church [19:35] offers herself in a way that helps to [19:37] interpret reality in all its depth. She [19:39] supports with humble firmness the [19:41] choices that promote the dignity of [19:42] every person, the cohesion of [19:44] communities and the good of all. The [19:46] church thus stands alongside the world [19:48] without overpowering it, so that the [19:50] promise of justice and peace that the [19:52] Holy Spirit continues to sustain in the [19:53] heart of humanity may come to fruition [19:55] in every human endeavor. 21. Recognizing [19:59] that God upholds the freedom of men and [20:01] women in the unfolding of history, the [20:03] Second Vatican Council affirmed the [20:04] distinction between the ecclesial [20:06] community and the political community, [20:08] emphasizing that each must operate with [20:09] full autonomy. The church's presence in [20:12] the world is also expressed through her [20:14] relationship with civil society and [20:15] public institutions. By engaging with [20:18] these entities, the church acknowledges [20:20] the value of social and political [20:21] realities and honors their specific [20:23] responsibilities, supporting everything [20:25] that fosters the well-being of [20:26] individuals and strengthens the fabric [20:28] of society. The church does not claim to [20:31] assume the functions belonging to the [20:32] state. On the contrary, she esteems [20:35] those who serve the common good and she [20:37] firmly acknowledges the responsibility [20:38] that civil institutions hold within [20:40] society. At the same time, the mission [20:43] entrusted to the church prompts her to [20:45] address the real suffering of the men [20:46] and women of our time. This closeness [20:49] does not stem from an intent to supplant [20:51] civil institutions, much less from an [20:53] implicit criticism of their work. [20:55] Rather, it stems from evangelical [20:57] charity, which impels the church to draw [20:59] near to the wounds of humanity whenever [21:01] they surface with greater severity. When [21:03] the church intervenes, she does so [21:05] following the example of the good [21:07] Samaritan with discretion and closeness, [21:09] aware that what arises from urgent [21:11] necessity cannot become the norm, nor [21:13] replace the institutional [21:15] responsibilities proper to the civil [21:16] community. 22. Starting from this [21:19] two-fold acknowledgement, the autonomy [21:21] of earthly realities and the distinction [21:23] between ecclesiastical and political [21:25] spheres of competence allows for a [21:27] clearer understanding of the direction [21:28] that the second Vatican council set for [21:30] the church in her relationship with the [21:32] world. Gordium metspes reminds us that [21:34] it is the task of the whole people of [21:35] God, particularly of its pastors and [21:37] theologians, to listen to and [21:39] distinguish the many voices of our [21:41] times, and to interpret them in the [21:42] light of God's word in order that the [21:44] revealed truth may be more deeply [21:46] penetrated, better understood, and more [21:48] suitably presented. Listening to the [21:50] many voices is no mere sociological [21:53] exercise, but instead requires spiritual [21:55] discernment. Guided by the spirit, the [21:58] people of God come to recognize in [21:59] cultural and social transformations both [22:01] the signs of the presence of Christ who [22:03] comes and guides history toward its [22:05] fulfillment and those aberrations that [22:07] obscure his face. In this way, the [22:09] essential core of revealed truth is not [22:11] altered but made explicit and adopted as [22:14] a living standard for guiding concrete [22:15] choices, inspiring paths of personal and [22:18] communal conversion, promoting [22:19] structural reforms and supporting new [22:21] forms of evangelical witness in public [22:23] life. History is thus understood as one [22:25] of the places in which the church allows [22:27] herself to be taught by the spirit about [22:29] the humanizing power of the gospel. And [22:31] she learns to develop her own teaching [22:33] at the service of the dignity of every [22:34] person and the good of all peoples, the [22:37] wisdom of the word of God in dialogue [22:39] with the human sciences. 23. The church [22:42] regards all who sincerely seek truth, [22:44] goodness, and beauty as companions on [22:46] the journey and considers them as [22:48] precious allies in defending the dignity [22:50] of every person and in caring for [22:52] creation. Adopting the pastoral approach [22:54] of the 2 Vatican Council which invites [22:56] us to listen, discern, and interpret the [22:59] signs of the times and enlightened by [23:01] the wisdom of the word, the church is [23:02] not afraid to encounter human knowledge. [23:05] Indeed, the word of God provides [23:07] reliable standards for establishing [23:08] paths of justice and opening ways of [23:10] reconciliation and peace among peoples. [23:13] When it comes to applying these [23:14] standards to the complex situations of [23:16] our time, the contributions of [23:18] philosophy and of the human and social [23:20] sciences is essential. These disciplines [23:22] help us understand and analyze cultural, [23:25] economic, and political dynamics more [23:27] deeply. St. John Paul II recalled that [23:30] the church welcomes the contributions of [23:31] the social sciences in order to draw [23:33] from them concrete insights that help [23:35] her carry out her magisterial office. A [23:38] dialogue with such kinds of knowledge [23:39] does not diminish the power of the [23:41] gospel. On the contrary, it makes it [23:43] possible to identify with greater [23:45] clarity what genuinely fosters the lives [23:47] of individuals and communities. [23:49] Following this perspective, Pope Francis [23:51] emphasized that when dealing with many [23:53] specific questions, the church does not [23:55] claim to offer a definitive opinion, but [23:57] recognizes the importance of listening [23:59] to scientific research and of [24:00] encouraging a serious and honest debate [24:02] among experts while welcoming a [24:04] diversity of opinions. 24. Nourished by [24:07] this fruitful dialogue between the [24:08] gospel and human knowledge, the church [24:10] has progressively developed a social [24:12] doctrine, cultivating in history a wise [24:14] patrimony marked by theological and [24:16] anthropological coherence rooted in the [24:18] Christian understanding of the person. [24:20] Precisely because this patrimony arises [24:22] from faith and a corresponding vision of [24:24] reality. It does not amount to a [24:26] repertoire of technical solutions or an [24:28] economic or political model to be set [24:30] against others. Instead, it belongs to a [24:32] different order, namely that of the [24:34] principles that guide the interpretation [24:36] of events and sustain an evangelical [24:38] understanding of historical processes [24:40] and the choices these entail. Herein [24:42] lies the proper function of social [24:44] doctrine, which does not claim to [24:45] supplant the responsibilities of [24:47] politics or institutions, but offers [24:49] itself as a foundation for collective [24:51] discernment, helping to recognize and [24:53] promote whatever serves the dignity of [24:55] persons, the vitality of communities, [24:57] and the common good. social doctrine as [24:59] a shared discernment. 25. Understanding [25:02] that the truth is a gift to be shared, [25:04] not a possession to be monopolized frees [25:07] the church from the temptation of [25:08] seeking forms of presence based on [25:10] power. In order to rediscover the [25:12] evangelical approach of a gentle [25:13] proclamation of truth that is not [25:15] imposed, St. John Paul II invited us to [25:18] examine honestly the times when [25:19] acquiescence was given to intolerance [25:21] and even the use of violence in the [25:23] service of truth. In this same vein, I [25:26] too have reaffirmed that the church does [25:27] not claim to possess a monopoly on truth [25:30] because truth is not a territory to be [25:32] defended but a good to be shared. For [25:34] his part, Pope Francis expressed this [25:36] same perspective in his striking phrase, [25:38] "Time is greater than space." What [25:41] matters most is not occupying positions [25:43] of power or defending cultural [25:45] strongholds, but initiating good [25:47] processes and enabling them to mature. [25:49] In this way, the truth of the gospel is [25:51] not imposed from above, but grows over [25:53] time within the concrete interweaving of [25:55] lives, communities, and cultures. This [25:58] is not a truth that fears diversity, but [26:00] instead welcomes and guides it. It does [26:02] not eliminate conflicts, but transforms [26:05] them, reuniting that which history tends [26:07] to scatter. This concept can also be [26:09] illustrated by the image of a [26:11] multifaceted polyhedrin in which the one [26:13] truth of the gospel is reflected from [26:15] different angles. 26. This attitude of [26:18] openness to truth which is at the same [26:20] time both one and diverse profoundly [26:22] expresses the Catholicity of the church [26:24] for she embraces the entire human family [26:27] yet is also immersed in the concrete [26:28] situations of peoples and cultures. The [26:31] second Vatican council reminds us that [26:33] in virtue of this very catholicity each [26:35] part contributes its own gifts to other [26:37] parts and to the entire church. In this [26:40] way, the church grows as a whole and as [26:42] individual communities thanks to a [26:44] mutual exchange and to shared efforts [26:46] toward an ever fuller communion. It [26:48] follows then that the people of God are [26:50] not only gathered together from many [26:52] peoples, but are also intertwined [26:54] through different functions, vocations, [26:56] cultures, and traditions, each being [26:58] called to support and enrich one [26:59] another. From this perspective, St. Paul [27:02] Virgin Islands acknowledged that given [27:04] the great variety of historical [27:06] situations, it is unrealistic to think [27:08] that the church's social doctrine can [27:09] propose a single response that is valid [27:11] in all contexts. For this reason, he [27:14] invited each Christian community to [27:16] interpret the reality in its own country [27:17] with clarity and responsibility. The [27:20] fruitful tension between the [27:21] universality of the church's mission and [27:23] her local roots is an intrinsic aspect [27:25] of her life. For she encompasses the [27:27] whole world while addressing the [27:28] specific issues of each context as the [27:30] real setting in which the gospel takes [27:32] shape. 27. In light of what has been [27:35] said so far, the church's social [27:37] doctrine can be seen more authentically. [27:39] It is not a handbook of principles and [27:41] norms to be applied, but a process of [27:43] shared discernment. It is born from the [27:45] encounter between the eternal truth of [27:47] the gospel and the questions of history. [27:49] It allows itself to be challenged by the [27:51] signs of the times and draws nourishment [27:53] from the contributions of science, [27:55] culture, and human experience. [27:57] Therefore, when the dignity of our [27:59] brothers and sisters is violated, when [28:01] politics fails to address the tragedies [28:02] of humanity, when the economy turns [28:04] against the person or science oversteps [28:06] the limits of its competence, the church [28:08] together with other Christian [28:10] denominations and believers of other [28:11] religions must make her voice heard, not [28:14] in order to dominate, but to promote [28:15] communion. Understood in this way, [28:18] social doctrine becomes a theology of [28:20] communion in history. A history in which [28:22] the word made flesh continues to be [28:24] present through dialogue, memory, and [28:26] prophecy. The development of social [28:28] doctrine from Leo I 13th to the present. [28:31] 28. Having outlined the way in which the [28:33] church is present in history and engages [28:35] in dialogue with the world, I would now [28:37] like to consider the development of [28:38] social doctrine in the magisterium, [28:40] which has responded to the major social [28:42] transformations from the 19th century to [28:44] the present day. Naturally, I cannot do [28:46] justice to the full richness of this [28:48] teaching whose fundamental principles [28:50] are presented in the compendium of the [28:52] social doctrine of the church and have [28:53] been further examined by recent [28:55] magisterial teaching. Nor can I [28:57] systematically explore everything that [28:59] has been developed in the encyclicals of [29:00] my late venerable predecessors, [29:02] especially in Lordato scan fretellitudi. [29:05] Nevertheless, I will emphasize some [29:08] essential points in order to show how [29:09] the present text stands in continuity [29:11] with that tradition. I would also like [29:13] to stress how within this tradition, the [29:15] unchanging core of revealed truths [29:17] regarding the human person in society is [29:19] constantly intertwined with a renewed [29:21] capacity for listening to historical [29:22] situations and for responding to [29:24] contemporary issues. I will now review [29:26] some of the significant stages of this [29:28] development beginning with the period [29:30] inaugurated by the encyclical Reim. The [29:33] first stages of the church's social [29:35] doctrine 29. What we now call the social [29:38] doctrine of the church is not a [29:40] spontaneous product of the modern age. [29:42] Instead, it is the fruit of receiving [29:44] and structuring a long tradition of [29:46] ecclesial reflection on life in society [29:48] rooted in sacred scripture, the church [29:50] fathers and the theological and legal [29:52] developments of the middle ages and [29:54] modern era. Although the expression [29:56] social doctrine of the church was coined [29:58] by pas I 12th in 1950, its content began [30:01] to take shape as an organic corpus of [30:03] social teaching with Leo Xiis's [30:04] encyclical rear neum. Confronted with [30:07] the new things of his time, the conflict [30:09] between capital and labor, the question [30:11] of the workforce and economic and social [30:13] transformations. Leo I 13th did not [30:16] limit himself merely to acknowledging [30:17] the unrest, but saw these situations as [30:20] an area for the church's pastoral [30:21] mission. He exposed them to rigorous [30:23] discernment, illuminating their causes [30:25] and possible solutions in the light of [30:27] the gospel and an integral vision of the [30:29] human person created in the image of [30:31] God. St. John Paul II regarded this [30:34] approach as a lasting paradigm of social [30:36] doctrine, an exemplary practice through [30:38] which the church when faced with [30:39] historical changes exercises a right and [30:42] duty to examine social realities make [30:44] pronouncements about them and indicate [30:46] paths for finding just solutions. In [30:48] this way, the perennial contents of the [30:50] faith and ancient ecclesial wisdom find [30:52] expression in a living doctrine that [30:54] remains faithful to the gospel while [30:55] growing in response to the new things of [30:57] every era. 30. Leo Exi's encyclical [31:01] reirum constitutes a milestone in the [31:03] development of the church's social [31:05] teaching. The document places the [31:07] dignity of work and of workers at the [31:08] forefront of its reflection. Affirms the [31:10] right to a fair wage for oneself and [31:12] one's family. recognizes that persons [31:15] have a fundamental value that takes [31:16] precedence over capital and profit, [31:18] defends private property along with its [31:20] indispensable societal role, esteems [31:22] workers associations, and proposes forms [31:25] of cooperation between the different [31:26] components of society as an alternative [31:28] to the mentality of class struggle. It [31:31] is not surprising then that pas 11th [31:34] defined it as the magna of Christian [31:36] social action. In Ria Naram, the [31:38] church's ancient wisdom regarding the [31:40] human person and life in society took on [31:42] a new form capable of responding to the [31:44] industrial age and offering the first [31:46] major systematic framework for the [31:47] social doctrine that would be further [31:49] developed in the following decades. [31:51] While many of the historical conditions [31:52] described by Leo I 13th have changed, at [31:55] least two insights remain highly [31:56] relevant today. the primacy of human [31:58] labor over any mindset focused solely on [32:01] finance or productivity with the [32:03] consequent attention to the people and [32:04] families most susceptible to [32:06] exploitation and the inseparable link [32:08] between proclaiming the gospel and [32:09] pursuing a more just social order. Ririm [32:12] neverum thereby continues to remind us [32:14] that there is no authentic [32:15] evangelization that does not also affect [32:17] the structures of human society. 31 [32:20] pio's encyclical quadroesimma ano was [32:23] published in 1931 on the 40th [32:25] anniversary of Riram novaram at the [32:27] height of a major global economic crisis [32:29] marking a further step in the church's [32:31] social teaching rather than limiting [32:33] itself to addressing the workforce [32:34] question it broadened its focus to [32:36] encompass the overall structure of the [32:38] economic and political order the [32:40] encyclical denounces the concentration [32:42] of economic power in the hands of a few [32:44] criticizes both unlimited competition [32:46] and collectivist projects that undermine [32:48] the freedom and responsibility of the [32:50] individual. Strongly affirms the [32:52] workers's right to association and [32:53] reiterates the requirement that wages be [32:55] proportionate not only to performance [32:57] but also to the needs of workers and [32:59] their families. Within this framework, [33:01] Pius X 11th systematically formulated [33:03] the principle of subsidiarity which was [33:06] to become one of the cornerstones of [33:07] social doctrine. According to this [33:09] principle, whatever can be carried out [33:11] by individuals, families, intermediary [33:14] organizations and local communities [33:16] should not be carried out by highle [33:17] authorities. Alongside these [33:19] contributions in various interventions [33:21] of his magisterium from the encyclicals [33:23] non-abo basno and demi brenendge to [33:26] divin redemptress pious the 11th clearly [33:29] recalled the societal role of private [33:30] property and denounced forms of [33:32] totalitarianism that demean the dignity [33:34] of the person stifle life in society [33:36] exalt the state above its just value and [33:38] discriminate according to race. At least [33:40] three insights of his social teaching [33:42] remain particularly relevant today. The [33:44] awareness that injustice concerns not [33:46] only individual behavior but also [33:48] economic and institutional structures. [33:50] The importance of the principle of [33:51] subsidiarity which calls for the [33:53] strengthening of the fabric of [33:54] associations and communities while [33:56] avoiding further centralization of power [33:58] and the link between the dignity of [33:59] work, fair remuneration and the genuine [34:02] possibility for families to lead a [34:04] dignified life. 32. In the tragic [34:08] context of the Second World War and the [34:10] years of reconstruction that followed, [34:11] the teachings of Pius I 12th made a [34:13] significant contribution to the [34:15] development of social doctrine. This is [34:17] particularly true of his Christmas radio [34:19] messages in which he outlined the [34:21] framework of an international order [34:22] based on justice, peace, and the [34:24] recognition of human dignity. In these [34:27] messages, the Pope proposed a dialogue [34:29] with society based on an appeal to [34:30] natural law understood as a set of [34:32] objective principles that precede the [34:34] interests of individuals and states and [34:36] which must regulate both the internal [34:38] life of nations and their mutual [34:39] relations. Pius I 12th also attributed a [34:42] decisive role to professional [34:44] associations, labor unions, and the [34:46] various intermediary organizations in [34:48] the economic and social order. He [34:50] recognized these organized forms of [34:52] society as an essential safeguard for [34:54] civil equilibrium and for protecting the [34:56] common good. He affirmed the need for a [34:58] sound rule of law for guarding against [35:00] the abuse of power and he recognized [35:02] democracy as a means for ensuring the [35:04] proper exercise of authority. At the [35:06] same time, he warned against any attempt [35:08] to base law on utility or force, [35:10] recalling that an international order [35:12] governed by the advantage of the [35:13] strongest exposes weaker peoples to [35:15] oppression and fundamentally undermines [35:17] trust between nations. Finally, Pius I [35:20] 12th identified profound economic [35:22] imbalances between countries as one of [35:23] the factors fueling conflicts. Three [35:26] guidelines remain particularly [35:27] significant for our own times currently [35:29] marked by new forms of global power and [35:31] growing inequalities. The need for law [35:33] to take precedence over interests, the [35:35] awareness that economic disparities are [35:37] a breeding ground for tension and [35:39] violence, and the necessity of a network [35:41] of associations capable of mediating [35:42] between the individual and the state. [35:44] These guidelines continue to provide [35:46] important criteria that enable social [35:48] doctrine to interpret the dynamics of [35:50] globalization and promote a more just [35:52] and peaceful international order. The [35:54] years of the second Vatican Council 33 a [35:58] new phase in the church's social [35:59] teaching began with St. John 23 who [36:02] placed a greater emphasis on the global [36:04] dimension of social issues and the [36:05] language of rights. In Ma at Magistra, [36:08] he presented the Christian faith as a [36:10] light capable of uniting heaven and [36:12] earth. He recalled that while the [36:14] church's primary mission is the [36:15] sanctification and proclamation of [36:17] eternal goods, she does not neglect the [36:19] concrete needs of people's daily lives [36:21] and is concerned with every authentic [36:23] human good. Based on this unified vision [36:25] of humanity, John 23 emphasized that [36:28] societal life requires a balance between [36:30] the initiative of citizens and groups [36:32] who are called to organize themselves [36:33] and work together and the action of the [36:35] state which must coordinate and provide [36:37] support without stifling the freedom and [36:39] responsibility of individuals. Hence he [36:42] drew attention to fair remuneration for [36:44] work worker participation and the [36:46] growing disparities between countries. A [36:48] few years later in pes terrace John 23 [36:51] addressed for the first time not only [36:53] the faithful but also all people of [36:55] goodwill organically linking the dignity [36:57] of the person to the recognition of [36:58] fundamental rights and duties and [37:00] proposing a direction for society at the [37:03] international level too based on truth, [37:05] justice, love and freedom. In the [37:08] present day, which is marked by [37:09] widespread conflict and new forms of [37:11] global interdependence, the following [37:13] aspects of his thought remain [37:14] particularly significant. The universal [37:16] perspective of his appeal, his reference [37:18] to human rights as a shared framework, [37:20] and his conviction that lasting peace [37:22] requires institutions and relations [37:24] between peoples that are inspired by the [37:26] dignity of every person. 34. The second [37:29] Vatican Council marked a turning point [37:31] in the church's understanding of herself [37:33] in the contemporary world. In the [37:35] pastoral constitution Gordium edspes, [37:37] the council presented the image of a [37:39] church that is close to humanity, [37:40] engaged with the world and committed to [37:42] reflecting on the concrete reality of [37:44] historical situations rather than [37:46] abstract concepts. The text addresses [37:48] the major issues of marriage and the [37:50] family, economic and societal life, the [37:53] political community, war and peace. It [37:56] insists that economic and institutional [37:58] structures adjust only to the extent [38:00] that they serve the integral development [38:01] of the person and promote the [38:03] responsible participation of all. The [38:05] importance of this consilia document for [38:07] the social doctrine of the church lies [38:08] not only in having opened up horizons [38:10] for thematic reflection but also in its [38:12] method of discernment that invites us to [38:14] interpret historical changes guided by [38:16] the gospel and human expertise. This [38:19] approach reveals that dialogue with the [38:20] world is not a tactical choice for the [38:22] church but a concrete expression of her [38:24] mission because the gospel like Levan is [38:26] capable of transforming the structures [38:28] of society from within and forging paths [38:30] toward a greater humanity. The [38:32] declaration dignitated humanity can be [38:34] included in the same context. Here the [38:37] council recognized that religious [38:38] freedom is a fundamental right grounded [38:40] in human dignity that must be guaranteed [38:42] by law so as to prevent people from [38:44] being forced to act against their [38:45] conscience or impeded from seeking and [38:47] professing the truth both privately and [38:49] publicly. This principle is highly [38:51] relevant today and continues to provide [38:53] social doctrine with decisive criteria [38:55] for protecting individuals and building [38:57] pluralistic and peaceful societies. 35 [39:01] During the pontificate of St. Paul [39:02] Virgin Islands, an understanding of [39:04] peace emerged that was not reduced to [39:06] the mere absence of war, but took shape [39:08] within the scope of integral human [39:10] development. In popular progressio, he [39:12] described development as a transition [39:14] from less humane to more humane living [39:16] conditions. He further understood it as [39:18] a process that concerns each person and [39:20] the whole person that is every dimension [39:23] of the person and all people without [39:24] exception. For this reason, Paul V 6th [39:27] could affirm that development understood [39:29] in this way is in reality the new name [39:30] for peace because it aims to eradicate [39:32] the roots of injustice and conflict and [39:34] create opportunities for a more [39:36] dignified life for all. The [39:38] establishment of the pontipical [39:39] commissionia at PAX should also be seen [39:41] in this light as an attempt to give [39:43] stable form to this insight at the [39:45] ecclesial and international levels while [39:47] bearing in mind the growing gap between [39:48] rich and poor countries and the need for [39:50] policies that genuinely promote more [39:52] humane living conditions for all. 36 in [39:55] Octoma Advanians written on the occasion [39:58] of the 80th anniversary of Riran Never [40:00] Paul V 6th applied this perspective to [40:02] post-industrial society marked by [40:04] urbanization new forms of poverty and [40:07] rapid cultural changes that called into [40:08] question the future of individuals and [40:10] communities. Paul V 6th believed that [40:12] although the gospel was proclaimed, [40:14] written and lived out in a historical [40:16] and cultural context very different from [40:18] our own, its message was not outdated. [40:21] Instead, it offers a vision of the human [40:23] person, relationships, authority, and [40:26] the common good that is still capable of [40:28] guiding economic, political, and [40:29] cultural choices today. In other words, [40:32] the gospel remains relevant because it [40:34] provides the criteria for recognizing [40:35] what humanizes or dehumanizes and what [40:38] liberates or oppresses in ever changing [40:40] situations. For the social doctrine of [40:42] the church, Paul Vi's most demanding [40:44] legacy is precisely this. As long as [40:46] there are people in the world who are [40:47] excluded from the development befitting [40:49] human dignity, the Christian community [40:51] cannot be content with a theoretical [40:53] proclamation of peace. Rather, beginning [40:55] where people are marginalized, it must [40:57] allow the gospel to pass judgment on [40:59] those economic and political structures [41:01] which, as John Paul II would later [41:03] remind us, can become veritable [41:05] structures of sin. As a result, no [41:08] person or people will be treated as [41:10] expendable in the processes of [41:11] development. The recent magisterium 37. [41:15] The rich social teaching of St. John [41:17] Paul II lies at the crossroads of the [41:19] crisis of the great ideological systems [41:21] of the 20th century and the onset of [41:23] economic globalization. His encyclical [41:25] laborum exorcence written 90 years after [41:28] the publication of Riran Neveram opened [41:30] up a new avenue for reflection on work. [41:32] It presents fair wages as the concrete [41:34] means of verifying the justness of the [41:36] entire socioeconomic system because they [41:38] reveal whether the worker is treated as [41:40] a person or merely as a cost of [41:42] production. Work is not considered [41:44] simply as a problem to be dealt with or [41:45] a means of generating income, but a [41:47] fundamental good for the person, a [41:49] principle of economic activity and the [41:51] key to the entire societal question. [41:53] Through work, human beings bring their [41:55] freedom, creativity, and capacity for [41:58] cooperation into play, contributing to [42:00] the cultural and moral elevation of [42:02] society. In light of this, the various [42:04] kinds of job insecurity, fragmented [42:06] career paths, and automation must not be [42:08] evaluated solely in terms of efficiency, [42:11] but in relation to the dignity of the [42:12] worker, the right to sufficient [42:14] remuneration and the genuine possibility [42:16] of participating in society. 38 with his [42:19] encyclical solicitudo ray socialis [42:22] marking the 20th anniversary of [42:24] popularum progressio, John Paul II [42:26] re-examined the scourge of [42:27] underdevelopment. He acknowledged the [42:29] failure of numerous attempts to [42:31] accelerate the economic development of [42:32] poor peoples and to assist them in the [42:34] process of industrialization, noting the [42:36] persistent and indeed widening gap [42:38] between the world's north and south. He [42:40] also denounced the economic, financial, [42:43] and commercial mechanisms that managed [42:45] by the strongest economies structurally [42:47] favor their own interests while stifling [42:49] weaker economies and he asked that they [42:51] be subjected to serious ethical not just [42:53] technical scrutiny. In this context, [42:56] solidarity was understood as a concrete [42:58] shared responsibility among individuals, [43:00] peoples, and nations, a form of social [43:03] friendship or political charity oriented [43:05] toward the civilization of love proposed [43:07] by Paul V 6th. 39. On the centenery of [43:11] Rirum Nearum, the encyclical centesses [43:13] an annis offered a reflection on the [43:15] collapse of the Soviet system and the [43:16] rise of democracy and the market [43:18] economy. St. John Paul II reiterated [43:21] pious XI's message that the church [43:23] values democracy insifar as it [43:24] guarantees the effective participation [43:26] of citizens enables them to elect and [43:28] peacefully replace their leaders and [43:30] prevents power from being monopolized by [43:32] small elite groups motivated by [43:33] particular or ideological interests. [43:36] Likewise, the church recognizes the [43:38] positive potential of the market and [43:39] private initiative only if they remain [43:41] subordinate to the moral law and are [43:43] guided by the principle of solidarity [43:45] without sacrificing the most vulnerable [43:47] to the rationale of profit. This adds a [43:49] particularly relevant legacy to the [43:51] social doctrine of the church. The [43:53] affirmation of the link between the [43:54] dignity of work, solidarity among [43:56] peoples, a critical assessment of [43:58] democracy and the market economy [44:00] continues to provide criteria for [44:02] evaluating new forms of exploitation, [44:04] exclusion, and crises in political [44:06] representation. 40. In his social and [44:09] cyclical careers in veritate, Pope [44:11] Benedict the 16th sought to reassess and [44:13] expand the concept of development [44:15] presented in popular and progressio [44:17] interpreting it in light of [44:18] globalization. He noted that such [44:20] development should translate into real [44:22] growth of benefit to everyone and [44:25] genuinely sustainable [44:27] that is economic progress that is truly [44:29] inclusive and respectful of the limits [44:31] of creation. He reaffirmed, however, [44:34] that in wealthy countries, new kinds of [44:36] poverty were emerging as well as [44:37] unprecedented forms of exclusion, while [44:40] in poorer regions, small minorities [44:42] lived in consumerist affluence alongside [44:44] situations of dehumanizing poverty. In [44:46] addition, he observed that the new [44:48] global economic and financial system, [44:50] marked by a vast mobility of capital and [44:52] means of production, had reduced the [44:54] political power of states and their [44:56] ability to influence economic processes. [44:58] For this reason, Benedict V 16th [45:00] reiterated that economic activity cannot [45:03] claim to solve social problems simply [45:04] through the expansion of a commercial [45:06] mentality, but must be ordered toward [45:08] the common good, for which the political [45:10] community bears its own irreplaceable [45:12] responsibility. 41. Benedict the 16th [45:15] placed charity at the center of his [45:16] analysis, stating that it is at the [45:18] heart of the church's social doctrine, [45:20] provided that it is always united with [45:22] truth. He also noted with concern that [45:25] there is a tendency to dismiss moral [45:26] relevance precisely within the social, [45:29] legal, political and economic fields. [45:31] The originality of his contribution lies [45:33] in showing that development, justice, [45:36] institutions, and the market are not [45:38] neutral realities, but spaces where [45:40] charity and truth must find historical [45:42] expression. This teaching is especially [45:44] relevant today in light of growing [45:46] inequalities, pressures in the financial [45:48] markets, the environmental crisis, and a [45:50] lack of trust in politics. It stands as [45:52] an invitation to evaluate every model of [45:54] development on its ability to be [45:56] inclusive and sustainable to rebuild the [45:58] relationship between economics and [46:00] politics on the common good and to [46:02] acknowledge the critical and generative [46:03] role of charity in public life. 42 Pope [46:07] Francis social teaching develops along [46:08] the lines of Gordium Edspes which [46:10] invites us to view history through the [46:12] lens of human hopes and vulnerabilities [46:14] and to bring them into dialogue with the [46:16] gospel. This approach emerges with [46:18] particular clarity in Evangeli Gordium [46:20] where he states that the Christian [46:22] proclamation has an intrinsic social [46:23] dimension and calls for a church capable [46:25] of listening to the cry of the poor [46:27] migrants and victims of new forms of [46:29] slavery. Francis insistence on a cidal [46:32] church a church that walks together that [46:34] seeks to read the signs of the times in [46:36] the light of the gospel and allows [46:37] herself to be evangelized by the poor [46:39] with whom she shares history also fits [46:41] into this perspective. 43. In Lato Sai, [46:45] Francis provided the first significant [46:47] systematic treatment of the [46:48] environmental crisis in a social [46:50] encyclical, demonstrating that it is not [46:52] an isolated issue, but rather the [46:54] ecological aspect of the contemporary [46:56] socio-economic crisis. His proposal for [46:58] an integral ecology combined care for [47:00] our common home with the preferential [47:02] option for the poor and strongly [47:03] affirmed that the cry of the earth and [47:05] the cry of the poor cannot be separated. [47:08] In this light, the universal destination [47:10] of goods was brought to the forefront [47:12] alongside the critique of a technocratic [47:13] paradigm that seeks to reduce everything [47:15] to an object to be dominated. The [47:17] defense of human labor threatened by the [47:19] mindset of waste and the need for [47:21] intergenerational justice. Finally, he [47:24] advocated for genuine dialogue between [47:26] those working in the fields of politics [47:27] and finance so that neither would become [47:29] self-referential. 44. Faced with the [47:32] breakdown of the social fabric, a world [47:34] war being fought peace meal, [47:36] individualistic globalization, and the [47:38] impact of the pandemic on community [47:40] ties, Francis in futility sought to [47:43] revive the dream of a humanity that ups [47:45] for social friendship and universal [47:46] fraternity. He proposed a culture of [47:48] encounter, a better politics capable of [47:51] seeking the common good, paths of [47:52] reconciliation, and a world that ensures [47:54] land, housing, and work for all. [47:57] Finally, in dlexit numbers, he showed [48:00] that these significant social endeavors [48:02] cannot be separated from a personal [48:04] relationship with Christ. Turning to the [48:06] word of God, he reminded us that the [48:08] truest response to the love of the heart [48:09] of Jesus is concrete love for our [48:11] brothers and sisters and affirmed that [48:13] there is no greater way for us to return [48:15] love for love. Interpreting history in [48:17] the light of faith. 45. Considering this [48:21] historical overview, it is clear that [48:22] the church's social doctrine is not the [48:24] result of a project devised at a desk, [48:26] but rather the product of a patient [48:28] process in which each pontiff together [48:30] with the second Vatican council made a [48:32] unique contribution in light of the new [48:34] things of each particular era. In [48:36] response to the challenges of their [48:37] time, each one interpreted historical [48:39] changes according to the gospel, [48:41] bringing to light different aspects of a [48:43] single heritage, the dignity of the [48:45] person, the value of work, the universal [48:47] destination of goods, solidarity and [48:49] subsidiarity, care for creation, and the [48:52] centrality of peace and fraternity. The [48:54] result is a harmonious, though not [48:56] always linear, development that is [48:58] marked by different emphases, [48:59] progressive insights, and at times [49:02] changes in perspective that do not break [49:04] with what came before, but allow its [49:06] implications to mature. If today we can [49:08] speak of a corpus of shared principles [49:10] and criteria, it is because this [49:12] faith-based interpretation of history [49:13] has never been interrupted, remaining [49:15] ever open to the challenges posed by [49:17] each generation. It is to the great [49:19] principles of social doctrine which [49:21] direct the discernment of believers in [49:23] their personal and public lives that I [49:25] now wish to turn our attention in order [49:27] to grasp more effectively their internal [49:29] coherence and capacity to guide our [49:31] times. Chapter 2. Foundations and [49:34] principles of the social doctrine of the [49:36] church. 46. The social doctrine of the [49:40] church is a living reality in dialogue [49:42] with history, cultures, and sciences. At [49:45] the same time, it enshrines a core set [49:47] of unchanging truths. For this reason, [49:50] it can be considered a form of wisdom [49:51] that is capable of guiding the personal [49:53] and societal lives of believers even [49:55] today. In this second chapter, I would [49:58] like to focus on some of the foundations [49:59] and principles of the church's social [50:01] doctrine that will help us to interpret [50:03] the new things of our time, particularly [50:05] in view of the inherent dignity of the [50:07] human person. In order to protect the [50:09] human person in the age of artificial [50:11] intelligence, I believe that today we [50:13] must once again reflect on the common [50:14] good, the universal destination of [50:16] goods, subsidiarity, solidarity, and [50:19] social justice. I am convinced that a [50:22] harmonious relationship between these [50:23] principles requires that they be [50:25] considered collectively so that it [50:27] becomes clear how they relate to and [50:28] complement each other. 47. In offering [50:31] these reflections, my hope is first and [50:34] foremost to help the lay faithful and [50:36] people of goodwill rediscover their duty [50:38] of implementing the abovementioned [50:39] principles in their daily lives, family [50:41] relationships, work, and involvement in [50:44] society. Thus, they will let themselves [50:46] be inspired by the aim of embodying [50:48] God's love in the concrete events of [50:50] life. At the same time, I would like to [50:52] encourage academic institutions and [50:54] universities to give fresh impetus to [50:56] these principles and to apply them in a [50:58] way that will be relevant and effective [51:00] in addressing the digital revolution. In [51:02] this way, theological and philosophical [51:04] inquiry will be able to further explore [51:06] and support the church's pastoral [51:08] journey and contribute to the [51:09] magisterium's task of enlightening the [51:11] consciences of the faithful and guiding [51:13] their efforts to make the life of our [51:14] societies more just and fraternal. The [51:17] foundations of social doctrine. The [51:19] human person, image of the triune God. [51:22] 48. The church's social doctrine brings [51:25] us to the very heart of our faith. The [51:26] mystery of the living God revealed in [51:29] Jesus Christ, who as a communion of [51:31] persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, [51:34] is love itself in relationship expressed [51:36] in the mutual gift of self and in [51:38] sharing with the world. As the council [51:40] recalled, human persons are called to [51:42] communion with God and can fully [51:43] discover their true selves only in [51:45] sincere self-giving. Indeed, their [51:48] deepest vocation is to enter into the [51:50] trinitarian dynamic of love received and [51:52] shared. 49. If the mystery of God as [51:55] love is the source of social doctrine, [51:57] we see its most concrete expression in [51:59] the face of Jesus Christ, the incarnate [52:01] word. By becoming man, the son of God [52:04] enters our history and takes on human [52:06] flesh, bringing with him the love that [52:08] unites him to the Father and the Holy [52:09] Spirit. In him, the mystery of humanity [52:12] truly becomes clear because his humanity [52:14] is completely free, open to others, [52:17] capable of building healthy and [52:18] beautiful relationships, and committed [52:20] to the total gift of self. Those who [52:22] believe in him are engaged in the great [52:24] work of renewal that began with the [52:25] mystery of his passion, death, and [52:27] resurrection. And they cooperate in [52:29] building up the kingdom of God, learning [52:31] to embrace all men and women as brothers [52:33] and sisters, children of one father. In [52:36] this way, both the proclamation of the [52:38] gospel and Christian life guided by the [52:40] action of the Holy Spirit tend to bring [52:42] about social consequences in the world. [52:44] 50. At the heart of the Christian [52:46] understanding of the human person lies [52:48] the great biblical affirmation that men [52:50] and women are created in the image and [52:52] likeness. Compared to Gen 1 26-27 of the [52:56] triune God created for relationship, [52:59] every human person is planned and willed [53:01] by God to enter into communion with him [53:03] with others and with creation. Human [53:05] dignity does not depend on a person's [53:07] abilities, wealth, or position in life, [53:10] nor on the right or wrong choices made. [53:12] Instead, it is a gift that precedes and [53:14] transcends each person endowed by God as [53:17] an expression of his unfailing love. For [53:19] this reason, the human person always [53:21] remains the way for the church and the [53:23] heart of every authentic path of [53:25] integral human development, the equal [53:27] dignity of all human beings. 51 St. John [53:31] Paul II stated that this heightened [53:33] sense of the dignity of the human person [53:35] and of his or her uniqueness and of the [53:37] respect due to the journey of conscience [53:39] certainly represents one of the positive [53:41] achievements of modern culture. This [53:43] statement follows the line already laid [53:45] out by the second Vatican council which [53:47] had noted a growing recognition of the [53:48] sublime dignity of all persons, the [53:51] superiority over material things and the [53:53] universal and inviable rights and [53:55] duties. It is important to ensure that [53:57] this growth in appreciation of human [53:58] dignity is not obscured by the pressure [54:00] of new ideologies or very powerful [54:03] interests in today's world. Among these [54:05] ideologies, I consider particularly [54:07] insidious the one that suggests that [54:09] every person must earn or justify his or [54:11] her own worth to the point of [54:13] attributing greater value to those who [54:14] are more efficient or effective. From [54:16] this perspective, persons end up being [54:18] reduced to a means of achieving results, [54:20] a resource to be used and exploited and [54:23] are no longer recognized as a proper end [54:25] in themselves who should never be [54:26] instrumentalized. The value of persons, [54:29] however, does not depend on what they [54:31] achieve or produce. There are rights [54:33] that apply to everyone. and simply by [54:35] virtue of being human and no human power [54:37] can legitimately deny or arbitrarily [54:39] limit them. 52. When we speak of [54:42] dignity, we do not always use the word [54:44] in the same way. Sometimes we refer to [54:47] moral dignity, namely the way in which a [54:49] person directs his or her choices and [54:51] actions. At other times, we think of [54:54] social dignity, which refers to a [54:56] person's living conditions and the [54:57] concrete respect received from society. [55:00] In other cases, we refer to existential [55:02] dignity, meaning the way in which a [55:04] person perceives his or her own worth [55:06] and the value of life. These aspects of [55:08] dignity can be enhanced or diminished. [55:11] In addition to these notions, there is [55:13] also the more profound and important [55:15] level of onlogical dignity. This is the [55:17] dignity that belongs to every human [55:19] being simply by virtue of existing, of [55:21] having been willed, created, and loved [55:24] by God. No sin, failure, humiliation, or [55:27] exclusion can diminish the profound [55:29] value of a human life that God has [55:31] willed and called into being. 53. The [55:34] fundamental dignity of each person, [55:36] therefore, is neither acquired nor [55:38] earned, nor does it need to be [55:40] justified. The recent declaration [55:42] dignitas infanita offers a summary of [55:44] the church's thinking on the subject. [55:46] Every human person possesses an infinite [55:48] dignity inalienably grounded in his or [55:50] her very being which prevails in and [55:52] beyond every circumstance, state or [55:55] situation the person may ever encounter. [55:57] In other words, always and without [55:59] exception. The dignity of every human [56:01] being can be described as infinite as [56:03] St. John Paul II stated for two reasons. [56:06] First, because the love of God who calls [56:08] us to friendship with him is infinite. [56:10] And second, his love is absolutely [56:13] unconditional in the sense that even if [56:15] we search endlessly, we will never find [56:17] anything that can erase or deny it. The [56:19] supreme value of human rights. 54. The [56:23] church gratefully acknowledges that the [56:24] movement toward the identification and [56:26] proclamation of human rights is one of [56:28] the most significant attempts to respond [56:30] effectively to the inescapable demands [56:32] of human dignity. In this regard, St. [56:35] John Paul II stated that the universal [56:37] declaration of human rights proclaimed [56:39] by the United Nations on the 10th of [56:41] December 1948 remains one of the highest [56:44] expressions of the human conscience of [56:45] our time. It is a milestone on the long [56:48] and difficult path of the human race. [56:50] For this reason, from the Christian [56:52] perspective, human rights are not an [56:54] external addition to the person but an [56:56] expression of intrinsic human dignity [56:58] which the international community is [57:00] called to protect and promote. 55. Human [57:03] rights are inviable since they are [57:05] inherent in the human person and in [57:07] human dignity. Consequently, they are [57:10] universal and inalienable precisely [57:12] because they are grounded in the common [57:14] dignity of every man and woman. They [57:16] have practical consequences and legal [57:17] effects. For it would be vain to [57:19] proclaim human rights if at the same [57:21] time everything were not done to ensure [57:23] the duty of respecting them, respect by [57:25] all in all places and for all. Among [57:28] these rights, the first is the right to [57:30] life from conception to its natural end [57:33] without which it is impossible to [57:34] exercise any other right. When this [57:36] fundamental right is denied, as in the [57:39] cases of induced abortion, killing of [57:40] the innocent, and euthanasia, we are [57:42] faced with choices that the church [57:44] considers gravely wrong. 56. Looking at [57:47] our own time, we cannot ignore the fact [57:49] that the protection of human rights has [57:51] been exposed to two particularly serious [57:53] dangers. The first is that these rights [57:56] are declared in a purely formal sense [57:58] while technological progress continues [58:00] alongside covert or overt violations of [58:02] human dignity. The second, which is in [58:04] fact the root of the first, is the [58:06] inability to recognize the foundation of [58:08] their universality since we have [58:10] abandoned the search for the solid [58:11] foundations sustaining our decisions and [58:13] our laws. Pope Francis urged us not to [58:17] underestimate this last issue. He [58:19] pointed out that when reason seriously [58:20] examines human nature, it is capable of [58:23] discovering values that apply to [58:24] everyone since they derive from human [58:26] nature. If this task of inquiry were [58:29] abandoned, it is conceivable that rights [58:31] considered untouchable today might in [58:33] the future end up being questioned or [58:35] denied by those in power, perhaps after [58:37] having obtained only an apparent [58:38] consensus from populations that are [58:40] frightened or manipulated. 57. Along [58:43] with a greater awareness of the value of [58:45] every human person and their rights, [58:47] recognition of minority rights has also [58:49] grown. Yet, there is still a long way to [58:52] go to ensure that the rights of a great [58:53] many, namely women, are equally and [58:56] genuinely guaranteed throughout the [58:57] world. It is a fact that doubly poor are [59:00] those women who endure situations of [59:01] exclusion, mistreatment, and violence [59:04] since they are frequently less able to [59:06] defend their rights. It is therefore not [59:09] enough to state simply that men and [59:10] women have equal dignity and rights. It [59:12] is necessary that this be reflected in [59:14] concrete decisions such as in laws, [59:17] access to employment, education, social [59:19] and political responsibilities and the [59:21] way society listens to and values [59:23] women's contributions. As long as this [59:25] gap persists, we cannot say that society [59:28] truly and fully recognizes that women [59:30] have the same dignity as men. 58. It is [59:33] individuals that matter each and every [59:35] person together with their families. [59:38] Social movements, communal ideologies, [59:40] and grand political proclamations in [59:42] favor of a population are worthless [59:44] unless they lead to the flourishing of [59:45] persons, men and women, with their [59:48] inalienable rights. Similarly, it is not [59:50] enough to extol individual freedom or [59:52] private enterprise if we then allow a [59:54] multitude of people to continue living [59:56] without decent work, protections, or [59:58] access to basic necessities. The [60:00] principles of social doctrine, the [60:03] principle of the common good. 59. [60:06] Recognizing that every man and woman [60:08] possesses an inalienable dignity [60:10] together with rights that no human power [60:12] can betray or nullify requires us to [60:14] shape the way we live together, [60:15] including our economic and political [60:17] choices and the makeup of our cities. [60:20] From this arises the first major [60:21] principle of social doctrine that I wish [60:23] to highlight, the common good. We can [60:26] describe it as the social expression of [60:28] the dignity recognized in every person. [60:30] When Benedict the 16th referred to the [60:32] non-negotiable values that the church [60:34] must always defend, he included among [60:36] them the promotion of the common good. [60:39] For a Christian, going beyond the narrow [60:41] confines of one's own interests and [60:43] committing oneself within the limits of [60:45] one's ability to the common good is a [60:47] non-negotiable value, as is the [60:48] promotion of life. 60. The second [60:51] Vatican council affirmed that the common [60:53] good consists in the sum total of social [60:55] conditions which allow people either as [60:57] groups or as individuals to reach their [60:59] fulfillment more fully and more easily. [61:02] This definition provides us with a [61:03] valuable initial reference point because [61:05] the common good cannot be reduced to a [61:07] mere list of conditions or institutions. [61:10] It is not the sum total of individual [61:12] benefits nor the intersection of their [61:14] particular interests. It is a greater [61:16] good that belongs to everyone and it can [61:18] only be achieved, nurtured and protected [61:20] by our collective efforts. We can say [61:22] that social action reaches its fullness [61:24] when it is directed toward this shared [61:26] good. Just as a person's moral action [61:28] finds its fulfillment in the choice of [61:30] the true good. 61. In this sense, we can [61:33] say that the whole is greater than the [61:35] sum of its parts and that for this very [61:37] reason, the mere sum of individual [61:39] interests is not capable of generating a [61:41] better world for the whole human family. [61:43] Indeed, it is an illusion to think that [61:45] simply pursuing one's own progress [61:47] without caring for others is sufficient [61:49] for contributing to the good of all. [61:51] This view ignores the inherent and [61:53] specific value of the common good, which [61:55] is the result of an interdependence that [61:57] creates a network of social good that [61:58] expands and has an impact on people. The [62:01] common good is a plus, the result of [62:03] interaction and mutual influence that [62:05] connects various actions, initiatives, [62:07] efforts, and decisions. If we were to [62:10] add up the individual goods, we could [62:12] not explain the existence of this plus [62:14] that transcends them and at the same [62:16] time enriches them. 62. It is the [62:19] pursuit of the common good that gives [62:21] life to a people, understood not as a [62:23] mere collection of individuals, but as a [62:25] living reality in which people learn to [62:26] recognize that they themselves are [62:28] interconnected and jointly responsible [62:30] for the residential publica. In this [62:32] sense, every person contributes to the [62:34] building up of one's people through a [62:35] slow and arduous effort calling for a [62:37] desire for integration and a willingness [62:39] to achieve this through the growth of a [62:40] peaceful and multifaceted culture of [62:42] encounter. Working together for the [62:45] common good means having a shared [62:46] vision. It is clear that there are many [62:48] ideological and practical differences [62:50] among people as well as differing [62:52] interests and frequent disagreements. [62:54] But that does not mean it is impossible [62:55] to engage in dialogue to establish a set [62:57] of basic agreements that enable the [62:59] creation of a shared vision upon which [63:01] everyone can move forward together. 63. [63:04] It is the state's responsibility to [63:06] ensure cohesion, unity, and the proper [63:08] organization of civil society so that [63:11] the common good can be pursued with [63:12] everyone's contribution. In practical [63:14] terms, this means that public [63:16] authorities have the delicate duty to [63:18] harmonize the different sectoral [63:19] interests with the requirements of [63:20] justice, seeking a balance between [63:22] individual interests and the common good [63:25] without leaving behind the most [63:26] vulnerable. When politics abandons a [63:28] long-term perspective and reduces itself [63:30] to short-term calculations or sterile [63:32] polarizations, then the language of the [63:34] common good loses credibility and at the [63:37] same time, social inequalities and [63:39] divisions grow. 64. This also applies to [63:43] international politics. As the divide [63:45] between nations widens, a mentality of [63:48] confrontation and aggression begins to [63:49] take hold and the difficult path toward [63:52] a more united and fraternal world [63:53] suffers new and painful setbacks. In [63:56] this context, speaking of a shared [63:58] journey toward a more just development [63:59] for the entire human family sounds like [64:01] madness. Yet, we must not lose hope. I [64:05] invite everyone to conceive of ways of [64:07] cooperating and of more effective [64:09] international institutions capable of [64:11] safeguarding the global common good [64:12] without compromising the legitimate [64:14] diversity of peoples and nations. [64:16] Indeed, the promotion of the common good [64:18] can never be separated from respect for [64:20] the right of peoples to exist to [64:22] preserve their own identity and to [64:24] contribute their unique qualities to the [64:25] family of nations. Moreover, any attempt [64:28] or plan to eliminate or subjugate a [64:30] nation is gravely immoral and therefore [64:32] unacceptable. The principle of the [64:34] universal destination of goods. 65. [64:38] Among the numerous implications of the [64:40] common good, immediate significance is [64:42] taken on by the principle of the [64:43] universal destination of goods. First of [64:46] all, this principle reminds us that the [64:48] earth's goods, soil, water, air, and [64:51] natural resources are given by God to [64:54] the entire human family to sustain the [64:55] lives of all, and that every person has [64:57] an inherent right to the use of such [64:59] goods, both now and in the future. St. [65:02] John Paul II recalled that God gave the [65:04] earth to the whole human race for the [65:06] sustenance of all its members without [65:08] excluding or favoring anyone. [65:10] Consequently, it is not in accordance [65:12] with God's plan to use this gift in such [65:14] a way that its benefits acrew solely to [65:16] a select few. Today, we are called to [65:19] recognize that this universal [65:21] destination applies not only to material [65:23] goods but also to immaterial and [65:25] cultural goods. 66. Certainly there is a [65:29] right to private property which has its [65:31] own specific meaning and purpose. Yet it [65:33] is always subordinate to the universal [65:35] destination of goods. According to John [65:37] Paul II, this subordination is the [65:39] golden rule of social conduct and the [65:41] first principle of the whole ethical and [65:43] social order. In the church's tradition, [65:46] property has been viewed as a means of [65:47] protecting and managing goods so that [65:49] they may better serve the common good. [65:51] Since the Christian tradition has never [65:53] recognized the right to private property [65:55] as absolute or inviable, its social [65:57] function must not be considered a mere [65:59] theological opinion, but a doctrine of [66:01] the church already present in sacred [66:03] scripture and in the writings of the [66:05] church fathers. For this reason, Pope [66:07] Francis reminded us that solidarity, [66:09] when lived out in its fullest sense, [66:11] also means to restore to the poor what [66:13] belongs to them. 67. Today, among the [66:17] goods that are universally intended for [66:19] everyone, we must also include new forms [66:21] of property such as patents, algorithms, [66:24] digital platforms, technological [66:26] infrastructure, and data. In a context [66:28] where the wealth of nations depends [66:29] increasingly on knowledge and [66:31] technology, when these goods remain [66:33] concentrated in the hands of a few, [66:34] without adequate forms of sharing and [66:36] access, a new imbalance is created that [66:39] contradicts the universal destination of [66:40] goods. In turn, it widens the gap [66:43] between the included and the excluded. [66:45] between those who can participate in the [66:47] digital revolution and those who remain [66:49] on the margins. Furthermore, care for [66:51] our common home and our responsibility [66:53] toward the poor and future generations [66:55] require that the use of the goods of [66:56] creation and the new possibilities [66:58] offered by technology be regulated in [67:00] such a way as to respect the [67:01] environment, avoid waste, and prevent [67:03] new forms of exploitation. The principle [67:06] of subsidiarity 68. The principle of [67:09] subsidiarity stems from the very same [67:11] understanding of the human person that [67:13] has guided our reflection on dignity and [67:15] the common good. If every woman and man [67:17] is called to take ownership of his or [67:19] her own life and to contribute to the [67:21] formation of society, then social [67:23] institutions must also respect and [67:25] support this responsibility. The social [67:27] doctrine of the church refers to [67:29] subsidiarity as the principle according [67:30] to which the role of individuals, [67:32] families, local communities and [67:34] intermediary organizations should not be [67:36] supplanted by highle authorities. [67:39] Moreover, higher level institutions must [67:41] recognize, protect and promote the [67:43] freedom and creativity of lower level [67:45] entities, coordinating their [67:46] contributions so that they can cooperate [67:48] effectively for the common good. 69. [67:51] Starting with Leo I 13th and the [67:53] beginnings of modern social teaching, [67:55] the church has insisted that neither the [67:57] individual nor the family should be [67:58] subsumed by the state, but should be [68:00] allowed to act freely as far as possible [68:03] without harming the common good. St. [68:05] John Paul II took up and developed this [68:07] perspective, noting that the political [68:09] community is at the service of civil [68:11] society and that the state must protect [68:12] the common good, intervening when [68:14] necessary, but without permanently [68:16] supplanting the responsibilities of [68:17] intermediary organizations and social [68:19] institutions. Subsidiarity does not [68:22] justify the state's disengagement, but [68:24] rather guides its actions. Indeed, [68:27] public intervention is necessary [68:28] precisely to enable all social actors to [68:31] fulfill their mission without being [68:32] stifled. It is the responsibility of the [68:35] political community to create the [68:36] conditions that allow individuals, [68:38] families, associations, and intermediary [68:41] organizations to fulfill their mission [68:42] in society without being replaced or [68:45] reduced to mere facilitators. 70. This [68:48] principle encourages us to move beyond [68:50] any form of paternalistic or [68:51] welfare-based management of societal [68:53] life, but instead to promote a culture [68:55] of shared responsibility in a state that [68:57] values citizens initiative and a civil [68:59] society capable of forging bonds and [69:01] mobilizing energies in the service of [69:03] the common good. In accordance with the [69:05] principle of subsidiarity, decisions are [69:07] made at the closest level possible to [69:09] the persons involved, thereby fostering [69:11] community life and avoiding people being [69:13] presented with decisions that have [69:14] already been taken. In this way, people [69:17] can participate in the decision-making [69:19] process. When families, associations, [69:22] local communities, volunteer [69:23] organizations, and those in the [69:25] so-called third sector are recognized [69:27] and supported, social life becomes more [69:29] accessible to people. Services become [69:31] more attuned to real needs, and [69:33] solutions are more creative and [69:34] respectful of the dignity of each [69:36] person. 71. The principle of [69:39] subsidiarity applies especially in the [69:41] context of the digital revolution. Here [69:43] the highest level is not the state but [69:46] rather major economic and technological [69:48] actors that exercise de facto power over [69:50] the conditions of everyday life. This [69:52] level which monopolizes expertise, data [69:55] and decision-making authority involves [69:57] companies and platforms that define [69:59] conditions for access, rules of [70:01] visibility, forms of interaction, and [70:03] even economic opportunities. The [70:05] principle of subsidiarity requires that [70:07] such processes not be imposed from above [70:09] in an opaque and unilateral manner, but [70:12] instead be directed toward the common [70:13] good with transparency, accountability, [70:15] and meaningful forms of participation, [70:18] including independent checks, [70:19] transparency regarding algorithms, [70:21] equitable access to data, and avenues [70:23] for recourse. 72. In this context, [70:27] states and transnational institutions [70:29] are called to ensure fair rules and [70:31] effective safeguards so that local [70:33] communities, intermediary organizations, [70:35] schools, universities, religious [70:37] institutions, and associations have a [70:39] voice and can contribute to the [70:41] discernment of choices that affect [70:42] people's daily lives such as employment, [70:45] access to services, data management, and [70:47] digital environments. When it comes to [70:49] decisions regarding economic flows and [70:51] digital platforms as well as the [70:53] governance of data and algorithms, we [70:55] cannot allow a handful of actors to [70:56] dictate these processes on their own. [70:58] Instead, we must build forms of [71:00] cooperation that respect the various [71:02] levels of the global community and make [71:04] them jointly responsible for the common [71:05] good. The principle of solidarity. 73. [71:09] Having considered the common good and [71:11] subsidiarity, I would like to reflect on [71:13] the principle of solidarity. This [71:15] emerges from a vision of the human [71:17] person generated by faith. Namely, that [71:19] every human being is created in the [71:21] image of God and is part of a network of [71:23] relationships that bind him or her to [71:25] others, to specific populations, and to [71:27] creation. St. Paul Virgin Islands [71:29] observed that the obligations of [71:30] solidarity, justice, and charity are [71:33] rooted in the human and supernatural [71:34] fraternal bonds that unite individuals [71:36] and populations. Fraternity is not [71:39] merely an aspiration of believers, but [71:41] is a social and political reality to be [71:43] embodied in communal choices and [71:45] endeavors. Solidarity then is the [71:48] concrete recognition that the future of [71:49] each individual is connected to the [71:51] future of all. Indeed, no one is saved [71:54] alone. The close link between [71:56] subsidiarity and solidarity thereby [71:58] becomes evident. It is thus clear that [72:01] there is an intimate link between [72:02] subsidiarity and solidarity. When [72:05] subsidiarity is not linked to [72:06] solidarity, it ends up becoming merely [72:08] the protection of particular interests. [72:10] When solidarity is not supported by [72:12] subsidiarity, it degenerates into a form [72:14] of welfare that does not foster [72:16] responsibility. This interconnectedness [72:18] also pertains to the responsibility of [72:20] authentic participation. Solidarity is [72:23] expressed when each person both [72:25] individually and collectively takes part [72:27] in the life of the community by staying [72:29] informed, engaging with others, making [72:31] their voice heard, and contributing to [72:33] public decisions and choices while also [72:35] assuming real responsibility so that the [72:37] common good is achieved through shared [72:38] decision-making. 74. In many areas, we [72:42] are already experiencing a kind of [72:44] deacto solidarity for our lives are [72:46] intertwined. Digital networks connect [72:48] people and communities across the world [72:50] in real time and global economies and [72:52] communications mean that events in one [72:54] place have a farreaching impact. This [72:56] network of relationships, however, only [72:58] constitutes solidarity in the fullest [73:00] sense of the word when it becomes a [73:02] conscious choice. Faith invites us to [73:04] see this reality as a call. We are not [73:06] merely neighbors to one another, but [73:08] entrusted to each other so that each of [73:10] us may take responsibility as best we [73:12] can for the lives and wounds of our [73:14] brothers and sisters. Solidarity arises [73:16] precisely when we decide not to remain [73:18] indifferent to what happens to our [73:19] neighbor, but instead to transform [73:21] unavoidable bonds, economic, cultural, [73:24] and technological, into paths of [73:25] sharing, cooperation, and mutual care, [73:28] embracing the idea of thinking and [73:30] acting in terms of community. 75. The [73:34] church's social teaching emphasizes that [73:36] solidarity is both a principle and a [73:38] virtue. As a principle, it expresses the [73:40] objective order of relationships among [73:42] individuals, groups, and peoples. [73:45] pointing to an awareness of [73:46] interdependence whereby the good of each [73:47] person depends on the good of others. As [73:49] a virtue, it requires a firm and [73:52] persevering determination to strive for [73:54] the common good with particular [73:55] attention to those most in need. Pope [73:58] Francis noted that solidarity is a way [74:00] of making history that creates [74:01] communities and not just masses of [74:03] individuals. For this reason, it [74:05] requires a modest and shared way of [74:07] life, the ability to forgo immediate [74:09] benefits in order to create [74:10] opportunities for others in the future, [74:12] and a willingness to challenge habits [74:14] and privileges, including those related [74:16] to digital consumption and the use of [74:18] technology when they prevent others from [74:20] living with dignity. 76. In a world [74:23] marked by increasingly close connections [74:25] between people, communities, and [74:27] nations, solidarity also takes on a [74:29] global dimension. Benedict I 16th [74:32] strongly emphasized the link between [74:33] development, justice, and responsibility [74:36] toward future generations, stating that [74:38] authentic development requires [74:39] solidarity and intergenerational [74:41] justice, as well as an awareness of the [74:43] bonds that unite us to the natural [74:45] environment. Today, this responsibility [74:47] also extends to digital and information [74:50] infrastructure. Like the natural [74:51] environment, the digital ecosystem can [74:54] be preserved or exploited, shared or [74:56] monopolized. Solidarity demands that [74:59] decisions regarding data, algorithms, [75:01] platforms, and artificial intelligence [75:03] take into account not only the immediate [75:05] benefit for a few, but also the impact [75:07] on all peoples and on future [75:08] generations. The principle of social [75:11] justice. 77. For the Christian [75:14] community, social justice is a concrete [75:16] way of following Jesus and remaining [75:18] faithful to the gospel. In the New [75:20] Testament, Jesus proclaims the good news [75:22] to the poor. Luke 4:18 and identifies [75:25] himself with the lowly, the sick, the [75:27] imprisoned, and strangers compared to [75:29] MT25 31-46. [75:33] He thus teaches us that justice is born [75:35] from and fulfilled in fraternity because [75:37] the way we approach and relate to the [75:39] least among us becomes in concrete terms [75:41] the measure of our relationship with God [75:43] and with our brothers and sisters. [75:45] Justice however concerns not only the [75:48] behavior of individuals but also the way [75:50] in which the structures of society are [75:52] conceived and organized. In this regard [75:54] the second Vatican council reminds us [75:56] that every institution is called to [75:58] serve the human person and his or her [76:00] dignity. Social justice is therefore [76:03] characterized by the capacity of a [76:05] social, economic and political order to [76:07] allow everyone particularly the weakest [76:10] to live a truly dignified life without [76:12] leaving anyone behind. 78. The recent [76:15] magisterium has insisted that social [76:17] justice begins with the least among us. [76:20] St. John Paul II spoke of a preferential [76:22] option for the poor that must guide both [76:24] personal and societal choices. While [76:26] Pope Francis denounced a throwaway [76:28] culture that generates ever new forms of [76:30] exclusion. From this perspective, social [76:33] justice requires us to look at [76:34] individuals and communities starting [76:36] with the most vulnerable, the poor, [76:38] migrants, refugees, internally displaced [76:41] persons, victims of violence, and people [76:43] living in urban or existential [76:45] peripheries. 79. The idea of social [76:48] justice helps us recognize that [76:50] injustices do not arise solely from the [76:52] wrong choices of individuals, but also [76:54] from structures, mechanisms, and [76:56] economic and cultural systems that [76:58] produce inequality almost automatically. [77:00] St. John Paul II spoke in this vein of [77:03] structures of sin that oppose God's will [77:04] and require a commitment to personal and [77:06] social conversion. In this perspective, [77:09] justice is not merely about the fairer [77:11] distribution of resources or the [77:12] correction of current injustices, but [77:14] also assumes a restorative dimension. It [77:17] aims to mend broken bonds and [77:18] reintegrate those who have been [77:20] excluded, taking into account the wounds [77:22] caused by injustices such as wars, [77:24] colonialism, racial or gender [77:26] discrimination, violence against entire [77:28] peoples, and exploitation. This may [77:31] include restoring dignity and a voice to [77:33] those who have been ignored, fostering [77:34] processes of healing for collective [77:36] memory, opposing discriminatory laws and [77:38] practices, and providing concrete [77:40] support to those who still bear the [77:42] consequences of wrongs suffered in the [77:44] past. 80. In this day and age, social [77:47] justice must also grapple with the [77:49] environment shaped by digital [77:50] technologies. The spread of global [77:52] networks, platforms, and artificial [77:54] intelligence systems is changing the way [77:56] we obtain information, communicate, and [77:59] access services. Justice demands that we [78:01] prevent the emergence of new forms of [78:03] exclusion and deprivation of freedoms, [78:05] individuals, and peoples hindered or [78:07] denied access to basic technologies, [78:09] communities exposed to invasive [78:10] surveillance, and social groups [78:12] penalized by opaque algorithms that [78:14] perpetuate prejudice and discrimination. [78:16] In the digital age, a just social order [78:18] guarantees everyone equal access to [78:20] opportunities, protects the youngest and [78:22] weakest members of society, combats hate [78:24] and misinformation, and subjects the use [78:26] of data and technology to public [78:28] oversight, so that the guiding principle [78:30] is not solely profit, but the dignity of [78:32] every person and the common good of all [78:33] people. 81. A litmus test for social [78:36] justice today is the treatment of [78:38] migrants, refugees, and those forced to [78:40] move due to poverty, violence, climate [78:43] change, and environmental disasters. The [78:45] way a society treats them reveals [78:47] whether its sense of justice is driven [78:48] by fear or by the spirit of fraternity. [78:51] Pope Francis urged us to see migrants [78:53] not simply as a problem to be managed, [78:55] but as a living image of the people of [78:57] God on the move. They are people with [78:59] dignity, resources, and dreams who have [79:02] the right to be treated with respect and [79:04] to ask to become active members of the [79:05] societies that welcome them. Social [79:08] justice in this area entails at least [79:10] two complimentary commitments. On the [79:12] one hand, this means protecting the [79:13] rightful hopes of those forced to leave [79:15] by ensuring safe and legal routes, [79:17] dignified conditions for receiving them, [79:19] and genuine pathways to integration. On [79:22] the other hand, it means promoting the [79:24] right to remain in one's homeland in [79:25] peace and security by addressing the [79:27] root causes that force people to [79:29] migrate, including those linked to [79:31] economic injustices and the climate [79:32] crisis. When these rights are respected, [79:35] migration can become an opportunity for [79:37] encounter and mutual enrichment among [79:39] peoples. Integral human development. 82. [79:43] In his encyclical popularum progressio, [79:45] Paul V 6th affirmed that development is [79:47] authentic only if it is integral, [79:49] meaning that it can foster the [79:51] development of each man and of the whole [79:52] man. In the decades that followed, the [79:55] social doctrine of the church reprised [79:57] and reflected on this expression in [79:58] order to indicate the practical ways in [80:00] which the noble principles, dignity, the [80:02] common good, the universal destination [80:04] of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity, and [80:07] social justice are implemented in real [80:10] life. By integral human development, we [80:12] mean a process in which the growth of [80:14] individuals and peoples encompasses all [80:16] dimensions of existence and opens the [80:18] future to subsequent generations as [80:20] well. 83. For individuals as well as for [80:23] nations, development is both a duty and [80:26] a right. Minimum conditions are required [80:28] for enabling every person and people to [80:30] flourish in accord with their dignity [80:32] without being kept in a state of [80:33] dependence or excluded from access to [80:35] necessary goods. Development is truly [80:38] human when it places people at the [80:40] center instead of the accumulation of [80:41] wealth and when it concerns peoples as [80:43] well as individuals. Justice demands the [80:46] recognition of the rights of society and [80:48] the rights of peoples and includes a [80:50] responsibility toward future [80:51] generations. Development is not truly [80:54] human if it increases consumption for [80:55] some while shifting costs and burdens [80:57] onto others or relegates entire regions [81:00] to subordinate roles preventing them [81:02] from realizing their full potential. [81:04] Development is integral when it is not [81:05] limited to the economic sphere but [81:07] promotes quality of life in its [81:09] spiritual, cultural, moral and [81:11] relational dimensions while respecting [81:13] our common home. the diversity of [81:15] peoples and their ways of life. 84. [81:18] Today, the concept of integral human [81:20] development is a benchmark for the [81:21] evaluation of integral ecology, which [81:24] has become an indispensable dimension of [81:25] the church's social doctrine. Indeed, [81:28] the quality of development is measured [81:30] by the ability to integrate justice [81:31] toward people and the care of our common [81:33] home and to promote dignified living [81:35] conditions, access to necessary goods, [81:38] just social relations, care of creation, [81:40] and consideration for future [81:41] generations. It follows that true [81:43] progress is not what increases the [81:45] well-being of some by degrading [81:46] ecosystems, shifting costs onto the most [81:49] disadvantaged communities, or [81:51] compromising the living conditions of [81:52] those who will follow us. 85. Seen in [81:56] this light, integral human development [81:57] is the framework through which we can [81:59] interpret the changes of our time, [82:01] including those brought about by the [82:02] digital revolution. Technological [82:04] innovations, including artificial [82:06] intelligence, are not neutral, for they [82:09] can either foster participation and [82:10] justice or exacerbate inequality, [82:13] control, and exclusion. For this reason, [82:15] they must be evaluated by asking a [82:17] crucial question. Do they truly help [82:19] individuals and peoples to become more [82:21] humane and fraternal while respecting [82:23] our common home and future generations? [82:25] It is here that the principles of social [82:27] doctrine become concrete criteria for [82:29] discernment regarding the issues which [82:31] we will address in the following [82:32] chapters. and examine for the church. [82:35] 86. In conclusion, I would like to touch [82:38] on a point that is particularly close to [82:40] my heart. Social doctrine is not merely [82:42] a message addressed to society. It is [82:44] also an examination of conscience for [82:46] the church, a home and school of [82:48] communion that is always called to [82:49] ensure that the principles outlined in [82:51] this chapter are applied, especially [82:53] within its own structures. In the [82:54] ecclesial context, the common good takes [82:57] the form of a citadel approach for [82:58] mission at the service of the kingdom. [83:00] Indeed, the church is the communitarian [83:03] and historical subject of cinnodality [83:05] and mission. This requires attention to [83:07] the way decisions are taken and [83:09] responsibilities are exercised. The [83:11] final document of the Senate identifies [83:13] a culture of transparency, [83:15] accountability, and evaluation as key [83:17] practices for missionary transformation. [83:20] 87. With this in mind, subsidiarity [83:23] becomes the guiding principle for [83:24] governance and pastoral life. It [83:26] involves recognizing and supporting the [83:28] faithful and intermediary ecclesial [83:30] organizations as they carry out their [83:32] responsibilities, valuing charrorisms [83:34] and skills and avoiding any form of [83:36] paternalism that suffocates evangelical [83:38] freedom. In practical terms, the [83:40] participation of the baptized in [83:42] decision-making processes and their [83:43] shared responsibility in the mission are [83:45] achieved through genuine rather than [83:47] merely nominal participatory bodies. 88. [83:51] For the Christian community, solidarity [83:53] finds its source in the mystery of [83:54] Christ and is nourished by the [83:56] Eucharist. Solidarity emerges from [83:58] communion in faith and the sacraments. [84:00] Baptism and confirmation unite us in [84:02] Christ so that we may become one body [84:04] and one spirit, one heart and one soul [84:07] compared to F4. Acts 4:32. [84:11] The Eucharist, which is the sacrament of [84:13] unity, nurtures our belonging to the [84:15] body of Christ and teaches us how to [84:17] share. The diverse sensibilities present [84:19] in the church and the strong convictions [84:21] that animate each person are a source of [84:23] richness if they remain anchored in the [84:24] certainty that unity is a gift received [84:26] and a responsibility to be fulfilled. [84:29] 89. Living out justice in the church [84:31] means purifying ecclesial relationships [84:33] and structures from distortions that [84:35] give rise to inequality, lack of [84:37] transparency, and abuse of power. In [84:39] this regard, listening to the victims of [84:41] spiritual, economic, institutional, [84:44] sexual, and power-based abuse, as well [84:46] as abuses of conscience, is an integral [84:48] part of a journey toward justice, which [84:50] includes acknowledging the harm done, [84:52] just reparation, and taking steps to [84:54] prevent it from happening again. Every [84:56] power is at the service of communion and [84:58] mission. All authority is at the service [85:00] of the people of God. This ministry of [85:03] service is expressed not only through [85:04] our faith celebrated and lived in the [85:06] sacraments and in the adoption of a [85:08] cinnidal style but also in the concrete [85:10] sharing of goods. Following the example [85:13] of the early church, ecclesial resources [85:15] need to be shared so that no one among [85:16] us may be in need compared to Acts 4:34 [85:20] and so that their administration may [85:22] support the mission of proclaiming the [85:23] gospel to the poorest. Regular [85:25] assessments of the exercise of [85:26] ministerial responsibilities should be [85:28] encouraged not as judgments on [85:30] individuals but as tools for learning [85:32] and correction oriented toward mission. [85:34] Only to the extent that we are open to [85:36] the action of the Holy Spirit will these [85:38] principles of social doctrine become [85:40] incarnate in ecclesial life. In this way [85:43] the church will be able to bear credible [85:45] witness to society that seeking the [85:46] common good together with shared [85:48] responsibility and fraternity is not a [85:50] utopia but a real possibility. Chapter [85:53] 3. technology and dominance, the [85:56] grandeur of humanity. In light of the [85:59] promises of Ahri 90. Having recalled the [86:02] principles that shine a light on social [86:04] doctrine, I would now like to focus on [86:06] certain challenges that profoundly shape [86:08] our way of living today. The biblical [86:10] image accompanying these reflections is [86:12] that of a building project. On the one [86:14] hand, there is the tower of babel where [86:16] collective effort follows a plan that [86:18] dominates and ultimately dehumanizes [86:20] compared to gen 11-9. [86:23] On the other hand, there are the ruins [86:25] of Jerusalem which under Nehemiah's [86:27] direction are rebuilt pace by pace as a [86:29] project of shared responsibility [86:31] compared to Nu to6. We are called to [86:34] reflect on the great construction sites [86:36] of our era and ask what are we building? [86:39] As technological development rapidly [86:41] transforms languages, relationships, [86:43] institutions, and forms of power, we [86:45] believers must and can choose which [86:47] projects to work on and in what manner [86:49] so as to safeguard and value the [86:50] grandeur of humanity that has been given [86:52] to us as a gift. This is a choice not [86:54] only for our future but also for our [86:56] present since artificial intelligence [86:58] and other emerging technologies are [87:00] already part of our daily lives. 91. I [87:04] am convinced that the concrete way of [87:05] living out social relationships in the [87:07] light of the gospel is not established [87:08] once and for all but remains a task [87:11] entrusted from generation to generation [87:13] to the Christian community. Under the [87:15] guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church [87:17] allows herself to be enlightened by [87:18] God's word, reads the signs of the [87:20] times, and creatively seeks new ways for [87:23] relationships between peoples and [87:24] nations to become ever more conformed to [87:26] the demands of the kingdom of God. For [87:28] this reason, I encourage all members of [87:30] the church not to be afraid of the [87:32] present challenges, but to listen to one [87:34] another and firmly embrace their [87:35] responsibilities in building a more [87:37] humane and fraternal society, the [87:39] technocratic paradigm and digital power. [87:42] 92. In his encyclical Lato Sai, Pope [87:45] Francis denounced the growing dominance [87:47] of a technocratic paradigm in our [87:48] globalized world. The tendency to let [87:50] the logic of efficiency, control, and [87:53] profit alone shape personal, social, and [87:55] economic decisions. This makes it clear [87:58] that technology is not simply a tool. [88:00] When it becomes the standard by which [88:02] everything is judged, it begins to [88:03] dictate what matters and what can be [88:05] discarded, reducing creation to an [88:07] object of exploitation and human beings [88:09] to mere cogs in a system driven toward [88:11] ever greater efficiency. 93. This [88:14] paradigm has spread rapidly in recent [88:16] years, fueled in part by the expansion [88:18] of artificial intelligence, cognitive [88:21] science, nanotechnology, robotics, and [88:23] biotechnology. In themselves, these [88:26] innovations can greatly serve integral [88:28] human development and the care of our [88:30] common home. Yet, precisely because of [88:32] their power, they can also hasten the [88:34] expansion of the technocratic paradigm [88:36] and therefore require a new spiritual, [88:38] ethical, and political framework. More [88:40] power does not necessarily imply [88:43] something better. In this respect, the [88:45] words of Romano Gardini remain relevant. [88:47] Contemporary man has not been trained to [88:49] use power well. 94. The danger of [88:53] humanity becoming a victim of its own [88:54] achievements was already clearly [88:56] recognized by St. Paul Virgin Islands [88:58] who warned that the most extraordinary [89:00] scientific progress, the most astounding [89:02] technical feats and the most amazing [89:03] economic growth unless accompanied by [89:05] authentic moral and social progress will [89:07] in the long run go against man. For this [89:10] reason, technological progress, valuable [89:13] in itself, requires careful discernment [89:15] of the anthropological vision that [89:17] guides it and the ends it pursues. If [89:19] technological development advances [89:21] without a corresponding ethical and [89:22] social progress, the result may be an [89:24] increase in means without a growth in [89:26] humanity having more without being more. [89:29] In such a scenario, there is a risk that [89:32] individuals will be evaluated [89:33] principally according to the outcomes [89:35] they produce. 95. Here we must recognize [89:39] another crucial aspect which I have [89:41] noted earlier. In many cases within the [89:43] digital context, control over platforms, [89:46] infrastructure, data, and computing [89:48] power does not rest with states, but [89:50] with major economic and technological [89:52] actors. These entities effectively set [89:54] the conditions for access, determine the [89:57] rules of visibility, and shape the very [89:58] possibilities for participation. When [90:01] such power is concentrated in the hands [90:02] of a few, it tends to become opaque and [90:04] evade public oversight, increasing the [90:07] risk of distorted forms of development [90:08] that give rise to new dependencies, [90:10] exclusions, manipulations, and [90:12] inequalities. 96. Faced with this [90:16] concentration of power in the digital [90:17] world, the criteria for judgment and [90:19] discernment in this new situation are [90:21] the noble principles of social doctrine, [90:23] the inalienable dignity of the human [90:25] person, the common good, the universal [90:27] destination of goods, subsidiarity, [90:29] solidarity, and social justice. They [90:32] demand that we assess whether the power [90:34] of digital infrastructures and [90:35] algorithms truly fosters participation [90:37] and responsibility, protects the [90:39] vulnerable, ensures fair access to [90:41] opportunities, and remains directed [90:43] toward the good of all. On this basis, [90:45] we can now examine more closely what [90:47] artificial intelligence is, the [90:49] possibilities it opens up, and the risks [90:51] it entails. Artificial intelligence 97. [90:55] It is not my intention here to offer a [90:57] comprehensive treatment of artificial [90:58] intelligence, nor to give an overview of [91:00] the extensive relevant literature since [91:02] authoritative contributions already [91:04] exist, including within the ecclesial [91:06] context. I limit myself to recalling a [91:09] few essential elements for a moral and [91:10] social discernment that safeguards the [91:12] primacy of the human person. in order to [91:14] ensure that it will always be human [91:16] intelligence with its conscience and [91:18] freedom that guides technical [91:19] innovations and responsibly determines [91:21] their use and limits. 98. It is [91:24] appropriate to preface this discussion [91:26] with two considerations. First, any [91:29] statement regarding AI risks becoming [91:31] quickly outdated given the remarkable [91:33] pace at which these systems are [91:34] developing. Second, all of us, including [91:37] those who design them, possess only a [91:40] limited understanding of their actual [91:41] functioning. Indeed, current AI systems [91:44] are more cultivated than built, for [91:46] developers do not directly design every [91:48] detail, but instead create a framework [91:50] within which the intelligence grows. As [91:53] a result, fundamental scientific aspects [91:56] such as the internal representations and [91:58] computational processes of these systems [92:00] remain at present unknown. There thus [92:03] emerges an urgent need for a two-fold [92:05] commitment. On the one hand, a deepening [92:07] of scientific research. on the other the [92:10] exercise of moral and spiritual [92:11] discernment. 99. It is not possible to [92:15] provide a single comprehensive [92:17] definition of AI. What can be stated, [92:20] however, is that we must avoid the [92:22] misconception of equating this type of [92:23] intelligence with that of human beings. [92:26] These systems merely imitate certain [92:28] functions of human intelligence. In [92:30] doing so, they often surpass human [92:32] intelligence in speed and computational [92:34] capacity, offering tangible benefits [92:36] across many fields. Yet this power [92:39] remains entirely tied to data [92:41] processing. So-called artificial [92:43] intelligences do not undergo [92:44] experiences, do not possess a body, do [92:47] not feel joy or pain, do not mature [92:49] through relationships, and do not know [92:50] from within what love, work, friendship, [92:53] or responsibility mean. Nor do they have [92:55] a moral conscience since they do not [92:57] judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate [92:59] meaning of situations, or bear [93:01] responsibility for consequences. They [93:03] may imitate language, behavior, and [93:06] analytical skills, or even simulate [93:08] empathy and understanding, but they do [93:10] not understand what they produce, for [93:12] they lack the effective relational and [93:14] spiritual perspective through which [93:15] human beings grow in wisdom. Even when [93:18] these tools are described as capable of [93:19] learning, their way of doing so is [93:21] different from that of a human person. [93:23] It is not the experience of those who [93:25] allow themselves to be shaped by life [93:27] and grow over time through choices, [93:29] mistakes, forgiveness, and fidelity. [93:32] Rather, it is a form of statistical [93:34] adaptation based on data and feedback [93:36] which can be very effective but does not [93:38] imply inner growth. A valuable tool that [93:41] requires vigilance. 100. In light of [93:44] what has been said, we can better [93:46] understand why AI can be a valuable tool [93:48] and at the same time why it calls for a [93:50] measured and vigilant approach. In [93:52] recent years, its private use has [93:54] expanded significantly, prompting [93:56] growing reflection on both the [93:58] opportunities it offers and the risks [93:59] tied to its rapid spread. In personal [94:02] use, three aspects in particular deserve [94:04] careful consideration. The ease with [94:06] which results are obtained, the [94:08] impression of objectivity, and the [94:09] simulation of human communication. The [94:12] speed and simplicity with which [94:13] information, complex analyses, media [94:16] content, and practical assistance can be [94:18] accessed undoubtedly makes life easier. [94:20] Yet, they can also encourage excessive [94:22] reliance and the search for ready-made [94:24] answers and weaken personal creativity [94:26] and judgment. The apparent objectivity [94:28] of the responses and suggestions these [94:30] systems provide can lead us to overlook [94:32] the fact that they reflect the cultural [94:34] assumptions of those who designed and [94:35] train them with all their strengths and [94:37] limitations. The artificial imitation of [94:40] positive human communication, words of [94:42] advice, empathy, friendship, and even [94:44] love can be engaging and at times [94:47] genuinely helpful. However, for less [94:49] discerning users, it can also be [94:51] misleading, creating the illusion of a [94:53] relationship with a real personal [94:55] subject. When words are simulated, they [94:58] do not build genuine relationships, but [95:00] only their appearance. The artificial [95:02] imitation of care or support can become [95:04] particularly risky when it enters [95:06] contexts where real relationships and [95:08] emotional bonds are lacking. Here the [95:10] danger is not so much that a person may [95:12] believe they are communicating with [95:14] another person, but rather that they may [95:16] gradually lose the very desire to form [95:18] genuine human connections. 101. [95:20] Broadening our perspective to the use of [95:22] AI in society, we see that it is now [95:24] embedded in decision-making processes [95:26] across many sectors and at multiple [95:28] levels in communication, management, and [95:31] control. The gains in efficiency and the [95:33] potential to improve certain services [95:35] are clear. Yet rapidly and uncritically [95:37] adopting them exposes us to a range of [95:39] risks, including the tendency to [95:41] overlook the environmental impact. [95:43] Current AI systems require enormous [95:45] amounts of energy and water, [95:47] significantly influencing carbon dioxide [95:49] emissions and place heavy demands on [95:51] natural resources. As their complexity [95:54] increases, especially in the case of [95:56] large language models, the need for [95:57] computing power and storage capacity [95:59] grows too, which requires an extensive [96:01] network of machines, cables, data [96:04] centers, and energyintensive [96:05] infrastructure. For this reason, it is [96:08] essential to develop more sustainable [96:09] technological solutions that reduce [96:11] environmental impact and help protect [96:13] our common home. Responsibility, [96:15] transparency, and the governance of AI. [96:18] 102. The use of AI is never a purely [96:21] technical matter. When it enters [96:23] processes that affect people's lives, it [96:25] touches on rights, opportunities, [96:27] status, and freedom. Important and [96:29] sensitive decisions concerning [96:31] employment, credit, access to public [96:33] services, or even a person's reputation [96:36] risk being fully delegated to automated [96:38] systems that do not know compassion, [96:40] mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the [96:42] hope that people are able to change and [96:44] can therefore give rise to new forms of [96:46] exclusion. There are clearly harmful [96:48] uses such as the manipulation of [96:50] information or violations of privacy. [96:53] Yet, there is also a subtler danger for [96:55] when AI systems present themselves as [96:57] neutral and objective, they end up [96:59] reflecting and reinforcing the [97:00] stereotypes or ideological bias of their [97:02] designers and developers. 103. Indeed, [97:06] entrusting an algorithm in practice with [97:08] the power to select who is worthy or not [97:10] without anyone bearing responsibility [97:12] for that judgment is to hand over the [97:14] task of redefining the boundaries of [97:16] human possibilities. In this process, [97:18] political responsibility is also lost, [97:21] not just empathy toward those excluded, [97:23] which can after all be simulated. The [97:26] exclusion of the vulnerable becomes [97:28] cloaked in a veneer of neutrality and [97:29] objectivity against which it becomes [97:32] difficult to raise objections. In this [97:34] way, injustice goes unnoticed and [97:36] compassion, mercy, and forgiveness, [97:39] understood not as mere appearances, but [97:40] as real political actions, gradually [97:42] disappear from view. 104. From this [97:46] follows a simple but compelling [97:47] consequence. We cannot consider AI to be [97:50] morally neutral. In reality, every [97:52] technical tool embodies choices and [97:54] priorities through what it measures, [97:56] ignores, and optimizes, and how it [97:58] classifies people and situations. If a [98:01] system is designed or used in a way that [98:02] treats some lives as less worthy or [98:04] excludes them without the possibility of [98:06] appeal, then it is not merely a tool to [98:08] be used well since it has already [98:10] introduced criteria that contradict the [98:12] inalienable dignity of the human person. [98:14] For this reason, ethical discernment [98:16] cannot be limited to asking whether we [98:18] are using a system for good or bad [98:20] purposes. It must also examine how that [98:22] system is designed and what vision of [98:24] the human person and society is embedded [98:26] in the data and models that guide it. [98:28] 105. For AI to respect human dignity and [98:31] truly serve the common good, [98:33] responsibility must be clearly defined [98:35] at every stage. From those who design [98:37] and develop these systems to those who [98:39] use them and rely on them for concrete [98:40] decisions. In many cases, however, the [98:43] internal processes leading to a result [98:45] remain opaque, making it harder to [98:47] assign responsibility and correct [98:49] errors. This is where accountability [98:51] becomes crucial. the possibility of [98:53] identifying who must account for [98:55] decisions, justify them, monitor them, [98:58] and when necessary, challenge them, and [99:00] remedy any harm caused. 106 calling for [99:03] prudence, rigorous evaluation, and even [99:06] at times a slower pace in adopting AI [99:09] does not mean opposing progress. [99:11] Instead, it is an exercise of [99:12] responsible care for the human family. [99:15] This need is all the more urgent given [99:17] the frequent imbalance between the speed [99:18] of technological growth and the slower [99:20] development of awareness, norms, [99:22] safeguards, and institutions capable of [99:24] governing its effects. It is not enough [99:27] to invoke ethics in the abstract. Robust [99:29] legal frameworks, independent oversight, [99:31] informed users, and a political system [99:33] that does not abdicate its [99:35] responsibility are required. Otherwise, [99:37] change will be governed only by [99:39] technocratic thinking and presented as [99:41] necessary and inevitable, ultimately [99:43] imposing rules shaped by those who [99:45] control data, infrastructure, and [99:46] computing power. 107. We cannot be [99:49] satisfied with merely calling for the [99:51] moralization of machines, the so-called [99:53] alignment of AI with human values [99:55] without also having the courage to [99:57] insist on a further condition, the [99:59] possibility of openly discussing the [100:01] ethical frameworks involved and [100:02] subjecting them to shared standards of [100:04] social justice. Otherwise, those who [100:06] control AI will impose their own moral [100:09] vision, which will become the invisible [100:11] infrastructure of these systems. A more [100:13] moral AI is not enough if that morality [100:15] is determined by a few. What is needed [100:18] is a more active political involvement [100:19] that is capable of slowing things down [100:21] when everything is accelerating and of [100:23] protecting the opportunities for [100:25] communities still to be able to [100:26] participate and ask questions. 108. In [100:29] fact, as with every major technological [100:31] shift, AI tends to amplify the power of [100:34] those who already possess economic [100:36] resources, expertise, and access to [100:38] data. In light of the common good and [100:40] the universal destination of goods, this [100:43] raises serious concerns since small but [100:45] highly influential groups can shape [100:47] information and consumption patterns, [100:48] influence democratic processes, and [100:50] steer economic dynamics to their own [100:52] advantage, undermining social justice [100:54] and solidarity among peoples. For this [100:57] reason, it is essential that the use of [100:59] AI, especially when it touches on public [101:01] goods and fundamental rights, be guided [101:03] by clear criteria and effective [101:05] oversight grounded in participation and [101:07] subsidiarity. Communities and [101:09] intermediary organizations must not be [101:11] reduced to passive recipients of [101:13] decisions made elsewhere. They must be [101:15] able to contribute to discernment and [101:17] oversight. Moreover, ownership of data [101:20] cannot be left solely in private hands, [101:22] but must be appropriately regulated. [101:24] Data is the product of many contributors [101:26] and should not be treated as something [101:28] to be sold off or entrusted to a select [101:30] few. It is necessary to think creatively [101:32] in order to manage data as a common or [101:34] shared good in a spirit of participation [101:37] as St. John Paul II already suggested [101:39] regarding collective goods. 109. The [101:42] principles of social doctrine offer a [101:44] framework for understanding this new [101:46] reality. In a world where data, [101:48] computational resources, and regulatory [101:50] influence remain in the hands of a few, [101:52] to speak of the common good means [101:54] exposing this new form of epistemic, [101:56] economic, and political asymmetry and [101:58] naming the new monopolies of AI. To [102:01] speak of the universal destination of [102:02] goods means finding ways of ensuring [102:04] universal access to both technologies [102:06] and the education needed to use them. To [102:09] speak of subsidiarity calls for [102:10] protecting the ability of communities to [102:12] make choices and corrections rather than [102:14] confining their role to mere oversight [102:16] after the standards have been set [102:18] elsewhere. To speak of solidarity [102:20] obliges us to recognize the hidden, [102:22] often exploited workers who sustain [102:24] algorithmic systems. To speak of justice [102:27] requires questioning the global [102:28] distribution of power that decides who [102:30] in fact can train these models and who [102:32] is merely subjected to them. Likewise, [102:34] it means acknowledging that social [102:36] justice is not only a goal to be [102:38] safeguarded after technologies are [102:39] deployed, but a condition that must [102:41] shape their very design from the outset. [102:43] 110. Finally, I would like to employ the [102:46] expression to disarm, which is close to [102:49] my heart. Disarming AI means freeing it [102:51] from the mentality of armed competition, [102:54] which today is not limited simply to the [102:56] military context, but is also an [102:58] economic and cognitive phenomenon. This [103:00] entails a race for ever more powerful [103:02] algorithms and larger data sets driven [103:04] by the desire to secure geopolitical or [103:07] commercial dominance. To disarm means [103:09] discrediting the assumption that [103:10] technical power automatically confers [103:12] the right to govern. To disarm does not [103:15] mean rejecting technology, but [103:16] preventing it from dominating humanity. [103:19] It means freeing technology from [103:20] monopolistic control and opening it to [103:22] discussion and debate. Therefore, making [103:24] it human- friendly and restoring it to [103:26] the plurality of human cultures and ways [103:28] of life. Our task today is not only [103:31] ethical or technical. It is ecological [103:33] in the deepest sense for it concerns a [103:35] new dimension of our common home. AI is [103:38] already an environment in which we are [103:40] immersed as well as a force with which [103:42] we must engage. For this reason, merely [103:45] regulating it is insufficient. It must [103:47] be disammed, welcoming, and accessible. [103:50] 111 I wish to address a special appeal [103:53] to those who develop artificial [103:54] intelligence. In one sense, [103:56] technological innovation can represent [103:58] human participation in the divine act of [104:01] creation. Developers, therefore, bear a [104:04] particular ethical and spiritual [104:05] responsibility. For every design choice [104:08] reflects a vision of humanity, just as [104:10] the creator of an artistic or literary [104:12] work must consider the values it [104:13] conveys. So developers are called to [104:15] embed values in their projects with due [104:17] seriousness with transparency, [104:19] responsibility toward affected [104:20] communities and careful attention to [104:22] ensuring that what is being cultivated [104:24] is a genuine good. What must not be [104:26] lost? 112. Having considered the issues [104:29] of responsibility and governance of AI, [104:32] we must now return to our central [104:34] question. What does it mean to safeguard [104:36] our humanity? The risk extends beyond [104:38] the misuse of certain technologies. More [104:41] gravely, the pervasive technocratic [104:43] paradigm in which we are immersed and [104:45] that is amplified by the digital [104:46] revolution and AI threatens to normalize [104:49] an anti-human vision. In that vision, [104:51] the fullness of life is equated with [104:53] having more, reducing weakness, [104:55] eliminating uncertainty, and exerting [104:57] total control. When efficiency becomes [105:00] the ultimate measure of value, human [105:02] beings attempted to see themselves as a [105:03] project to be optimized rather than as [105:05] persons called to relationship and [105:07] communion. 113. In reality, elevating [105:11] any single dimension of human existence [105:13] to an absolute is always a mistake. [105:15] Indeed, disorder does not arise only [105:18] from scarcity. Even unchecked growth can [105:20] give rise to impoverishment. In an [105:22] ecosystem, balance is disrupted when one [105:24] species expands at the expense of [105:26] others. In human life, something similar [105:29] occurs when one faculty claims to be the [105:31] measure of everything. Thus, [105:33] intelligence when absolutized [105:35] overshadows other essential dimensions [105:37] of life such as affection, the will, [105:39] commitment, and relationships. [105:42] Similarly, technical power if left [105:44] unbalanced does not make us more [105:46] capable. It makes us more isolated and [105:48] more vulnerable to being dominated and [105:50] excluded. This critical point does not [105:52] oppose intelligence, but serves as a [105:54] reminder that when intelligence becomes [105:56] self-reerential, its true purpose of [105:58] serving life and the human person is [106:00] lost. 114. The quality of a civilization [106:03] is measured not by the power of its [106:05] means, but by the care it is able to [106:07] offer, by its ability to recognize the [106:09] other as a face, not merely as a [106:10] function. The ability to care for one [106:12] another is a fundamental dimension of [106:14] our humanity. One that is learned and [106:16] mastered through lived experience. [106:18] Reading stories to a child, offering [106:20] company to an elderly person, and [106:22] arranging a home so that it is welcoming [106:24] as simple gestures often rooted in [106:25] family life. They teach us to value care [106:28] at a societal level and train us to [106:30] recognize others as persons worthy of [106:32] attention. Technology can also support [106:34] this mutual care between people, for [106:36] example, by providing tools that help us [106:38] anticipate and organize things without [106:41] undermining human freedom and judgment. [106:43] After all, human beings are the subjects [106:46] of relationships and responsible for [106:47] their own decisions. Underlying [106:49] narratives, transhumanism and [106:52] posthumanism 115. In an attempt to shed [106:55] light on the cultural assumptions [106:56] accompanying the ongoing digital [106:58] revolution, I would now like to turn our [107:00] attention to certain currents of thought [107:01] that interpret progress as surpassing [107:03] the human condition and which are often [107:05] grouped under the labels of [107:06] transhumanism and posthumanism. These [107:09] perspectives form the ideological [107:11] background present in some centers of [107:12] technological power and occupy the [107:14] collective imagination in a simplified [107:16] form, especially in the media and on [107:18] social networks. They tend to foster [107:21] enthusiasm for new technologies through [107:22] a futuristic vision of an enhanced human [107:25] being or human machine hybrid. 116. [107:28] Transhumanism and posthumanism encompass [107:31] a range of currents and sensibilities [107:33] making it difficult to define them in a [107:35] single unambiguous way. They can be [107:37] likened to an archipelago of conceptual [107:39] islands distinct yet connected by a [107:42] common sea of assumptions, namely the [107:44] central role of technology and the [107:45] aspiration to transcend the limits of [107:47] the human condition. In general, [107:49] transhumanism envisions the enhancement [107:51] of human beings through technologies [107:53] such as biio medicine, body engineering, [107:56] devices, and algorithms with the aim of [107:58] increasing performance and capabilities. [108:00] Posthumanism, especially in its more [108:03] radical forms, goes further. It [108:05] challenges anthropocentrism and [108:07] envisions a hybridization of human [108:08] beings, machines, and the environment, [108:11] even anticipating a threshold where [108:13] humanity surpasses itself in a new [108:15] evolutionary stage. Even when such ideas [108:17] remain largely speculative, they gain [108:20] relevance by altering the collective [108:21] imagination and thereby influence [108:23] social, economic, and political choices. [108:26] 117 From the perspective of the church's [108:29] social doctrine, the key issue is not [108:31] the use of technology as such, but the [108:33] vision that underlies it. If the human [108:35] being is treated as something to be [108:36] perfected or surpassed, it becomes [108:39] easier to accept that some lives are [108:40] less useful, less desirable, or less [108:43] worthy. In the name of progress, [108:45] necessary sacrifices may begin to be [108:47] justified, placing the burden on the [108:49] most vulnerable in pursuit of a supposed [108:51] optimization of the species. In this [108:53] regard, the aforementioned warning of [108:55] St. Paul Virgin Islands retains great [108:57] foresight. Indeed, scientific and [109:00] technological advances when detached [109:02] from moral and social progress end up [109:04] turning against humanity. For this [109:06] reason, a clear distinction must be [109:08] made. It is one thing to integrate [109:10] technology within a human- centered [109:12] relational vision. It is quite another [109:14] to be guided by an outlook that devalues [109:16] human limits and promises a purely [109:18] technical form of salvation. The limit, [109:21] the heart, and the grandeur of the human [109:23] person. 118 Our relationship with life [109:26] seems to be in crisis today. Everything [109:29] that appears as a limit, incapacity, [109:31] illness, old age, suffering, [109:33] vulnerability tends to be seen primarily [109:36] as a defect to be corrected rather than [109:38] as a reality through which our humanity [109:40] matures and opens itself to [109:41] relationship. And yet we must remember [109:44] that humanity flourishes not despite [109:46] limitations, but often through them. The [109:48] light of faith offers a perspective on [109:50] reality that helps us recognize what we [109:52] call the contingency of the things of [109:54] this world. While it is right to strive [109:56] to alleviate the suffering that marks [109:58] human life, it is also wise to [110:00] acknowledge our fundamental finitude, [110:02] knowing that religious experience and in [110:04] particular Christian faith propose that [110:06] we live without oversimplification this [110:08] ambivalence between human greatness and [110:10] limitation, interpreting it in the light [110:12] of our original and fundamental [110:14] relationship with God. 119 It is [110:17] precisely within our limitations that [110:18] the following find a place. Compassion [110:21] as well as a sincere concern for the [110:23] needs of others. A generosity that can [110:25] emerge even in the midst of darkness and [110:26] failure, spiritual experience and the [110:29] worship of God. We see this at many [110:31] moments when our limits become tangible. [110:33] When we face rejection, when we suffer [110:35] the illness or loss of a loved one, when [110:37] we encounter our own weakness or [110:39] failure, mysteriously, it is precisely [110:42] in such moments that we can discover a [110:43] new wisdom, tangibly experience the [110:46] closeness of others, and encounter the [110:47] presence of the Lord. 120. Even when [110:51] limitations are experienced as inner [110:52] suffering, human wisdom teaches us not [110:55] to deny or suppress it, but to integrate [110:57] it. To eliminate suffering entirely [110:59] would mean in the end extinguishing love [111:02] and desire as well. Those who love and [111:04] desire cannot avoid passing through [111:06] trial and suffering. And over the years, [111:08] we carry within us lessons that leave [111:10] their mark like scars. The memories of a [111:12] journey shaped by freedom and failure, [111:14] dreams and disappointments. It is only [111:17] thanks to the interplay of these [111:18] elements that the wonders of the soul [111:19] occur within us, allowing us to sense [111:22] the richness of our humanity. To [111:24] renounce this adventure, both tragic and [111:26] splendid, in the name of a presumed [111:28] transcendence of all limits, could mean [111:30] many things, but it would no longer be [111:32] human. 121 The moral corruption of our [111:35] limitations as created beings, namely [111:37] the evil that clearly agitates the human [111:39] heart, ruin society and life, at times [111:42] reaching extreme forms of inhumity. Yet [111:45] even these painful expressions of our [111:46] limitations leave openings for the good. [111:49] Even when persons dehumanize themselves [111:51] and bring about tragedy, a small light [111:53] continues to shine within humanity, one [111:55] that can be rekindled with God's grace [111:58] along paths of conversion and [111:59] reconciliation. As Victor Frankl rightly [112:02] observed in moments of horror, we have [112:04] come to know man as he really is. After [112:07] all, man is that being who invented the [112:09] gas chambers of Awitz. However, he is [112:11] also that being who entered those gas [112:13] chambers upright with the Lord's [112:14] prayer or the sheima Israel on his lips. [112:18] 122 finitude when truly accepted does [112:21] not diminish us but opens us to [112:23] recognizing the face of God and others. [112:25] Indeed, precisely because we experience [112:28] limits, vulnerability, suffering and [112:30] failure. We can recognize the inviable [112:33] dignity of every person, both our own [112:35] and that of others. In this same [112:37] experience, we remain capable of [112:39] intruding a fraternity greater than [112:40] ourselves and of perceiving injustice as [112:43] a scandal. Authentic culture and art [112:45] preserve this spark, resisting the [112:47] normalization of evil. For this reason, [112:50] certain works have taken on an almost [112:51] prophetic significance. Beethoven's [112:54] ninth symphony can be seen as a desire [112:55] for unity. Gernika as a denunciation of [112:58] dehumanization. Schindler's List as a [113:00] call not to consign the past to [113:01] oblivion. 123. History does not appear [113:05] solely as a record of human violence, [113:07] but also as evidence that humanity is [113:09] capable of creating institutions that [113:11] protect our shared life. Over the past [113:13] two centuries, this can be seen in [113:15] several emblematic achievements. The [113:17] founding of the International Committee [113:18] of the Red Cross, 1863, whose [113:21] operational neutrality ensures [113:22] compassionate care for all. the long [113:24] process that led to the abolition of [113:26] slavery which represented not only a [113:28] legal shift but a transformation of [113:29] conscience, the establishment of the [113:31] United Nations 1945, and the universal [113:34] declaration of human rights 1948 which [113:37] articulated a shared language for [113:39] affirming at least as a common ideal the [113:42] universality of human dignity and the [113:44] 1951 refugee convention which recognizes [113:47] the duty to protect those fleeing [113:49] persecution and danger. In each of these [113:51] cases, the desire for good took concrete [113:53] shape in public contexts, laws, [113:56] institutions, and practices capable of [113:58] limiting the abuse of power and [114:00] defending the vulnerable. Yet, none of [114:02] these developments emerged without [114:04] encountering resistance, narrow [114:06] interests, or cultural inertia. Moral [114:08] progress almost always unfolds through a [114:10] long and demanding journey, often marked [114:12] by setbacks. We need only think of [114:15] stalled peace processes or the slow [114:17] implementation of environmental [114:18] commitments. The very fragility of these [114:20] achievements highlights how precious the [114:22] responsibility is of those who initiate [114:24] and sustain them. 124 Certain events [114:28] make it clear that history can also [114:29] change when individuals truly take the [114:31] dignity of everyone seriously. The civil [114:33] rights movement in the United States of [114:35] America closely associated with the [114:37] testimony of Martin Luther King Jr. or [114:39] the end of apartheite in South Africa [114:41] following the release of Nelson Mandela [114:43] and his decision not to surrender the [114:44] future to hatred. In different contexts, [114:47] many courageous and generous women have [114:48] also stood out including St. Laura [114:51] Mononttoya, St. Teresa of Kolkata, [114:53] Dorothy Day, Maurice Gladascuri, Maria [114:56] Montasauri, Elizabeth Elliot, Wangari [114:58] Marti, Benazer Bhau, and countless [115:01] others from every continent whose [115:02] commitment has contributed to making [115:04] history more humane. 125 Alongside these [115:07] public signs, there is a more hidden but [115:10] decisive story. We see it in religious [115:12] communities that choose to serve in poor [115:14] and dangerous places. We also see it in [115:17] the martyrs of fraternity and justice [115:18] such as St. Maxmillian Mary Cobb, St. [115:21] Oscar Romero and blessed Enrique KA [115:23] Angeli and in those witnesses who [115:25] embodied the hope of the gospel as well [115:26] as human dignity amidst harsh often [115:28] inhumane conditions such as venerable [115:31] Francis Ayang Vantoan. Above all, it is [115:34] visible in the marts of everyday life [115:36] who care for, educate, accompany, and [115:38] comfort without fanfare, such as [115:40] parents, nurses, doctors, volunteers, [115:43] and those who remain alongside an [115:44] elderly person or an outcast. Their [115:47] testimony demonstrates that goodness [115:48] does not advance automatically, but [115:50] requires the perseverance, memory, and [115:52] interior conversion necessary to begin a [115:55] new, even after defeat. 126. It is this [115:59] intertwining of just institutions, [116:01] credible witnesses, and daily fidelity [116:03] that sustains hope and provides clear [116:05] direction for technological progress [116:06] without allowing the heart to regress. [116:08] For this reason, humanity in all its [116:11] grandeur and woundedness must never be [116:13] replaced or surpassed. We can embrace [116:16] the technological progress that [116:17] alleviates suffering and unlocks new [116:19] possibilities, provided that we do not [116:21] abandon the very essence of our [116:23] humanity, namely the capacity for [116:25] relationship and love. This leads to a [116:27] crucial question. If an authentic more [116:29] than human exists, where is it to be [116:31] found? The Christian faith answers that [116:34] question by pointing to a fulfillment [116:35] that does not arise from a technological [116:37] divonization, but through God's grace [116:39] received in Christ. The authentic more [116:42] than human grace and Christian humanism. [116:45] 127. The expression more than human is [116:48] not an exclusive domain of technological [116:50] promise. For centuries, the Christian [116:52] tradition has maintained that human [116:54] beings are not confined by the [116:55] boundaries of their own nature. Rather, [116:57] they are called to self-trcendence, not [116:59] through an escape from reality or a [117:01] contempt for their limitations, but [117:03] through their fulfillment in love. Faith [117:05] recognizes an openness toward the beyond [117:08] which originates as a gift from God. [117:10] This transformation is a work of the [117:12] Holy Spirit. As St. Thomas Aquinas [117:14] taught, "This process of elevation and [117:17] transformation surpasses every [117:18] capability of created nature. for an [117:21] infinite disparity separates our finite [117:23] nature from a life of God. Nevertheless, [117:25] it remains possible to enter into the [117:27] heart of that inexhaustible life even as [117:30] we journey through the limitations of [117:31] this world. The one who makes this [117:33] passage possible can only be the eternal [117:35] one who gives of himself. Indeed, it is [117:38] God himself who overcomes the infinite [117:40] disproportion. In him, the recreation of [117:43] the human person happens. If anyone is [117:46] in Christ, there is a new creation. [117:48] Everything old has passed away. See, [117:50] everything has become new. 2 core 517 [117:54] 128. When we embrace the possibility of [117:57] transcending ourselves through God's [117:58] grace, we do not deny our nature, nor do [118:01] we become less human. On the contrary, [118:04] as Pope Francis explained, we become [118:06] fully human when we become more than [118:08] human when we let God bring us beyond [118:10] ourselves in order to attain the fullest [118:12] truth of our being. Herein lies the [118:14] radical departure from Prometheian [118:16] dreams. What saves humanity is not [118:18] enhanced self-sufficiency, but a [118:20] relationship that liberates, a communion [118:22] that transforms. In this light, a [118:25] technology that merely classifies and [118:26] optimizes what already exists can, [118:29] however unintentionally, become an [118:31] obstacle to change and growth. For an [118:33] algorithm, an error is a flaw to be [118:35] corrected. For a person, however, an [118:38] error can be a catalyst for profound [118:39] change. A person's future is not [118:42] calculable but depends on one's freedom [118:44] elevated by the inexhaustible grace of [118:46] God and on the relationships cultivated. [118:49] Two cities and two loves. 129 Christian [118:53] humanism does not reject science or [118:55] technology but embraces them with [118:56] gratitude and realism and grounds them [118:59] within a higher vocation. The creative [119:01] intelligence of humanity is a gift that [119:03] can alleviate suffering and open up new [119:05] possibilities. But it must remain [119:07] ordered toward the common good, justice, [119:09] the care of the vulnerable, and [119:10] creation. In this sense, the true [119:12] alternative is not between enthusiasm [119:14] and fear, but between two paths of [119:16] development. A progress that serves [119:18] individuals and peoples, or a progress [119:20] that subjects them to the mentality of [119:22] power. Ultimately, the key question [119:24] remains the one posed by St. John Paul [119:26] II. Does AI make human life on Earth [119:29] more human in every aspect of that life? [119:32] Does it make it more worthy of man? If [119:34] the answer is yes, then we can recognize [119:37] it as an opportunity to be embraced [119:38] responsibly on a path of patient shared [119:41] reconstruction, akin to the rebuilding [119:43] of Jerusalem narrated in the book of [119:45] Nehemiah. If, however, power grows while [119:48] the heart withers and human bonds fray, [119:50] then we are faced with a new form of [119:52] Babel, a construction that is grandiose [119:54] yet fundamentally dehumanizing. 130. [119:57] Questioning this alternative path of [119:59] progress and how we interpret and live [120:01] it is ultimately a matter of examining [120:03] our own hearts. The way we understand [120:05] and shape relationships, work and [120:07] institutions in practice reveals our [120:10] fundamental values. In the end, it all [120:12] stems from what we hold most dear. This [120:15] is a love that guides us as to what we [120:17] truly cherish both as individuals and as [120:19] a society and directs our lives and [120:21] actions. St. Augustine described human [120:24] history as a struggle between two loves [120:26] which give rise to two ways of [120:28] inhabiting the world and living together [120:30] or two cities as it were. On the one [120:32] hand the love of God and neighbor on the [120:34] other the exclusive love of self. Two [120:37] loves have built two cities. The earthly [120:39] city the love of self even to the [120:41] contempt of God. The heavenly city the [120:44] love of God even to the contempt of [120:45] self. As throughout history these two [120:48] loves continue to contend for dominance [120:50] in our hearts today. The age of AI is no [120:53] exception. The construction of Babel or [120:55] the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins [120:57] within each one of us. Chapter 4. [121:00] Safeguarding humanity at a time of [121:02] transformation. Truth work. Freedom. [121:06] 131. Having outlined the context in [121:08] which the challenge of technological [121:10] transformation is situated, especially [121:12] those linked to AI and to transhumanist [121:14] and posthumanist currents, we cannot [121:16] remain at the level of general analysis [121:18] alone. When languages and tools change, [121:21] so do everyday actions and social [121:23] relationships. For this reason, we must [121:25] focus on certain areas in which these [121:27] transformations have particularly [121:29] concrete and at times tragic [121:31] consequences. In light of the principles [121:33] of the church's social doctrine, the [121:35] digital transformation invites us to [121:37] rediscover truth as a common good, to [121:39] protect the dignity of work, and to [121:40] safeguard freedom against all forms of [121:42] dependence and commercialization. Truth [121:45] as a common good. Truth and democracy. [121:48] 132. The use of digital platforms and AI [121:51] systems is driving profound changes in [121:54] public and political communication. [121:56] Tools that could foster dialogue and [121:57] participation are often used to [121:59] construct distorted narratives and blur [122:01] the boundaries between truth and faucet. [122:03] Mixing facts with opinions. [122:05] Disinformation did not begin with AI. [122:07] Yet today, it finds a powerful amplifier [122:09] in AI. The ability to manipulate [122:12] content, images, and videos exposes [122:15] people to biased or misleading [122:16] perspectives. This problem has both [122:18] cultural and moral dimensions since the [122:20] quality of public communication depends [122:22] directly on social trust and in turn [122:25] shapes it. At the same time, truthful [122:28] information does not arise from [122:29] centralized or automated control. In [122:32] public discourse, the truth of facts has [122:34] a rational dimension as it requires [122:36] verification, cross-checking of sources, [122:38] and responsible argumentation. Moreover, [122:41] it is deeply relational, built through [122:43] bonds of trust and shared practices, as [122:45] well as an honest exchange with others [122:47] and with the world. Only the shared [122:49] pursuit of the veracity of facts [122:51] perceived as a common good can provide a [122:53] solid foundation for just communication. [122:56] 133 those who command powerful [122:58] technological and economic resources [123:00] along with substantial human capital for [123:02] intervention possess significant [123:04] capabilities for influencing cultural [123:06] change. Ultimately, they can influence a [123:09] significant number of people concerning [123:10] the truth about humanity, the world, the [123:13] meaning of existence, the family, and [123:15] even God. This is pure power detached [123:18] from truth, which subtly or overtly [123:20] imposes what it wishes others to accept [123:22] as true. At its root lies a deeper and [123:24] often unrecognized sickness, the fact [123:26] that modern man is wrongly convinced [123:28] that he is the sole author of himself, [123:30] his life, and society. This is a [123:32] presumption that follows from being [123:34] selfishly closed in upon himself. [123:37] Consequently, people believe that they [123:39] can construct reality and that whatever [123:41] best suits their claims corresponds to [123:43] what is true. St. John Paul II reflected [123:46] on the consequences of this crisis of [123:47] truth, going so far as to state that [123:50] once the idea of a universal truth about [123:51] the good, knowable by human reason is [123:54] lost. Inevitably, the notion of [123:56] conscience also changes. In such a [123:58] context, universally valid truths which [124:01] precede us and which conscience must [124:03] accept are no longer recognized. This [124:06] led Pope Francis to ask with realism, [124:08] "What is law without the conviction born [124:10] of age-old reflection and great wisdom [124:12] that each human being is sacred and [124:14] inviable?" To which he concluded, "If [124:17] society is to have a future, it must [124:19] respect the truth of our human dignity [124:21] and submit to that truth. Murder is not [124:23] wrong simply because it is socially [124:25] unacceptable and punished by law, but [124:27] because of a deeper conviction. This is [124:30] a non-negotiable truth attained by the [124:31] use of reason and accepted in [124:33] conscience. A society is noble and [124:35] decent, not least for its support of the [124:37] pursuit of truth and its adherence to [124:39] the most basic of truths. [124:42] 134 The search for truth is an essential [124:44] element of democracy, which is itself a [124:46] means of contributing to the common [124:48] good. When questions about what is true [124:50] lose their appeal, and a pragmatism [124:52] takes hold that is content with what [124:54] appears useful or effective, then [124:56] democratic life is weakened. After all, [124:59] democracy does not consist of rules and [125:01] procedures alone, but above all of a [125:03] solid concordance with the facts and a [125:05] genuine commitment to the good of [125:06] individuals and society as a whole. [125:08] Indifference to the truth leads slowly [125:10] but surely to a descent into [125:12] totalitarianism. As the philosopher [125:14] Hannah Orren wrote, "The ideal subjects [125:17] of such regimes are not so much those [125:18] who are ideologically convinced, but [125:20] rather people for whom the distinction [125:22] between fact and fiction, i.e. the [125:24] reality of experience and the [125:26] distinction between true and false i.e. [125:28] the standards of thought no longer [125:30] exist. Communication and the collective [125:33] imagination. [125:35] 135. In view of this, it is important to [125:38] recall that communication is not only [125:40] the transmission of information, but it [125:41] is also the creation of a culture. The [125:44] content that circulates within digital [125:46] environments shapes how people perceive [125:48] the world and introduces into the [125:49] collective consciousness images and [125:51] narratives that direct our desires and [125:53] influence our daily choices. This is not [125:55] a parallel or purely virtual world since [125:58] what originates online now becomes a [126:00] part of people's lives especially of the [126:02] youngest. 136. For this reason, those [126:06] who control digital platforms and means [126:08] of communication have a considerable [126:09] ability to affect the collective [126:11] imagination and to present a particular [126:13] vision of reality as desirable. Such [126:15] power should be constantly guided by the [126:17] pursuit of truth and respect for human [126:19] dignity so that the culture fostered on [126:21] the internet does not become an [126:22] instrument of excessive distraction, [126:24] homogenization, or dominance, but rather [126:26] a setting in which inner freedom and [126:28] critical thought can mature toward an [126:30] ecology of communication. [126:33] 137. Our first task is neither to [126:35] demonize nor idolize technological [126:37] tools, but to utilize them on the basis [126:39] of a fundamental principle, namely that [126:41] truth is a common good and not the [126:43] property of those with power or [126:44] influence. We must therefore promote an [126:47] ecology of communication. On the level [126:49] of public policy, this entails [126:51] establishing norms so that the [126:53] decision-making behind content selection [126:54] and its development becomes more [126:56] transparent and protects personal data. [126:58] Regarding social and cultural aspects, [127:01] this requires a strengthening of [127:02] intermediary organizations, serious [127:04] journalism, and forums for debate, where [127:07] reasoned argumentation and verification [127:09] carry greater weight than immediate [127:10] reaction. For families and schools, [127:13] there is a growing need for new [127:14] educational awareness and for formation [127:16] concerning the proper and critical use [127:18] of digital tools, AI, and online [127:20] commercial and financial platforms. In [127:23] universities, the principal challenge [127:25] lies in the integration of knowledge, [127:26] cultivating both the capacity to connect [127:28] and synize knowledge in order to grasp [127:30] complexity and the skills necessary to [127:33] verify facts. 138 Christian communities [127:36] too are called to commit themselves to [127:38] transparency in communication and to the [127:40] honest pursuit of facts. Sadly, this has [127:43] not always been the case. We have [127:45] witnessed with shame the emergence of [127:47] painful truths concerning even members [127:49] of the church and ecclesial realities. [127:51] In particular, some journalists driven [127:54] by a passion for truth have played a [127:56] crucial role in bringing injustices and [127:58] abuses to light. To them, I wish to [128:00] repeat the words that Pope Francis used [128:02] in speaking to journalists. I also thank [128:04] you for what you tell us about what goes [128:06] wrong in the church, for helping us not [128:08] to sweep it under the carpet, and for [128:09] the voice you have given to the victims [128:11] of abuse. Yet vigilance and transparency [128:14] remain first and foremost a grave [128:16] responsibility for the church itself. [128:18] And we must not wait for others to [128:19] compel us to confront uncomfortable [128:21] truths about ourselves. An educational [128:24] alliance for the digital age. 139. In an [128:27] era when truth is often distorted in [128:29] order to serve particular interests and [128:31] communication strategies, the field of [128:33] education assumes decisive importance. [128:36] Yet rapid technological transformations [128:38] reveal just how unprepared we are on the [128:40] educational level. The pervasiveness of [128:42] digital media fosters a culture of [128:44] immediiacy and hyper stimulation which [128:46] gives rise to fatigue, boredom and [128:48] apathy concerning the effort required [128:50] for seeking the truth. 140 Education by [128:53] contrast is a long journey requiring [128:55] patience and therefore needs time for [128:58] development and for engagement with [128:59] reality beyond appearances. This is a [129:02] fundamental issue because every [129:03] technology shapes those who use it. [129:05] Educating people about the use of AI [129:08] then involves teaching them to decide [129:10] when and for what purpose it ought not [129:12] to be used. The speed and ease with [129:14] which answers or summaries can be [129:15] obtained risk extinguishing the desire [129:17] to ask questions which is a process that [129:20] bears fruit only over time. As Plato [129:22] wrote, "The deepest and most important [129:24] things are learned only after much time [129:26] and effort by engaging in discussion [129:28] with others, striking upon ideas and [129:30] experiences together like flint until [129:32] the spark of understanding is kindled [129:34] within us. We must learn then how to [129:37] exercise restraint in the use of AI and [129:39] to protect our young people from the [129:40] promise of the perfect machine from that [129:42] subtle temptation which renders human [129:44] thoughts seemingly superfluous precisely [129:46] when it is most needed. 141. In recent [129:49] years, psychological and psychiatric [129:52] literature has documented with growing [129:53] insistence how early and unsupervised [129:55] exposure to digital devices and social [129:57] media can negatively impact sleep, [129:59] attention span, control of emotions, and [130:02] relationships, especially during the [130:03] most vulnerable stages of life, at times [130:06] with tragic consequences. This is [130:08] further aggravated by easy access to [130:10] violent or degrading content that [130:11] offends sensibility, to pornographic and [130:14] hypersexualized material, to messages [130:16] that trivialize the body and emotions, [130:18] and to proposals that normalize risky [130:20] behavior. Online phenomena such as [130:22] grooming, blackmail, and the sexual [130:24] exploitation of minors are not uncommon [130:26] and are made more insidious by the use [130:28] of fake profiles, algorithms that [130:30] facilitate dangerous contact, and AI [130:32] tools capable of manipulating images and [130:34] videos. Having a personal mobile device [130:37] at too early an age and using it without [130:39] adult supervision can exacerbate young [130:41] people's vulnerabilities, foster [130:42] addiction, and expose them to isolation, [130:45] bullying, and cyber bullying, as well as [130:47] to pressures to share intimate images or [130:49] sensitive information. 142. It is [130:52] difficult for parents by themselves to [130:54] resist the influence of business models [130:55] that moni. [130:58] Therefore, it is essential to form an [131:00] alliance among policymakers, educational [131:02] institutions, and families that is [131:04] capable of concretely supporting adults [131:06] in this task. Far-sided public policies [131:09] are needed to oppose the immediate [131:10] interests of platforms concentrated in a [131:13] few hands when they conflict with the [131:14] well-being of minors. In this regard, [131:17] interventions by legislators are [131:18] appropriate for setting age limits, [131:20] holding service providers accountable [131:22] rather than shifting the whole burden of [131:24] control onto families, and for providing [131:26] specific protections against all forms [131:28] of online sexual exploitation and [131:30] violence. Thus, can children and [131:32] adolesccents who are entrusted to our [131:34] care be genuinely protected as a [131:36] precious treasure? At the same time, it [131:38] is also necessary to teach children, [131:40] adolesccents, and young people how to [131:42] recognize manipulation, defend their [131:44] dignity, and respect that of others in [131:46] digital environments. The central role [131:48] of schools. 143. School is the place [131:52] where new generations can learn to seek [131:54] and love the truth, to reflect on the [131:55] meaning of life, and to recognize the [131:57] dignity of every person. For this [131:59] reason, many parents who want their [132:01] children to grow in the capacity to form [132:03] relationships, develop critical thinking [132:05] skills, and embrace solid values, place [132:07] great expectations on schools as [132:09] valuable partners in their children's [132:11] education. Yet, parents have the primary [132:13] and inalienable right to choose the kind [132:15] of education and formation for their [132:17] children in a manner consistent with [132:19] their moral, cultural, and religious [132:21] convictions. Today, the world of [132:23] education faces a number of urgent [132:25] challenges. 144. The first challenge is [132:28] sociopolitical. Both within individual [132:31] nations and across different regions of [132:33] the world, significant inequalities [132:35] persist concerning access to basic [132:37] education and higher studies. In many [132:39] nations, governments have not yet [132:41] invested the necessary resources for [132:43] guaranteeing a quality education for [132:44] all, whether by adequately supporting [132:46] the public school system or by assisting [132:48] private institutions that offer this [132:50] essential service. When a substantial [132:52] portion of education at various levels [132:55] is entrusted to private institutions, [132:57] access to schooling may become overly [132:59] dependent on famil family's financial [133:00] means, especially in the absence of [133:03] adequate public support. In the face of [133:05] this risk, it is nevertheless important [133:07] to acknowledge and encourage the [133:08] contribution of the many private [133:10] Catholic educational institutions which [133:12] ensure inclusive access for children and [133:14] young people of every background, even [133:16] when families economic circumstances [133:18] would not otherwise allow it. 145. The [133:21] second major challenge is pedagogical. [133:23] Many educational systems struggle to [133:25] keep pace with change and to support the [133:27] integral development of students. The [133:29] advance of information technologies and [133:31] AI is rapidly rendering curriculara [133:33] obsolete that were designed for a [133:35] different era. Meanwhile, the [133:37] organization of schools, physical [133:39] spaces, evaluation methods, and the role [133:41] of teachers themselves must be rethought [133:43] in order to promote an authentically [133:45] integral education that addresses every [133:47] dimension of the person. It is necessary [133:49] to support the ongoing formation of [133:50] teachers throughout their professional [133:52] lives so that they can engage positively [133:54] with new technologies, helping students [133:56] to use them responsibly, critically, and [133:58] creatively rather than passively [134:00] succumbing to their influence. 146 The [134:04] third major challenge is intellectual [134:05] and concerns knowledge. Without careful [134:08] attention, an educational system lacking [134:10] in a love for truth may emerge in which [134:12] an incessant flow of information [134:14] replaces the essential exercise of [134:15] research, reflection, and discernment. [134:18] As knowledge becomes increasingly [134:20] fragmented, it becomes difficult to [134:22] grasp reality as a whole, to ask [134:24] profound questions about meaning, or to [134:26] develop authentic, critical, and [134:27] creative thought. Many educators already [134:30] report signs of dehumanization where [134:32] people may know many things but struggle [134:34] to find direction in their lives. Partly [134:36] due to an inability to connect [134:38] information with deeper knowledge or [134:39] maintain a sense of purpose. A genuinely [134:42] healthy attitude is needed requiring [134:44] rhythms that incorporate silence, [134:46] in-depth study, reading, and judicious [134:48] analysis. For without these elements, [134:50] inner freedom may be compromised. 147. [134:53] The church's social doctrine invites [134:55] families, schools, Christian [134:57] communities, and public institutions to [134:59] form a renewed educational alliance. [135:01] This takes shape when fundamental [135:03] principles are translated into [135:05] educational goals, including teaching [135:07] students a sense of moderation and [135:08] limits, recognition of the rights of [135:10] others and of future generations to [135:12] enjoy the goods that are either provided [135:14] for us or made available by human [135:15] ingenuity, freedom and responsibility, [135:18] and a sense of transcendence and the [135:20] common good. Schools are not called to [135:22] follow the pace of the digital world, [135:23] but to offer that which the digital [135:25] sphere by itself cannot provide, namely [135:27] a shared time for learning and [135:29] developing trustworthy relationships. [135:31] The dignity of work at a time of digital [135:33] transition, the value of work. 148 Since [135:37] the emergence of a social doctrine [135:39] beginning with Riran Never, the church [135:41] has emphasized the protection of workers [135:43] and the need to combat all forms of [135:45] exploitation. Above all, however, the [135:48] magisterium has recognized in work the [135:50] essential key to understanding the [135:51] entire social question. Since it is [135:53] through their work that individuals [135:55] develop many dimensions of their [135:56] existence in view of this, we can [135:59] understand the great intuition of St. [136:00] Benedict of Nerta who united prayer and [136:03] work showing daily activity to be a part [136:05] of the human response to God's call. [136:07] Created in the image of the creator, our [136:09] own work in some way continues his for [136:12] thereby we contribute to the progress of [136:13] society and the common good. put to good [136:15] use the capabilities we have received, [136:17] improve and beautify the world, support [136:20] our families, engage in cooperative [136:22] relationships, and through listening and [136:24] dialogue, learn to build together [136:26] something that no one could achieve [136:27] alone. 149 For these reasons, work is [136:31] not simply an instrument. It expresses [136:33] and enhances the dignity of our lives. [136:35] It is a requirement of the human [136:37] condition, a normal path toward [136:39] maturity, development, and personal [136:41] fulfillment. In this regard, financial [136:44] assistance to the poor may at times be [136:45] necessary in emergencies, but it cannot [136:47] become the sole response since the goal [136:49] is to enable each person to live with [136:51] dignity through his or her own work. 150 [136:55] Today, the convergence of automation, [136:57] robotics, and AI is rapidly transforming [137:00] the very structure of work. It is said [137:02] that this will bring great improvements [137:04] for everyone. In reality, however, the [137:07] new ways of working are not necessarily [137:08] better. For while AI promises to boost [137:11] productivity by taking over mundane [137:13] tasks, it frequently forces workers to [137:15] adapt to the speed and demands of [137:16] machines rather than machines being [137:18] designed to support those who work. As a [137:21] result, contrary to the advertised [137:22] benefits of AI, current approaches to [137:25] technology can paradoxically deskll [137:26] workers, subject them to automated [137:28] surveillance, and relegate them to rigid [137:30] and repetitive tasks. The need to keep [137:32] up with the pace of technology can erode [137:34] workers sense of agency and stifle the [137:36] innovative abilities they are expected [137:38] to bring to their work. Precisely in [137:41] order to avoid this drift, it is [137:42] necessary to design systems that are [137:44] centered on the human person and not [137:46] solely on performance. The problem of [137:48] unemployment [137:50] 151 St. John Paul II recognized that [137:53] unemployment is a grave evil. Indeed, [137:56] when it reaches massive proportions, it [137:58] becomes a true social calamity that [138:00] especially requires the state to [138:02] exercise responsibility. Today, amid the [138:04] fourth industrial revolution, this [138:06] concern is even more acute as innovation [138:09] is often pursued solely for reducing [138:11] costs and increasing profits. In some [138:13] contexts, there is a legitimate fear of [138:15] a significant and rapid contraction in [138:17] available jobs that would create a chain [138:19] reaction deeply impacting families, [138:21] young people, and local economies. In [138:24] many sectors, this can already be seen [138:26] in new forms of job insecurity and [138:28] inequality characterized by outsized [138:30] remuneration for a highly specialized [138:32] minority alongside declining wages for a [138:34] large portion of the workforce. 152. It [138:38] is certainly desirable for technology to [138:40] relieve humans of arduous, repetitive, [138:42] or dangerous tasks and to provide [138:44] intelligent support for human activity. [138:46] Yet, the protection of employment [138:48] opportunities and the irreplaceable role [138:50] of the individual must remain the [138:52] general rule. The pursuit of greater [138:54] profits cannot justify choices that [138:55] systematically sacrifice jobs because [138:58] the human person is an end, not a means, [139:00] and the economic order must remain [139:02] subordinate to human dignity and the [139:04] common good. 153 At the same time, we [139:08] must acknowledge that every real [139:09] transition involves discontinuities, for [139:11] it is uneven, fragmented, and sometimes [139:14] conflictual. Consequently, no single [139:16] model of change or universal solution [139:18] exists. Since there are places and [139:20] situations that require different [139:22] responses given the inequality that [139:24] characterizes our world, the spread of [139:26] AI and computational systems produces [139:29] varied effects in different places. [139:31] Wealthy societies automate rapidly and [139:33] periodically, reducing the need for a [139:35] workforce and creating room for [139:37] unemployment and institutional friction. [139:39] Vast regions of the world by contrast [139:42] remain trapped in hybrid economies where [139:44] underpaid human labor and partial [139:46] technologies coexist without achieving [139:48] genuine transformation. These areas [139:50] become places of precarious labor and [139:52] hotbeds of instability and force [139:54] migration. Therefore, solutions must be [139:57] sought at national and local levels [139:59] through the involvement of intermediary [140:01] communities. We need adaptive tools [140:03] including well ststructured models, [140:05] local initiatives, progressive [140:07] redistribution, and new rights of access [140:09] to essential goods. While not pursuing [140:11] an abstract harmony, we must build [140:13] concrete forms of human coexistence at [140:15] this time of transformation. [140:18] 154. Work remains a fundamental [140:20] dimension of the human experience. For [140:22] not only is it a means of sustenance, [140:24] but it is also a context for expression, [140:26] relationships, and contributing to the [140:28] community. Therefore, the problems [140:30] related to work extend beyond the income [140:32] necessary for family survival. A society [140:35] that guarantees employment to only a [140:37] small fraction of the population despite [140:39] having a high level of technical [140:40] development risks exposing many to [140:42] forced inactivity, a lack of [140:44] responsibility, and the absence of daily [140:46] tasks and stimuli resulting in human and [140:49] cultural impoverishment. This creates a [140:51] paradox of material progress and [140:53] anthropological regression that [140:54] undermines the foundations of a just and [140:56] stable social peace. For this reason, [140:59] the church's social doctrine insists [141:00] that access to work for all must be a [141:02] high priority for public policies and [141:04] economic processes, serving as a [141:06] criterion for evaluating the human [141:08] quality of any development model. [141:10] Moreover, in those parts of the world [141:12] where work tends to diminish or change [141:14] radically due to technological and [141:15] organizational processes outside of [141:17] democratic control, we must rethink the [141:20] nature of work and its connection to [141:21] citizenship, ensuring that unemployment [141:23] does not jeopardize social [141:25] participation. [141:26] 155. In light of this conviction, we can [141:29] better appreciate the history of the [141:31] church's social doctrine after Rim Neam. [141:33] The initiatives which emerge from that [141:35] tradition, including associations, trade [141:38] unions, cooperatives, and welfare [141:40] organizations, have contributed [141:42] decisively to improving labor [141:43] legislation, protecting the most [141:45] vulnerable, and promoting more humane [141:47] conditions. Today, however, these [141:49] instruments are no longer sufficient by [141:51] themselves in the face of the [141:52] transformations driven by AI. the new [141:55] organization of markets and the [141:56] competitiveness that is rarely concerned [141:58] with social sustainability. New [142:00] collaborative efforts are needed among [142:02] political leaders, labor organizations, [142:04] the business world, and the scientific [142:06] community in order to develop rapidly [142:08] adequate shared regulations and [142:10] protections, including at the [142:11] international level. Labor unions, which [142:14] the church has consistently supported, [142:16] are called upon to be open to new types [142:18] of employment and the corresponding [142:19] needs of workers in order to represent [142:21] and defend them. In this context, [142:24] without bold decisions, the prospect of [142:26] greater poverty and inequality looms [142:28] large, which would leave many [142:29] individuals marginalized, stranded, and [142:32] surrounded by the machines and automated [142:34] systems that have replaced them. 156. At [142:37] this time of transition, it is not [142:39] enough to react only when jobs [142:40] disappear. We must oversee the [142:42] transformation in advance. One viable [142:45] path is first of all to establish social [142:48] criteria for innovation. Here every [142:51] introduction of automation and AI should [142:53] be accompanied by verifiable measures to [142:55] protect the employment, retraining and [142:57] participation of workers. In this way, [142:59] technology will be oriented toward [143:01] freeing up human time and capabilities [143:04] rather than producing exclusion. Second, [143:06] we need proactive policies that make [143:08] continuous training and professional [143:10] transitions accessible to all, ensuring [143:12] that the cost of adaptation does not [143:14] fall solely on individuals. Finally, [143:17] there needs to be a corporate commitment [143:18] to include quality and dignity of work [143:20] among its indicators of success. When [143:23] these conditions are present, innovation [143:25] can serve as an ally of safer, more [143:27] creative and dignified work. Without [143:29] them, innovation tends to become an [143:31] accelerator of injustice, an economy [143:33] that values dignity. 157 The labor [143:37] market is one area in which the risks [143:39] associated with new technologies more [143:41] clearly emerge. It is thus necessary to [143:43] remember that economic freedom is not [143:45] absolute. It must always be measured [143:47] against the common good and the dignity [143:49] of every person. Entrepreneurial [143:51] initiative can indeed be a true vocation [143:53] generating wealth and improving lives [143:56] rather than a variable that is dependent [143:58] only on profit. This is possible when it [144:00] recognizes that the creation of [144:02] dignified valuable jobs are an essential [144:04] part of its proper service to society. [144:07] 158 with prophetic spirit. Pope Francis [144:10] warned against an economic freedom [144:12] proclaimed in words alone, while actual [144:14] conditions prevent many from benefiting [144:16] from it. Economic models that exalt [144:18] efficiency and individual success often [144:20] view investment in disadvantaged people [144:22] or in those with slower development [144:24] paths as useless or inconvenient, as if [144:26] their futures depended solely on their [144:28] ability to keep pace with the winners. [144:30] In reality, a just society requires a [144:32] vigilant state and civil institutions [144:34] that are capable of overcoming the [144:36] singular mentality of efficiency and of [144:38] ensuring that resources, creative [144:40] solutions, and regulations favor the [144:42] most vulnerable. Instead of waiting for [144:44] the benefits of growth to reach the poor [144:46] eventually, decisions need to be taken [144:48] to ensure that growth becomes inclusive [144:50] from the outset. The experience of [144:52] recent decades shows that in economic [144:54] and financial crisis, it is always the [144:56] poor who pay the highest price. While [144:58] the theories that promise automatic [145:00] general prosperity often prove to be [145:02] elucory. 159. It is important to move [145:05] beyond the current metrics of [145:06] development which for more than 80 years [145:08] have been tied to the concept of gross [145:10] domestic product GDP since these metrics [145:13] almost systematically neglect aspects [145:15] essential to the overall well-being of [145:16] people and the environment. The [145:18] development of parameters and metrics [145:20] complntary to GDP is crucial for [145:22] improving the databases used for [145:24] conducting analyses, political and [145:26] economic decision-making and [145:27] establishing regional, national, and [145:29] international priorities. The [145:31] introduction of new parameters will [145:32] allow for a comprehensive and timely [145:34] assessment of how legislative and [145:36] regulatory decisions impact the dignity [145:38] of work, shared prosperity, inequality [145:40] reduction, and environmental protection. [145:43] It will also affect the concept of [145:44] development, educational processes, [145:47] mindsets, and public opinion as well as [145:49] peace, which is only authentic when [145:51] based on justice. 160 In recent years, [145:55] finance has increased in importance and [145:57] has undergone significant innovation [145:59] driven partly by the introduction of [146:01] cryptocurrencies. The reflections and [146:03] observations contained in the teaching [146:04] of my predecessors, particularly in [146:06] their encyclicals, have highlighted how [146:08] the financial intermediation sector when [146:11] operating without the necessary [146:12] anthropological and moral foundations [146:14] has not only produced manifest abuses [146:16] and injustice, but also demonstrated a [146:18] capacity to create systemic and [146:20] worldwide economic crisis. It is [146:23] likewise the case that income from [146:24] capital risks replacing income from [146:26] labor, which is often confined to the [146:28] margins of the economic systems primary [146:30] interests. Yet savings transformed into [146:33] credit for the real economy, thereby [146:35] creating both jobs and self-employed [146:37] work, remain central for development and [146:39] the investments that must accompany [146:40] ongoing transitions. The social function [146:43] of credit remains irreplaceable. [146:45] Finance, for its own sake, is [146:46] fundamentally different from finance [146:48] aimed at the development, creation, and [146:50] evolution of work. 161. This perspective [146:54] needs to become part of a broader view [146:56] of global dynamics. While the world's [146:58] wealth has grown in absolute terms, it [147:00] is increasingly concentrated in fewer [147:02] hands, widening inequalities both within [147:05] and between countries. There are a few [147:07] who have too much and too many who have [147:09] little. That is the logic of today. [147:12] Scientific and technological advances [147:14] even in the medical field are not easily [147:16] accessible to the vast majority of [147:18] people as was dramatically demonstrated [147:20] during the recent pandemic. While some [147:22] regions spend heavily on superfluous [147:24] interventions or dreams of individual [147:26] enhancement accessible only to a select [147:28] few, other parts of the world lack the [147:30] essential equipment needed to save [147:32] millions of human lives. To think that [147:34] new technologies will automatically [147:36] benefit everyone is to ignore the [147:38] evidence. Unless transformations at the [147:40] design stage prioritize the prevention [147:42] of new and further disparities, [147:44] technological progress will inevitably [147:46] produce structural inequalities. Today, [147:48] justice requires access to the benefits [147:50] of innovation, including care, [147:53] knowledge, tools, and opportunities. [147:56] 162. Just laws and methods of [147:58] redistribution are certainly necessary [148:00] for correcting imbalances, including tax [148:02] systems that lighten the burden on the [148:04] weakest and ask for more from those with [148:06] greater resources. However, the pursuit [148:08] of social justice should not be [148:10] considered a separate issue that follows [148:11] only after the production of wealth as [148:13] if the economy existed solely to create [148:15] wealth with politicians only intervening [148:18] afterwards in order to distribute it. [148:20] Indeed, justice concerns every phase of [148:22] economic activity from resource [148:24] acquisition to financing and from [148:26] production to consumption. Every choice [148:28] has moral consequences. [148:31] 163 More than ever in the age of AI and [148:34] robotics, it is no longer possible to [148:36] rely solely on the invisible hand of the [148:38] market. Politics has the task of [148:40] orientating economies and technologies [148:42] to the common good, promoting dignified [148:44] work, social inclusion, and an equitable [148:47] distribution of the benefits of [148:48] innovation. Since many economic [148:50] decisions transcend national borders, [148:52] there is also a need for international [148:54] cooperation capable of defining common [148:56] strategies, especially in favor of the [148:59] most vulnerable countries and people in [149:01] order to promote development and [149:02] overcome welfare dependency. The [149:04] thinking behind these choices is the [149:06] immeasurable dignity of every person, [149:08] the common good, and a world truly [149:10] governed for everyone. The [149:11] interdependence between peace and [149:13] development, as St. Paul Virgin Islands [149:15] prophetically wrote in 1967 remains [149:18] applicable today for prosperity [149:20] contributes to building and reinforcing [149:22] peace only if it is widespread inclusive [149:24] and sustainable. 164 In practical terms [149:28] in the age of AI and robotics ensuring [149:31] that the economy favors human dignity [149:33] means adopting certain criteria for firm [149:35] action. First, transparency and [149:37] accountability. When data and algorithms [149:40] influence credit distribution, personnel [149:42] selection or access to services and [149:44] opportunities, it is necessary that [149:46] decisions be understandable, [149:47] contestable, and subject to oversight so [149:50] that individuals are not reduced to mere [149:52] profiles. Second, inclusion and access. [149:55] The benefits of innovation must be [149:57] paired with investments in skills, [149:58] infrastructure, and essential services [150:00] to ensure the technology does not widen [150:02] the gap between those who have and those [150:04] who have not. Finally, measures to [150:06] ensure equity, taxation, social [150:09] protection, and industrial policies must [150:11] correct the imbalances created by the [150:13] concentration of wealth and power. [150:15] Indeed, these criteria do not constitute [150:18] a curb on innovation. Instead, they make [150:20] it civilized and humane, families, and [150:23] young people, the social conditions for [150:25] hope. 165. The family is a primary [150:28] social good founded on the enduring [150:31] union between a man and a woman. It is [150:33] the first environment in which all [150:34] persons develop their potential, become [150:36] aware of their dignity, and learn the [150:38] earliest forms of truth and goodness, [150:40] internalizing the habits that prepare [150:42] them for life in society. As the first [150:44] natural society endowed with [150:46] foundational rights, the family is the [150:48] fundamental and irreplaceable cell of [150:50] every community organization. [150:52] Consequently, when political projects [150:54] and major economic decisions relegate [150:56] the family to a marginal or secondary [150:58] role, the authentic growth of the entire [151:00] social body is compromised. [151:02] 166. The family, however, is a fragile [151:06] social good immediately affected by the [151:08] economic and technological [151:09] transformations reshaping the nature of [151:11] work. It thus requires cultural, [151:13] jeritical, and economic support. The [151:16] devastating impact of unemployment and [151:18] job insecurity on family structures is [151:20] wellknown. In the short term, it may [151:22] seem advantageous to reduce labor costs [151:25] or maximize financial efficiency, but in [151:27] the long term, this undermines the very [151:29] foundations of social coexistence. While [151:31] technological successes are celebrated, [151:33] the social fabric is progressively [151:35] eroded as if by a silent virus. 167 For [151:40] young people, job insecurity is [151:42] particularly devastating. As the bishops [151:44] of the United States of America have [151:46] recalled, work is not merely a source of [151:48] income, but a crucial sphere in which [151:50] identity is formed, friendships and [151:52] relationships are forged, practical [151:53] responsibilities are learned, and one's [151:55] vocation is discerned. When access to [151:58] work is hindered by high levels of [151:59] unemployment, inadequate systems of [152:01] training or structural barriers, many [152:03] young people find the path to their [152:05] human and professional fulfillment [152:07] blocked. The need to change jobs several [152:09] times over the course of life requires [152:11] that continuous updating and retraining [152:12] be provided so that new generations can [152:15] competently and independently face the [152:17] risks of an economic environment that is [152:18] both changing and often unpredictable. [152:21] 168. This gives rise to a specific [152:24] public responsibility. The state has the [152:26] duty to support business activity by [152:28] fostering conditions favorable to [152:30] employment, promoting work where it is [152:32] lacking, and defending it in times of [152:33] crisis. Since it is a primary good for [152:35] families and for society, particularly [152:38] in an age of continuous technological [152:40] transformation, we need a political [152:42] creativity that will promote work and [152:44] place the family and coming generations [152:45] at the center. Otherwise, our economic [152:47] progress will translate into new forms [152:49] of insecurity and exclusion. [152:52] 169. Supporting families and young [152:54] people in this transition requires [152:56] choices that make stability feasible. As [152:58] has been noted above, labor policies [153:01] need to promote continuity and the [153:02] quality of employment, countering [153:04] insecurity as a normal condition of life [153:06] and encouraging realistic paths for [153:08] entry into the workforce and for [153:09] professional growth. Second, measures [153:12] are needed to ensure a healthy way of [153:13] living. For without a proper balance [153:15] between work, leisure and rest, families [153:18] are weakened and young people struggle [153:19] to develop a sense of responsibility. [153:22] Furthermore, it is essential to invest [153:24] in accessible education and retraining [153:26] so that the professional mobility [153:28] demanded by the digital economy does not [153:29] become a harsh selection between those [153:31] who are able to update their skills and [153:33] those who cannot. Finally, social ties [153:36] must be supported with networks and [153:38] educational communities that accompany [153:40] life choices and prevent uncertainty [153:41] from giving rise to loneliness or [153:43] addictions. If implemented, these [153:45] technological transformations can be [153:47] navigated without undermining the [153:49] capacity to build the future, which is [153:51] what makes a society prosperous. [153:53] Protecting freedom against dependencies [153:55] and commercialization, dependencies and [153:58] societal control. 170. Having reflected [154:01] on truth and education, work and [154:03] families, we must now consider the [154:05] impact of the digital revolution on [154:07] human freedom, addressing risks to both [154:09] the mental health of individuals and [154:10] broader social challenges. The subtler [154:13] forms of addiction linked to the digital [154:14] attention economy should not be [154:16] underestimated since platforms and [154:18] services are often designed to capture [154:20] users time and attention, exploiting [154:22] their vulnerabilities and weakening [154:23] their inner freedom. When business [154:25] models thrive on human weakness, the [154:27] person is treated as a means rather than [154:29] as an end. Those who design or finance [154:31] such systems bear a moral responsibility [154:33] that cannot be ignored. There is an [154:36] urgent need to promote technologies that [154:37] strengthen interior freedom by fostering [154:39] education in digital sobriety and the [154:41] protection of minors, thus countering [154:43] models that exploit vulnerability. [154:46] 171. A further risk, less visible but no [154:49] less serious, is that of social control [154:51] made possible by the massive collection [154:52] of data and use of algorithmic systems. [154:55] When every action, movements, purchases, [154:58] relationships, and preferences leaves a [155:00] trace, a new form of power emerges, [155:03] namely the power to profile, predict, [155:05] and influence behavior, often without [155:07] individuals being fully aware of it. If [155:09] such kinds of data are used to make [155:11] decisions affecting concrete [155:12] opportunities such as access to credit, [155:15] employment or essential services, there [155:17] is a risk of undermining freedom and [155:19] discriminating against the most [155:20] vulnerable. Furthermore, control is [155:22] exercised not only through explicit [155:24] prohibitions, but also through the [155:26] architecture of visibility. What is [155:28] amplified or rendered invisible, what is [155:30] rewarded or penalized, ultimately shapes [155:32] opinions and choices, fostering [155:34] conformity and self-censorship. For this [155:37] reason, freedom in the digital age is [155:39] not merely a matter of interiority, but [155:41] also a public concern. It calls for [155:43] clear rules, transparency, the [155:45] possibility of recourse, and [155:46] proportionate limits on the use of [155:48] intrusive technologies, so that [155:50] technology will remain at the service of [155:51] the human person and not become a form [155:53] of control over consciences. [155:55] 172. At the root of these problems lies [155:58] a technocratic and posthumanist [156:00] mentality that tends to regard the human [156:01] person as an object to be manipulated or [156:03] a resource to be optimized, removing all [156:06] safeguards against the unchecked pursuit [156:08] of profit. What prevails is efficiency [156:10] rather than respect for freedom and [156:12] human dignity. Some posthumanist [156:15] currents even go so far as to envision [156:17] secondclass human beings subordinate to [156:19] the interests of elites who consider [156:21] themselves superior. This troubling [156:23] prospect becomes all the more serious [156:25] when combined with technological tools [156:26] that exponentially increase the capacity [156:28] for control and selection. Even certain [156:31] forms of structural indebtedness which [156:33] keep entire peoples in conditions of [156:35] dependence reflect the same mentality in [156:37] new forms that tolerates relationships [156:40] of subordination akin to slavery. [156:42] Breaking the chains of new forms of [156:44] slavery. 173. This distorted view of the [156:47] human person is reflected today in [156:49] various forms of servitude directly [156:51] linked to the digital economy. Nothing [156:53] in the world of AI is immaterial or [156:56] magical. Every seemingly immediate and [156:58] flawless response is the result of a [157:00] long chain of mediation involving vast [157:02] networks of natural resources, energy [157:04] infrastructure, and above all people. A [157:07] significant part of the digital [157:09] economy's functioning relies on the [157:10] silent work of millions of people [157:12] engaged in essential yet largely unseen [157:14] activities such as data labeling, model [157:17] training, and content moderation, often [157:19] involving disturbing material. In many [157:21] cases, these workers are young people, [157:23] predominantly women, working under [157:25] demanding conditions for minimal wages. [157:28] Added to this invisible labor is the [157:29] even harsher work of extracting the [157:31] resources required for the production of [157:33] the devices and microprocesses on which [157:35] AI depends. In some regions of the [157:38] world, children and adolescents work in [157:40] dangerous conditions, crushing the [157:42] materials from which rare earth elements [157:44] are extracted. The bodies of these [157:46] people are scarred, injured, and worn [157:48] down so that computational flow may [157:50] continue uninterruptedly. Furthermore, [157:52] criminal networks use online platforms, [157:55] messaging systems, anonymous payment [157:57] methods, and profiling techniques in [157:58] order to recruit, control, and transport [158:01] victims of trafficking. very often [158:02] miners, reducing men and women to data [158:05] to be tracked and packages to be moved [158:07] around within the same digital circuits [158:08] that support much of the global economy. [158:10] This reality deeply challenges the moral [158:13] conscience of our time. It is not enough [158:15] to invoke efficiency nor to celebrate [158:17] the benefits of innovation if they are [158:19] built on a chain of exploitation that [158:21] remains deliberately hidden. If [158:23] technology promises emancipation yet [158:25] produces new forms of global [158:27] subordination, it stands in [158:28] contradiction to the fundamental [158:30] principle of human dignity. 174 The [158:33] fight against new forms of slavery is a [158:35] decisive test for the ethical [158:37] discernment of AI and digital [158:39] transformation. In continuity with the [158:41] tradition inaugurated by Leo I 13th, the [158:44] church renews her firm condemnation of [158:45] all forms of slavery, trafficking, and [158:48] the commodification of persons. She [158:50] likewise highlights the urgent need for [158:52] reflection and action that keep the [158:53] inalienable dignity of every human being [158:55] and the common good as both the focus [158:57] and goal of society as well as the [158:59] guiding criteria for every personal, [159:01] social, and political choice. Without [159:03] this ethical and humanizing reflection, [159:06] the growing power of digital systems [159:07] could lead us toward new atrocities that [159:09] are no less shameful than those of the [159:11] past that we now deplore while we [159:13] continue to present ourselves as [159:14] advanced and civilized societies. 175. [159:18] Human trafficking must be recognized as [159:20] a contemporary form of slavery and a [159:22] grave violation of human dignity. [159:24] Failing to respond firmly or tolerating [159:27] these practices in any way is in some [159:29] way to become complicit in today's sins [159:31] which are akin to those of the past when [159:33] slavery was being concealed and [159:35] justified. 176 In the development of a [159:38] doctrine, the church has gradually come [159:40] to a deeper awareness of the gravity of [159:42] these issues. It is true that past [159:44] events cannot be judged anacronistic as [159:46] though the moral criteria that matured [159:48] over time had always been available. Yet [159:51] neither can we deny or diminish the [159:52] delay with which both society and the [159:54] church came to denounce the scourge of [159:56] slavery. In antiquity and the middle [159:58] ages, many individuals and even [160:00] ecclesiastical institutions had slaves. [160:03] Already in the early modern period, the [160:05] apostolic sea of Rome, responding to [160:07] requests from sovereigns, intervened [160:09] several times in order to regulate and [160:11] legitimize forms of subjugation and in [160:14] certain cases the enslavement of [160:15] infidels. It was only in the 19th [160:18] century that a formal, absolute, and [160:20] universal condemnation of slavery was [160:22] clearly articulated, notably under Pope [160:24] Leo I 13th. This development offers a [160:27] clear example of the church's growth in [160:29] understanding the perennial truths of [160:31] revelation that she safeguards. Although [160:33] there was not always consistency in [160:35] practice, given that slavery was long [160:37] tolerated before being unequivocally [160:38] condemned, there's been a continuous [160:40] affirmation throughout history of the [160:42] dignity of every human being created in [160:44] the image of God, even if it took 18 [160:46] centuries for its full incompatibility [160:48] with slavery to be explicitly [160:50] recognized. This constitutes a wound in [160:52] Christian memory, one from which we [160:54] cannot consider ourselves detached. It [160:57] is impossible not to feel deep sorrow [160:59] when contemplating the immense suffering [161:00] and humiliation endured by so many in [161:02] stark contrast to their immeasurable [161:04] dignity as persons infinitely loved by [161:06] the Lord. For this, in the name of the [161:08] church, I sincerely ask for pardon. 177 [161:12] This is why the memory of past [161:14] complicity and blindness in the face of [161:16] the injustice of slavery becomes a call [161:18] to vigilance. What we have learned must [161:20] be translated into discernment and [161:22] responsibility in the present. If we [161:24] want to avoid the need to ask for pardon [161:26] again in the future for having failed to [161:27] respect the treasure of human dignity [161:29] that is required by our faith, it falls [161:31] to us today to denounce clearly and [161:33] firmly trafficking in its many forms and [161:36] together with all who are committed to [161:37] this cause to support concrete efforts [161:39] of prevention, protection, liberation, [161:41] and rehabilitation. [161:43] 178 Even today, colonialism assumes new [161:47] forms. It no longer dominates only [161:49] bodies, but appropriates data, [161:52] transforming personal lives into [161:53] exploitable information. Entire regions, [161:56] especially those marked by structural [161:58] fragility, and limited geopolitical [162:00] relevance, are currently subjected to a [162:02] new mindset of extraction, that of [162:04] health data, epidemiological profiles, [162:06] genetic maps, and demographic [162:08] information. These have become the new [162:10] rare earths of power. Vital data which [162:12] once aggregated and analyzed can be used [162:15] to train predictive models, guide [162:17] investment strategies, anticipate crisis [162:19] and above all determine who and what is [162:22] deemed to matter. Those who control the [162:24] health data of entire peoples often [162:26] collected under the pretext of aid, [162:28] research or innovation possess a [162:30] structural leverage over the future for [162:32] they can shape needs and markets. They [162:34] can also decide before others to whom [162:37] medicines, investments, and protections [162:39] will be allocated. Here lies one of the [162:42] most urgent moral challenges of our [162:43] time. To ensure that shared knowledge [162:45] becomes a true common good rather than [162:47] an instrument of dominance. This [162:49] requires restoring to individuals not [162:51] only the data that describes them, but [162:53] also the ability to decide how it is [162:55] used, by whom, and for whose benefit. [162:57] Otherwise, the digital age will not be [162:59] postcolonial, but colonial in another [163:02] form. 179. New forms of slavery are [163:05] fueled by economic chains and digital [163:08] infrastructures. Therefore, action is [163:10] required on several fronts. First, the [163:13] supply chains that underpin the [163:15] technological industry and the digital [163:16] economy need to become more transparent [163:18] so that no competitive advantage is [163:20] built upon hidden exploitation. Second, [163:23] companies and investors need to adopt [163:25] clear criteria for preventive ethical [163:27] verification, due diligence, placing [163:29] among their priorities the protection of [163:31] workers, the fight against forced labor, [163:33] and the assessment of the social impact [163:35] of datadriven business models. [163:37] Furthermore, digital platforms must [163:39] cooperate responsibly with authorities [163:40] and civil society to prevent [163:42] communication, payment, and profiling [163:44] tools from becoming channels for the [163:46] recruitment and control of victims. When [163:48] such efforts converge, the digital [163:50] environment can be transformed from a [163:52] space of exploitation into one of [163:54] protection, prevention, and the [163:55] promotion of human dignity, a shared [163:58] responsibility. [163:59] 180. The various areas just considered, [164:02] the search for the truth in public life, [164:04] education in the digital environment, [164:06] the transformation of work, the [164:08] fragility of families, and new forms of [164:10] slavery are not isolated phenomena. [164:12] Rather, they reflect a common underlying [164:15] issue. namely that if technology becomes [164:17] the ultimate criterion, the human person [164:19] risks being reduced to data, a cog in a [164:21] machine or a commodity. If however [164:24] technology is integrated with a wise [164:26] perspective, it can become an instrument [164:28] of growth, justice and fraternity. 181 [164:32] From this perspective, the social [164:34] doctrine of the church calls for a [164:36] shared responsibility. It asks that [164:38] these processes be guided with [164:39] foresight. By institutions capable of [164:42] regulating without stifling and [164:43] protecting without taking over, by [164:45] businesses that recognize work and [164:47] dignity as measures of success, by [164:49] intermediary organizations and [164:51] educational communities that rebuild [164:52] trust and relationships, and by citizens [164:55] who cultivate responsibility, [164:56] moderation, discernment, and a sense of [164:58] truth. Only in this way can innovation [165:01] genuinely serve integral human [165:03] development rather than becoming a [165:04] source of exclusion and dominance. And [165:07] only in this way can the promise of [165:08] progress be recognized as authentic [165:11] because it is measured against the [165:12] inviable dignity of every man and woman. [165:15] Chapter 5. The culture of power and the [165:18] civilization of love. 182. Having [165:21] considered how AI is transforming [165:23] certain aspects of life and society in [165:25] particular the serious implications for [165:27] human dignity we must now turn our [165:29] attention to the yet more tragic issue [165:31] of war. Here the question is not merely [165:33] the efficiency of new tools but also the [165:35] risk that technology detached from [165:37] ethics and responsibility will render [165:39] decisions about life and death more [165:41] rapid and impersonal and will present [165:43] the use of force as an immediate and [165:45] viable option. In an increasingly [165:47] interdependent world, peace is not [165:49] simply one issue among others, but a [165:51] prerequisite for the universal common [165:53] good and a test of the moral maturity of [165:54] peoples, especially of those who bear [165:56] responsibility for governing. 83. The [166:00] digital revolution is changing the [166:02] nature of conflict. Alongside [166:04] conventional warfare, there are hybrid [166:06] forms such as cyber attacks, information [166:08] manipulation, campaigns of influence, [166:10] and the automation of strategic [166:11] decisions. AI acts as an accelerating [166:14] factor in these processes, particularly [166:16] within a context where many technologies [166:18] are intrinsically ambivalent. [166:20] Consequently, what is created for [166:22] defense can be rapidly repurposed for [166:24] offense, and the fine line between [166:26] protection and aggression becomes [166:28] blurred. While AI can enhance the [166:30] defense and protection of civilians, it [166:32] can also lower the threshold for the use [166:34] of force, shield people from [166:35] responsibility, and foster culture in [166:37] which the enemy is reduced to a [166:39] statistic and the victim to collateral [166:40] damage. Faced with these [166:42] transformations, we must recall the [166:44] principles of social doctrine, the [166:46] dignity of the person, the common good, [166:48] the universal destination of goods, [166:50] subsidiarity, solidarity, and justice. [166:53] For they are criteria for judging [166:55] whether technologies truly serve [166:56] humanity or are subjugating it. We [166:58] should therefore consider these [167:00] principles as guidelines for our [167:02] decision-making. [167:04] 184. In this chapter, therefore, I will [167:07] compare two opposing approaches which I [167:09] have already evoked through biblical [167:11] imagery in the introduction. On the one [167:13] hand, there is the temptation of [167:15] constructing the Tower of Babel, relying [167:17] on power and pride. On the other hand, [167:19] patience is required in order to rebuild [167:22] Jerusalem peace by piece, as in the time [167:24] of Nehemiah, by safeguarding humanity [167:26] and the common good. 185. If we examine [167:30] global dynamics, we can recognize more [167:32] clearly the spread of a culture of power [167:34] characterized by polarization and [167:36] violence. The modern Babel can be seen [167:38] not only in the globalized technocratic [167:40] paradigm, but also in the remote clash [167:42] between opposing imperialisms, between [167:44] powers that wish to preserve their [167:46] supremacy and those that aspire to seize [167:48] that supremacy, resulting in a [167:50] multiplicity of local conflicts. [167:52] Moreover, there seems to be no limit to [167:54] the race driven by a dehumanizing [167:56] ambition to develop ever more powerful [167:58] technologies or to secure control over [168:00] them. Yet, despite this downward spiral, [168:03] we can also glimpse a great part of [168:05] humanity that is striving to remain [168:07] human and working to build the holy city [168:08] of coexistence and peace. All too often, [168:11] we are unwitting builders and clumsy [168:13] architects of the city, capable of [168:15] generous gestures, but lacking an [168:17] overall vision. This building project is [168:19] slower, less visible and less [168:21] spectacular and awaits a better [168:23] understanding and greater coordination [168:25] so that it may become the conscious and [168:26] clear responsibility of every community [168:29] from families to states and the [168:30] relations between nations. It is this [168:33] prospect of commitment, this [168:34] construction site of hope that we call [168:36] the civilization of love. The [168:38] civilization of love in the digital age [168:41] 186 when St. Paul Virgin Islands coined [168:44] the phrase the civilization of love. The [168:47] world was in the midst of the Cold War, [168:48] an arms race and severe economic [168:50] instability. In that context, the church [168:53] proposed an alternative path to that of [168:55] ideological opposition between systems [168:57] and envisioned a social order in which [168:59] justice and charity are intertwined and [169:01] love becomes the guiding principle of [169:02] economic, political, and cultural life. [169:05] Today we must resolutely recover this [169:07] vision. For the civilization of love is [169:09] no naive utopia but a demanding project [169:12] which consists in translating charity [169:14] into structures of justice, giving [169:16] institutional form to fraternity and [169:18] regarding others whether individuals or [169:20] peoples as allies necessary for building [169:22] the common good. As the encyclical [169:24] letter for Teleitudi reminded us, only [169:26] this social love is capable of becoming [169:28] a culture and a norm, and thereby of [169:30] bringing about a stable international [169:32] order, transforming mere armed [169:34] coexistence into a community with a [169:36] shared future. 187 This insight proves [169:39] even more fundamental in the current [169:41] context of digital transformation. [169:43] Digital networks, the globalized [169:45] economy, and the development of AI [169:47] create increasingly tighter bonds, [169:49] linking in real time decisions made in [169:51] one place to the effects they produce [169:53] elsewhere. In this sense, the words of [169:55] the Second Vatican Council on the [169:57] growing interdependence between peoples [169:59] remain timely. For the common good is [170:01] taking on an increasingly universal [170:02] dimension with rights and duties [170:05] concerning the entire human family. the [170:07] project for a civilization of love, [170:09] therefore must undertake the task of [170:11] transforming this imposed [170:12] interdependence into a willed and chosen [170:15] solidarity. This is the guiding [170:17] principle for technological processes. [170:19] It is not enough for artificial [170:20] intelligence to make us more efficient [170:22] or connected. It must also serve to [170:24] build a universal human family with [170:26] shared rights and duties where digital [170:28] proximity becomes a real opportunity for [170:30] encounter and mutual care. The culture [170:32] of power 188. In our time, a culture of [170:36] power is taking hold in which the [170:38] availability of resources and the [170:40] ability to dominate tend to dictate the [170:42] agenda and criteria for decision-making. [170:44] In this way, the common good of humanity [170:46] is relegated to the background and the [170:48] concrete tragedy of peoples at war is [170:50] reduced to a secondary consideration in [170:52] relation to strategic interests. This [170:54] culture of power infiltrates society, [170:57] changes relationships and behaviors, and [170:59] grows by normalizing war, pursuing ever [171:02] greater military power, taking advantage [171:04] of the crisis of multilateralism, and [171:06] fueling a false realism that insists [171:07] that there is no alternative. The [171:09] normalization of war 189. In 1965, the [171:14] words of St. Paul Virgin Islands [171:16] resounded powerfully at the UN General [171:17] Assembly. Never again war. Never again [171:20] war. We must acknowledge that despite [171:23] the desires and declarations for peace, [171:25] the past 60 years have been marked by [171:27] conflicts of astonishing brutality, [171:29] often affecting civilian populations on [171:31] a massive scale, leading to the death of [171:33] innocent victims, mass displacement, [171:35] social destabilization, and long-lasting [171:37] wounds. Nevertheless, in public [171:40] discourse, there was a widespread [171:41] conviction that war should remain a last [171:43] resort, subject to strict ethical and [171:46] legal limits, and always oriented toward [171:48] a political vision of peace. Following [171:50] developments in the immediate post-first [171:52] world war period, a turning point [171:53] occurred after the Second World War, [171:55] peace was made the focus of the [171:57] international order as attested in [171:59] particular by the United Nations Charter [172:01] with the intention to save succeeding [172:02] generations from the scourge of war. [172:05] Likewise, many national constitutions [172:07] restricted the use of force to extreme [172:09] and strictly limited circumstances. Even [172:12] during the Cold War, despite the [172:14] existence of serious conflicts, there [172:15] remained the awareness that a new world [172:17] war had to be avoided at all costs. 190 [172:21] Today, however, we are witnessing a real [172:23] paradigm shift in public discourse and [172:25] in decisions regarding rearmament with a [172:27] troubling revival of war as an [172:29] instrument of international politics. [172:30] While the very ethical principles that [172:32] had previously limited its use are being [172:34] eroded, regional conflicts that drag on [172:36] over time, escalating tensions and [172:39] reciprocal threats are becoming almost [172:40] commonplace, and forms of conflict [172:42] driven by the desire for territorial [172:44] expansion that were thought to be [172:45] overcome are reemerging. Public opinion [172:48] is gradually being shaped and [172:49] conditioned by polarizing media [172:51] narratives, which are often amplified by [172:53] algorithms that prioritize conflict and [172:55] confrontation. [172:57] 191. We are also witnessing a [172:59] disconcerting loss of historical memory [173:01] as firsthand accounts of the Holocaust [173:03] and the two world wars are disappearing. [173:05] This leads to a selective or distorted [173:07] rewriting of the past in a context where [173:10] fake news and the manipulation of [173:11] narratives obscure the lessons that have [173:13] been learned without a living memory of [173:15] the horrors of war. Political decisions [173:17] risk being made on the basis of power [173:19] alone without any consideration for the [173:21] long-term consequences. 192. To all of [173:25] this, the media and digital dimensions [173:27] are adding new and decisive elements. [173:29] Communication networks, fragmented [173:32] information environments and algorithms [173:33] that reward conflict can magnify [173:35] polarization and resentment, increase [173:37] propaganda, and make shared discernment [173:39] more difficult. Thus, war is not only [173:42] fought, but also culturally conditioned [173:44] through simplistic narratives, a friend [173:46] or foe mentality, disinformation, and [173:48] fear. When historical memory fades and [173:51] the ethical principles that protect [173:52] civilians and the most vulnerable are [173:54] weakened, it becomes easier to justify [173:56] violence as necessary, inevitable, or [173:59] even sanitized. It is in this context [174:02] that humanity is slipping into a violent [174:04] culture of power where peace no longer [174:06] appears as a responsibility to be taken [174:08] on, but as a fragile interval between [174:10] conflicts. Today, more than ever, [174:12] without prejudice to the right to [174:14] self-defense in the stricter sense, it [174:16] is important to reaffirm that the just [174:17] war theory, which has all too often been [174:20] used to justify any kind of war, is now [174:22] outdated. Humanity possesses far more [174:24] effective and capable tools for [174:26] promoting human life and resolving [174:28] conflicts such as dialogue, diplomacy, [174:30] and forgiveness. The use of force, [174:33] violence, and weapons reflects a [174:35] relational poverty that always has [174:36] disastrous consequences for civilian [174:38] populations. Force without limits 193 [174:42] The growth of the military-industrial [174:44] complex has become a defining feature of [174:46] the current political landscape and has [174:48] become a key sector in the economy of [174:49] various countries. The close link [174:52] between economic interests, the military [174:54] apparatus and political decisions [174:55] produces an armed nation in which war [174:58] appears as a natural extension of [174:59] politics and the arms market becomes an [175:01] autonomous driving force behind military [175:03] decisions. Nor can we ignore the [175:06] enormous economic interests behind war. [175:08] The armament industry and countries that [175:10] supply weapons profit from a market that [175:13] thrives precisely on conflicts. In this [175:15] sense, there are also financial [175:17] interests that contribute to fueling [175:19] tensions in various regions of the [175:21] world. 194 military arsenals are [175:24] receiving renewed attention. In the [175:26] past, recognition of the threat posed by [175:29] weapons capable of destroying all of [175:30] humanity had promoted paths toward day [175:33] and disarmament negotiations. [175:35] Unfortunately, this approach has been [175:37] left behind, and the evolution of [175:39] nuclear arsenals, including the prospect [175:41] of its tactical use, makes the use of [175:43] such weapons, seem less improbable. In [175:45] this context, the treaty on the [175:47] prohibition of nuclear weapons, which [175:49] came into force in 2021 with the support [175:51] of over 70 countries, is an important [175:54] step. However, it risks remaining [175:56] largely symbolic since the major nuclear [175:58] powers have not agreed to it. This has [176:00] led to the widespread yet erroneous [176:02] belief that nuclear deterrence is an [176:04] indispensable prerequisite for security. [176:07] This has also contributed to a new arms [176:09] race which is hard to control and [176:10] accompanied by the gradual dismantling [176:12] of nuclear reduction agreements as well [176:14] as the development of miniaturaturized [176:16] weapons that make their use seem like a [176:18] more viable option. 195 The same logic [176:22] applies to conventional warfare. [176:24] military force, weak diplomatic [176:26] initiatives, and the complexity of the [176:27] interests at stake contribute to [176:29] conflicts that tend to become protracted [176:31] with extremely high human and [176:32] environmental costs. It is much easier [176:35] to start a war than to stop it. And yet, [176:38] discussion on conflict prevention [176:39] remains tragically marginal. 196 The [176:43] situation is further destabilized by the [176:45] presence of new armed operatives such as [176:47] jihadist groups, private militias, and [176:49] criminal networks that mark the end of [176:50] the state's monopoly on the use of [176:52] force. Often these groups intertwine [176:54] vague ideological motivations with [176:56] concrete economic interests, [176:58] transforming war into a way of life for [177:00] entire generations of young people and [177:02] children. Here the objective is no [177:05] longer a definitive victory, but the [177:07] perpetuation of conflict as a source of [177:09] power and income, weapons, and [177:11] artificial intelligence. 197 The [177:14] abovementioned scenario is linked to the [177:16] unceasing development of weapon systems, [177:18] particularly those involving AI. The [177:21] Holy Sea has recently observed that the [177:23] growing ease with which autonomous [177:24] weapon systems can be deployed makes war [177:26] more feasible and less subject to human [177:28] control. This violates the principle [177:31] that armed force should be used only as [177:32] a last resort in cases of legitimate [177:34] self-defense. For this reason, the [177:37] development and use of AI in warfare [177:39] must be subject to the most rigorous [177:40] ethical constraints to guarantee respect [177:43] for human dignity and the sanctity of [177:45] life and to avoid a race to develop such [177:47] arms. 198 Sometimes there is talk of [177:50] artificial moral agents, as if machines [177:52] were able to distinguish between right [177:54] and wrong with greater consistency than [177:56] a human being. Yet moral judgment cannot [177:58] be reduced to calculation, for it [178:00] involves conscience, personal [178:02] responsibility, and the recognition of [178:04] the other as a person. Therefore, it is [178:06] not permissible to entrust lethal or [178:08] otherwise irreversible decisions to [178:10] artificial systems. No algorithm can [178:12] make war morally acceptable. AI does not [178:15] remove the intrinsic inhumanity of [178:17] conflict. Indeed, it can only bring [178:19] about conflict more quickly and render [178:20] it more impersonal, lowering the [178:22] threshold for resorting to violence, [178:24] transforming defense into threat [178:26] prediction and thus reducing victims to [178:28] data. In this way, it will accustom us [178:30] to the idea that violence is inevitable [178:32] and needs only to be optimized. This [178:34] does not diminish the importance of [178:36] instilling as far as possible values and [178:38] sound judgment into the artificial [178:40] systems we build so that they can [178:42] contribute to a moral ecosystem in which [178:44] humans are better able to listen to [178:45] their own consciences as well as [178:47] allowing AI models to establish [178:49] appropriate boundaries. 199. It is not [178:52] enough to invoke a generic type of [178:54] ethics. Concrete criteria for [178:56] discernment must be established. The [178:58] first such criterion concerns personal [179:00] responsibility. When a decision to [179:02] strike becomes automated or opaque, the [179:05] risk of abdicating responsibility [179:06] increases. For this reason, the chain of [179:09] responsibility must be identifiable and [179:11] verifiable. Those who design, train, [179:14] authorize, and employ technology must be [179:16] held accountable for their decisions. [179:18] The second criterion pertains to the [179:20] moral time frame for making judgments. [179:22] While AI tends to expedite the [179:24] decision-making processes, speed and [179:26] efficiency should never be the supreme [179:28] motivating force for the irreversible [179:30] decisions made in the context of war. [179:32] The third criterion is the [179:34] identification and protection of [179:35] civilians. Any technology that [179:37] facilitates attacks without seeing the [179:39] face of human beings lowers the moral [179:41] threshold of conflict. Target selection [179:43] and the use of force must not confuse [179:45] combatants and non-competence, nor [179:47] ignore the impact on defenseless [179:49] populations. 200. These criteria give [179:52] rise to certain non-negotiable [179:54] requirements. First, all systems used in [179:57] a war setting must guarantee the [179:58] possibility of retracing and [180:00] reconstructing decision-making processes [180:02] so that accountability and blame are not [180:04] collapsed into the machine. Second, the [180:07] decision to use lethal force cannot be [180:09] delegated to opaque or automated [180:11] processes but must remain under [180:13] effective, self-aware and responsible [180:15] human control. Finally, it is imperative [180:18] to establish a shared framework also at [180:20] the international level in order to curb [180:22] the technological arms race and ensure [180:24] robust protection for civilians and the [180:26] infrastructures necessary for their [180:28] survival. The crisis of multilateralism [180:31] 2011 the culture of power also stems [180:34] from the crisis of the multilateral [180:35] system. The institutions established to [180:38] safeguard the concept of a common future [180:40] for all peoples and a global common good [180:42] appear to have been weakened. This is [180:44] due not only to structural limitations [180:46] but also to a frequent lack of shared [180:48] will to support and reform them or to [180:50] recognize their moral authority. Instead [180:52] of making progress, we are regressing [180:54] from the significant turning point of [180:56] the 20th century. After 1989, the [180:59] collapse of communist regimes in Europe [181:01] was followed by a predominantly economic [181:03] globalization which lacked an adequate [181:05] political framework capable of [181:06] sustaining dialogue and peace. An almost [181:09] blind faith was placed in the ability of [181:11] the markets to generate prosperity, [181:13] democracy, and stability. In reality, [181:16] rather than automatically generating [181:18] unity and peace, globalization has [181:20] provoked fundamentalist identity- based [181:22] and nationalistic reactions. The result [181:25] is a far cry from genuine [181:26] multilateralism. Instead, what has [181:29] appeared is a disorderly and [181:30] conflictridden multipolarism with a [181:32] prevailing sense of mistrust. 202. What [181:35] has also reemerged is the temptation to [181:37] forge a collective identity in [181:39] opposition to an enemy, fueled by [181:41] narratives in which each party portrays [181:43] itself as a victim entitled to [181:44] retribution. The reduction of complex [181:46] issues into simplistic categories, me [181:49] first, friend or foe, us or them, [181:52] facilitates decisions that are often [181:54] irresponsible and undermine mutual trust [181:56] among nations. The force of [181:57] international law is thus replaced by [181:59] the claim that might makes right. [182:02] Consequently, tribunals that are [182:03] competent for settling disputes between [182:05] states or dealing with war crimes are [182:07] often weakened or bypassed with [182:09] devastating ramifications for political [182:11] culture and social cohesion. 203. In [182:14] this context, peaceuilding has been [182:16] relegated to a secondary role. [182:18] Cooperation for development, [182:20] disarmament, conflict prevention, and [182:22] the establishment of mutual trust are [182:24] neglected in the name of power politics. [182:26] The achievements of humanitarian law are [182:28] also being compromised. Indeed, the [182:31] principle of proportionality in [182:33] responding to aggression, the protection [182:34] of access to water, food, and essential [182:37] goods, and respect for the lives of [182:39] civilians, especially children, come to [182:41] be regarded as naive relics of the past, [182:44] a supposed political realism. 204. We [182:48] live at a time of significant spiritual [182:49] and cultural blindness. A false [182:51] pragmatism urges us to sever the roots [182:53] of our history as if it were possible to [182:55] inaugurate a kind of new creation [182:57] detached from the past. Even those who [183:00] cite important moral principles can fall [183:02] into this historical nihilism mistakenly [183:04] believing that the atrocities of the [183:06] 20th century can never happen again. Yet [183:09] in reality the same dynamics are [183:11] reemerging under new guises. The [183:13] mentality of armed equilibrium and [183:15] deterrence appears to be reasserting [183:17] itself. Today however in contrast to the [183:20] two-sided dynamic of the cold war the [183:22] proliferation of operatives and [183:24] battlefields makes this mentality [183:25] increasingly fragile. Escalating [183:27] conflicts lead to asymmetric and hybrid [183:30] wars fought not only on the battleground [183:32] but also on the economic, financial, and [183:34] cyber fronts where disinformation and [183:36] campaigns that feed people's fears are [183:38] used to manipulate public opinion. In [183:40] many countries, including those in the [183:42] global south, increased military [183:44] spending is presented as the only [183:46] response to an uncertain future or [183:47] perceived threats. Meanwhile, the raal [183:50] cost falls on the poorest who see [183:52] resources for healthare, education, and [183:55] social services being reduced. 205. At [183:58] the core of these issues is a false [183:59] realism based not only on the prevailing [184:02] mentality of force, but on the cultural [184:04] and anthropological belief that war is [184:06] an inevitable part of human nature. It [184:08] is said that things have always been [184:09] this way, except for occasional pauses, [184:12] and that it will always be so. As a [184:14] result, the concern is no longer the [184:16] search for peace, which has been lost as [184:18] a point of reference on the [184:19] international stage, but rather how and [184:21] when to take military action. This same [184:24] argument maintains that it would be [184:25] irresponsible not to prepare for [184:27] conflict. I would argue, however, that [184:30] what is truly irresponsible is raal [184:32] politic, the form of political realism [184:34] that sews in consciences and in society [184:36] an attitude of resignation to the [184:38] inevitability of war and dismisses peace [184:40] and dialogue as utopian or irrational [184:42] positions that ignore the risks at [184:44] stake. In fact, peace is neither a naive [184:47] hope nor merely the absence of war. [184:49] Instead, it is always possible as the [184:51] fruit of justice and charity. 206. In [184:54] such a climate, nihilism and pragmatism [184:57] become intertwined and end up [184:58] normalizing grave errors. Religious [185:01] extremism and identity based fanaticism [185:03] ally themselves with irrational economic [185:05] policies while politics often turns to [185:07] misinformation and ridiculing opponents [185:10] and systematically cultivating fears and [185:12] resentments. Thus, diversity is [185:14] increasingly perceived as a threat, [185:16] which fuels a desire for possession, a [185:18] will to dominate, hegmonic ambitions, [185:20] abuses of power, and a fear of those who [185:22] are different, thereby creating an [185:24] environment in which new conflicts can [185:26] develop almost imperceptibly. 207 This [185:30] then is the fertile ground for new wars [185:32] that are perhaps even more dangerous [185:33] than those of the past, since they tend [185:35] to disregard all ethical limits. What [185:38] was once considered unacceptable can now [185:40] be carried out almost without [185:41] hesitation. While the international [185:43] response is increasingly influenced more [185:45] by the interests of individual [185:46] governments than by the objective [185:48] gravity of situations, decisions now [185:50] seem to be driven almost exclusively by [185:52] economic calculations justified through [185:55] media distortions, manufactured [185:57] enthusiasm, and dreams that inevitably [185:59] shatter, generating frustration and [186:01] further violence. When people come to [186:03] believe that nothing is genuinely true [186:05] and the principles are hollow words, [186:07] then the fuse in their hearts is lit for [186:09] new eruptions of intolerance and [186:10] aggression. 208. In these situations, [186:14] the issue of concrete safeguards to [186:16] prevent future violence remains an open [186:18] question. When a culture normalizes and [186:20] justifies conflict, a dangerous pathway [186:22] opens up in that what seems unthinkable [186:24] today may become acceptable tomorrow in [186:27] the name of utility or security. In [186:29] countries marked by serious social [186:30] tensions, we cannot rule out the [186:32] possibility that some leaders may [186:34] consider armed conflict as an effective [186:36] way of diverting attention from domestic [186:38] problems and a cynical tool for managing [186:39] difficulties. 209. A particular [186:42] responsibility rests on the shoulders of [186:44] those who work in the field of research. [186:47] All the key players in this field, [186:48] scientists, business owners, investors, [186:51] academic authorities, politicians, and [186:53] others must work with a transparent and [186:56] responsible mindset while maintaining an [186:58] acute awareness of the broader context [187:00] of the technological advancements they [187:01] help to cultivate, including those [187:03] related to AI. When people limit [187:05] themselves to looking only at their own [187:07] sector, they may deceive themselves into [187:09] believing they are performing actions [187:10] that are morally neutral and avoid [187:12] questions about the ultimate ends that [187:14] guide certain experiments. In this way, [187:16] they risk cooperating, perhaps [187:18] unknowingly, with questionable projects [187:20] that fuel new forms of violence, [187:22] manipulation, and dominance, building [187:25] the civilization of love. 2.10. The [187:28] construction of a world in a state of [187:29] perpetual conflict is an evil and must [187:31] be named for what it is. This way of [187:34] portraying our current situation may [187:35] seem bleak or pessimistic. Yet, I [187:38] consider it necessary to do so. The [187:40] Christian perspective, however, is not [187:42] limited to denouncing evil. We view [187:45] history in the light of the crucified [187:46] and risen Lord to whom the Father has [187:48] given all authority in heaven and on [187:50] earth. MT28 [187:53] We do not consider the present as a [187:55] predetermined fate but an opportunity [187:57] for personal and collective conversion. [188:00] Moreover, we believe in the power of the [188:02] kingdom which grows from the tiny size [188:04] of a mustard seed which once sown [188:06] sprouts and grows compared to Mark 4 [188:09] 26-32. [188:11] While the tumult of confusion is all [188:13] around us, goodness grows silently from [188:15] the earth. In the words of the prophet [188:17] Isaiah, "Behold, I am doing a new thing. [188:20] Now it springs forth. Do you not [188:22] perceive it?" is 43 col 19 211. A closer [188:27] analysis of history confirms this. Even [188:30] in the darkest nights, the Lord raises [188:32] up men and women who refuse to give up, [188:34] who persevere in doing good, who protect [188:36] the vulnerable and open pathways to [188:38] reconciliation. The memory of the [188:40] saints, righteous people, and the [188:42] off-for-gotten peacemakers show us that [188:44] grace does not magically eliminate [188:45] conflict, but instead it inspires active [188:48] resistance to evil and an astonishing [188:50] creativity in doing good. Christians see [188:52] the darkness and acknowledge it for what [188:54] it is. Yet, they do not merely gaze upon [188:56] it passively, for they know the light [188:58] and understand that the darkness has not [188:59] overcome it and cannot defeat it. [189:01] compared to John 1:5. [189:04] For this reason, even when suffering [189:06] seems to have the last word, Christians [189:08] serve the good and are sustained by a [189:09] theological hope that gives reality both [189:11] meaning and direction. We can all do our [189:14] part. 212 At this point, however, a [189:17] subtle temptation may emerge, namely the [189:20] thought that the problems are too big [189:21] and we are too small, and that our [189:23] choices, therefore, cannot make a [189:25] difference. This is a polite form of [189:27] resignation, often disguised as realism. [189:30] Certainly, not everyone has the same [189:33] power to make a difference. There are [189:34] those who govern, make investment [189:36] decisions, lead institutions, conduct [189:39] research, educate, produce, or provide [189:41] information. And then there are those [189:43] who only seem to live their daily lives. [189:45] Yet, no one is without responsibility. [189:48] We all have our own areas for action. [189:50] And it is precisely there and nowhere [189:52] else that we must choose whether to fuel [189:54] the mentality of force, even if only [189:56] through indifference, cynicism, lies, or [189:59] hatred, or to preserve the mindset of [190:01] peace with truth, moderation, closeness, [190:04] and care. 213 The 20th century Catholic [190:07] author J.R. Tolken, in the words of a [190:10] protagonist in one of his novels, [190:11] described our responsibility in this [190:13] way. It is not our part to master all [190:15] the tides of the world, but to do what [190:17] is in us for the sucker of those years [190:18] wherein we are set, are pruding the evil [190:20] in the fields that we know, so that [190:22] those who live after may have clean [190:24] earth to till. The civilization of love [190:26] will not arise from a single or [190:28] spectacular gesture, but from the sum [190:30] total of small and steadfast acts of [190:32] fidelity that serve as a bull work [190:33] against dehumanization. For this reason, [190:36] it is worthwhile pausing to reflect on [190:38] some aspects of how we, each in our own [190:40] way, can cooperate in building the [190:42] civilization of love. Without presuming [190:45] to exhaust this theme, I would like to [190:47] propose five paths toward daily and [190:49] public responsibility, the need to [190:50] disarm words, building peace through [190:52] justice, adopting the perspective of [190:54] victims, cultivating a healthy realism, [190:56] and reviving dialogue and [190:58] multilateralism. The need to disarm [191:00] words. 214 The first contribution we can [191:03] make toward a more humane civilization [191:05] is to be mindful of our words. Let us [191:08] disarm words and we will help to disarm [191:10] the world. Words have enormous power, [191:13] something we experience in our daily [191:14] interactions. For example, spoken words [191:17] can change our mood for better or for [191:19] worse. Peace begins with each one of us [191:22] in the way we look at others, listen to [191:24] others, and speak about others. In this [191:26] sense, the way we communicate is of [191:28] fundamental importance. We must say no [191:30] to the war of words and images. We must [191:32] reject the paradigm of war. We must all [191:36] therefore examine our conscience [191:37] regarding the words we use, the [191:39] prejudices we have, and the explicit or [191:41] implicit aggression that lies within [191:43] them. We have a real opportunity to [191:45] contribute to the common good each time [191:46] we speak the truth, offer wise advice, [191:49] support those in need of comfort, [191:50] denounce injustice, and give a voice to [191:52] the voiceless, building peace through [191:55] justice. 215 All of us at every level [191:59] can contribute to building the [192:00] foundation of peace which is justice. We [192:03] do not merely seek any kind of peace [192:05] such as an absence of conflict at any [192:07] cost but instead the true peace born of [192:09] justice. There exists a very close [192:12] connection between the justice of the [192:13] individual and the peace of everyone. [192:16] Commenting on the psalm verse justice [192:18] and peace of embraced PS84 11 St. [192:21] Augustine wrote, "There is no one who [192:23] shuns the desire for peace, yet not [192:25] everyone is willing to practice justice, [192:27] but perform the works of justice, [192:29] keeping in mind that justice and peace [192:31] have embraced. They are not at odds with [192:33] one another. Why do you set yourself [192:35] against justice? Here, for example, is [192:38] justice telling you not to steal, but [192:40] you pay no heed not to commit adultery, [192:43] and you turn a deaf ear, not to do to [192:45] others what you would not want done to [192:46] yourself, not to say about your neighbor [192:48] the things you would not want said about [192:50] yourself. Do you therefore wish to [192:52] attain peace? Then practice justice. Let [192:55] us never grow weary of seeking justice, [192:58] adopting the perspective of victims. 216 [193:02] There are times when in order to remain [193:04] human, we must set aside our [193:05] reservations and take a stand. In some [193:08] conflicts, it is unjust to remain [193:10] neutral. Nor is it enough merely to [193:12] claim that we are not complicit. When we [193:14] witness the bombing of civilians, [193:16] attacks on hospitals, schools or vital [193:18] infrastructure and violence that affects [193:20] children, we are confronted with [193:22] scandals that wound humanity itself. For [193:25] this reason, we cannot limit ourselves [193:27] to the level of abstract analysis. Pope [193:29] Francis encouraged us to touch the [193:31] wounded flesh of those who suffer, look [193:33] at their faces, listen to their stories, [193:35] and acknowledge their wounds. Painful [193:37] events require both history and memory. [193:40] The former to recount the facts, the [193:41] latter to bear witness to lived [193:43] experiences. 217 Giving space to the [193:46] perspectives and voices of victims [193:48] through communication and education [193:49] helps us to become aware of the abyss of [193:51] evil inherent in war and generally in [193:54] all forms of violence. It helps us to [193:56] reject the normalization of conflict, [193:58] not to turn away when human dignity is [194:00] violated, and to restore to victims the [194:02] dignity of being recognized and heard. [194:05] Paying attention to these voices [194:06] strengthens the conviction that apart [194:08] from violent minorities, humanity does [194:10] not desire war. In a particular way, the [194:13] church can be a place of living memory [194:15] for victims. As St. Paul Virgin Islands [194:18] recalled, "The church feels she must [194:19] make her own both the voice of those who [194:21] died in past wars and the voice of the [194:23] living who still bear wounds today so [194:25] that their cries may become an appeal [194:26] for peace and harmony and not a prelude [194:28] to new conflicts." Cultivating a healthy [194:31] realism. 218. We are in need of a [194:34] healthy realism that avoids both [194:36] political idealism and cynicism. There [194:38] is a kind of idealism that in order to [194:40] preserve its own worldview tends to [194:42] choose facts selectively, distorting and [194:45] renaming them. Its proponents eventually [194:47] inhabit a reality constructed to fit [194:49] their own convictions. Conversely, there [194:52] is also a debased form of realism that [194:54] confuses observation with resignation, [194:56] arguing that since force prevails, it [194:59] will always prevail. Authentic realism [195:01] does not give up on changing the world. [195:03] Indeed, it starts by clearly identifying [195:05] interests, fears, constraints, and power [195:08] dynamics precisely in order to determine [195:10] what can be achieved and the measures [195:12] needed to achieve it. It does not reduce [195:14] politics to morality. Neither does it [195:17] surrender to violence. Instead, it seeks [195:20] viable paths for making peace more than [195:21] a mere word through credible [195:23] institutions, verifiable guarantees, [195:26] patient negotiations, conflict [195:28] prevention, and the protection of [195:29] civilians. Reviving dialogue. 219. In [195:33] order to build the civilization of love, [195:35] we must engage in dialogue, for this is [195:37] the primary means of coexistence between [195:39] people and nations, and it is the [195:41] alternative to open conflict. On the eve [195:43] of the Second World War, Pius I 12th [195:45] affirmed that nothing is lost with [195:47] peace, whereas with war, everything can [195:49] be lost. He insisted that people must [195:51] return to speaking with one another [195:53] because a sincere and persevering [195:55] dialogue always opens up the possibility [195:57] of an honorable solution. 220 Indeed, [196:01] dialogue is an ordinary part of human [196:03] life and does not only concern relations [196:05] between states. It involves acquiring an [196:07] attitude that seeks to forge bonds of [196:09] fraternity built on listening, an open [196:11] demeanor, making time for each other, [196:13] and even wasting time together. For if [196:15] we experience authentic encounters with [196:17] others, with those who are different, [196:19] strangers, and migrants, it becomes much [196:21] more difficult even to imagine war. 221 [196:25] At the political level, there is an [196:27] urgent need to shift from the culture of [196:28] power to a genuine culture of [196:30] negotiation in which dialogue and [196:32] diplomacy become the standard means of [196:34] resolving conflicts. Giorgio La [196:36] expressed the hope that the method of [196:38] war be replaced by the method of peace, [196:40] the method of negotiation, of encounter, [196:42] of convergence, that is the [196:44] authentically human method. The [196:46] awareness that all people share a common [196:48] future demands that the culture of [196:50] negotiation become an increasingly [196:52] shared political and cultural commitment [196:54] capable of gradually leading humanity [196:56] away from the cycle of violence. 222. To [196:59] those who have the honor and [197:00] responsibility of governing, I would [197:02] like to repeat the words that I spoke at [197:04] the start of my pontificate. The peoples [197:06] of our world desire peace, and to their [197:08] leaders, I appeal with all my heart. Let [197:10] us meet. Let us talk. Let us negotiate. [197:13] War is never inevitable. Weapons can and [197:16] must be silenced, for they do not [197:18] resolve problems, but only increase [197:20] them. Those who make history are the [197:22] peacemakers, not those who sew seeds of [197:24] suffering. Our neighbors are not first [197:26] our enemies, but our fellow human [197:28] beings, not criminals to be hated, but [197:31] other men and women with whom we can [197:32] speak. Let us reject the mania notion so [197:35] typical of that mindset of violence that [197:37] divides the world into those who are [197:39] good and those who are evil. 223 [197:42] Injecting the mindset of violence, [197:44] intreligious dialogue plays a decisive [197:46] role because at the heart of the great [197:48] spiritual paths lies a message of peace. [197:50] Whereas those who use the name of God to [197:52] legitimize terrorism, violence or war [197:55] betray his true nature. For to fight in [197:57] the name of religion means attacking [197:58] religion itself. The spirit of Aisi [198:01] evoked by St. John Paul II and carried [198:03] forward by Pope Francis for example [198:06] through his dialogue with the grand imam [198:07] of Allesa shows that believers can draw [198:10] upon the most authentic sources of their [198:11] particular spiritual traditions where [198:13] there is no room for sanctified hatred. [198:16] The necessity of diplomacy and [198:18] multilateralism. 224. In international [198:21] relations, dialogue is an irreplaceable [198:24] diplomatic tool for preventing conflicts [198:26] and rebuilding bonds of trust. Faced [198:28] with the impulsive broadcasts, [198:30] aggressive rhetoric, and power politics [198:31] that characterize our time, the vocation [198:34] of diplomacy is to foster dialogue with [198:36] all parties, including those [198:37] interlocutors considered less convenient [198:39] or not considered legitimized to [198:41] negotiate. Therefore, every ounce of [198:44] humility and patience should be employed [198:45] in order to nurture even the faintest [198:47] signs of goodwill among parties in [198:49] conflict so as to advance the process of [198:51] peace. 225 Cyberspace 2 has become a [198:55] battleground. Cyber attacks, data [198:57] manipulation, and campaigns of influence [199:00] orchestrated with the help of AI can [199:02] destabilize entire countries even before [199:04] open armed conflict erupts. Moreover, in [199:07] this area, the attribution of [199:09] responsibility is often uncertain. When [199:11] it is unclear who carried out an attack, [199:14] the risk of disproportionate reaction, [199:16] miscalculation, and escalation [199:18] increases. For this reason, diplomacy [199:20] must be capable of operating effectively [199:22] in this new environment, negotiating [199:24] shared regulations on the use of digital [199:26] technologies in order to protect [199:28] civilians and the most vulnerable from [199:30] invisible yet real forms of violence. [199:32] 226 International organizations, [199:36] particularly the United Nations, are [199:37] essential instruments for promoting a [199:39] civilization of love, for they can [199:41] foster dialogue among nations and [199:42] promote the peaceful resolution of [199:44] conflicts, the integral development of [199:46] peoples, the protection of the most [199:48] vulnerable, disarmament, and the care of [199:50] creation. Through such efforts, the [199:52] international community can work to [199:53] reduce inequalities, defend the rights [199:56] of refugees and minorities, reallocate [199:58] resources from military spending to [200:00] human development, and protect our [200:01] common home. The Holy Sea supports and [200:04] accompanies these endeavors, while also [200:06] recognizing that the current weaknesses [200:07] of the UN and the international [200:09] political system reveal the need for [200:11] profound reforms. This is not simply a [200:13] question of technical adjustments for [200:15] the crisis of convictions and values [200:17] that also concerns the ethical [200:18] foundations of nations makes it more [200:20] difficult to direct multilateralism [200:22] toward the true common good. 227 In the [200:25] international context, the Holy Sea [200:27] diplomacy adopts the gospel's principle [200:29] of mercy as a concrete criterion for [200:31] political action. This is one of the [200:33] ways in which the Holy Sea places itself [200:35] at the service of humanity, thereby [200:37] appealing to consciences in the name of [200:39] charity and truth, defending the dignity [200:41] of every person and speaking up on [200:43] behalf of the poor, migrants, and [200:45] victims of war. In this way, papal [200:47] diplomacy expresses the Catholicity of [200:49] the church and contributes to the [200:51] building of a civilization of love where [200:53] even new technologies can be oriented [200:55] toward the common good, praying and [200:57] hoping. 228. These avenues for [201:00] exercising responsibility are sustained [201:02] by prayer and in turn nourish prayer. [201:05] Indeed, for each of us, peace primarily [201:08] comes from God, God who loves us all [201:10] unconditionally. [201:12] It is a gift given by Jesus to his [201:13] disciples on the day of Easter. Peace be [201:16] with you. It is the peace of the risen [201:18] Christ. A peace that is unarmed and [201:20] disarming, humble and persevering. With [201:23] these words, I greeted the church and [201:26] the world on the day of my election to [201:27] the Sea of Peter. I wish to repeat them [201:30] now and to invite everyone to pray for [201:32] this gift. Let us never tire of praying [201:34] for peace and of committing ourselves to [201:36] achieving it in our relationships and in [201:38] society. Conclusion 229. Let each [201:42] builder choose with care how to build. 1 [201:45] core 3:10. With these words, St. Paul [201:48] encouraged the Christians of Corinth to [201:50] preserve unity. Dear brothers and [201:52] sisters, we have reflected on the world [201:54] we are building and we asked ourselves [201:56] what it means to safeguard the human [201:57] person in the era of artificial [201:59] intelligence. At the end of this [202:01] reflection, I would like to propose a [202:03] sober yet demanding program of Christian [202:05] life with which we can navigate this [202:06] epoal change in the light of the gospel. [202:09] This avenue emerges through [202:10] contemplating God's plan, living [202:12] ecclesial unity by partaking of the [202:14] Eucharist, building a world centered on [202:16] the common good, and praying in union [202:17] with the blessed Virgin Mary. The word [202:20] became flesh. 2:30 Our world is filled [202:23] with attempts to seize control of [202:24] markets and spheres of influence, often [202:26] shrouded in reassuring rhetoric and [202:28] seductive ideologies. Yet our hearts [202:31] yearn for an approach that is wise and [202:32] benevolent, akin to that which Mary [202:34] praises in her Magnificat. when she [202:36] proclaims that God's mercy extends in [202:38] every generation to those who fear him. [202:41] This plan of mercy continues to unfold [202:43] throughout history today, even amid the [202:45] rapid and unsettling changes brought by [202:47] algorithms and global networks. And it [202:49] becomes a compass in the digital era for [202:51] living our lives according to the [202:52] gospel. 231 At the heart of everything [202:55] is the mystery of the incarnation, the [202:57] word who became flesh and dwelt among [202:59] us. The flesh of the son, poor and [203:02] vulnerable, evokes the flesh of so many [203:04] brothers and sisters stripped of their [203:05] dignity and reduced to silence. Through [203:08] the Lord's closeness, the gift of peace [203:10] enters into the world in a paradoxical [203:12] way. It does so through the power to [203:14] become children of God, and is awakened [203:16] when we allow ourselves to be moved by [203:18] the tears of the little ones, the [203:19] fragility of the elderly, the silence of [203:22] victims, and the struggle of those who [203:23] fight against the evil they do not wish [203:25] to commit. In this wounded yet beloved [203:27] flesh, the Father shows us the true [203:29] humanity of a life fulfilled through [203:31] openness and communion, which leads us [203:33] to desire that his will be done on earth [203:34] as it is in heaven. 232 In the promises [203:38] of transhumanism and some posthumanist [203:40] currents of thought, which seek an [203:42] enhanced and almost disembodied [203:43] humanity, we recognize a yearning that [203:45] is of concern to us, namely the need for [203:47] a fuller life, less exposed to [203:49] limitations and suffering. Yet, the [203:51] incarnation opens a different pathway. [203:54] On the one hand, old and new ideologies [203:56] alike urge humanity to overcome [203:58] limitations through technology and to [204:00] rise above others by asserting [204:02] dominance. Contrary to this, the mystery [204:04] of the son of God entering into our [204:06] human condition promises something quite [204:08] different. The living God descends into [204:10] our history in order to free us from all [204:12] forms of slavery. He takes upon himself [204:15] our weakness and transforms it into a [204:17] setting for salvation. There is no [204:19] moment or human situation that is not [204:21] worthy of God. According to the teaching [204:23] of our faith, we have and adore in our [204:26] mysteries a God who is born in a manger, [204:28] a God who lives and travels in Judea, a [204:30] God who dies on the cross, a dead god [204:32] who lies in the tomb. The future of [204:35] humanity, therefore, finds its standard [204:37] in the ability to welcome this divine [204:39] way of drawing near, of sharing the [204:41] burden of the world, of transforming [204:43] relationships from within. Oh wonder! [204:46] Man is God and this God man passes [204:48] through all those stages, endures all [204:50] those states and enobbles them, [204:51] sanctifies them, deifies them in [204:53] himself. What saves humanity is the [204:56] divine love that descends into the most [204:58] fragile point of our history and renews [205:00] it from within. 233 For this reason, as [205:03] a believer among believers, I invite [205:05] everyone to contemplate in the face of [205:07] the son of God the grandeur of humanity [205:09] that shines a light also on the era of [205:11] AI. In Christ, we are called to [205:14] cooperate in the work of creation rather [205:16] than be disinterested observers of [205:18] technological processes that limit our [205:20] freedom and responsibility. The dignity [205:22] inscribed in each of us by the Holy [205:24] Spirit can also be seen in our capacity [205:26] to reflect critically, choose and love [205:28] freely and form authentic relationships. [205:31] No computational system, however [205:33] sophisticated, can create a heart that [205:35] gives itself or a conscience that [205:37] discerns good from evil. Even when [205:39] machines excel in efficiency, a human [205:42] face that asks to be gazed upon remains [205:44] the center of our history. This human [205:46] face is the fullness toward which [205:48] history is moving. It is the mystery of [205:50] recapitulation, the certainty that the [205:52] father has decreed to bring all things, [205:54] those in heaven and those on earth back [205:56] to Christ, the one head compared to [205:59] F110. In this plan, nothing will be lost [206:02] that is authentically human. Indeed, [206:05] everything will be purified and reunited [206:07] in the one who gathers every fragment of [206:09] life, every tear, and every [206:11] authentically human achievement, [206:13] rescuing them from nothingness and [206:14] delivering them redeemed to the father, [206:17] one body in Christ. 234 The spirituality [206:21] that we need is a eucharistic [206:23] spirituality, that is a spirituality of [206:25] ecclesial unity in love. The incarnation [206:28] and the pascal mystery reveal God [206:30] entering into our human condition and [206:32] transforming it through the gift of [206:33] himself. This gift remains present and [206:36] active in the Eucharist in which the [206:38] Lord gives himself and gathers the [206:39] church together so that his offering [206:41] becomes the principle of unity and [206:43] source of new life. It is from this [206:45] communion that Christian solidarity also [206:47] arises since union with Christ is also [206:50] union with all those to whom he gives [206:51] himself. As St. Augustine explained to [206:54] the new Christians of his local church, [206:56] the bread and wine on the altar are the [206:58] sacrament of the unity of the faithful [206:59] in Christ. What is seen is a mere [207:01] physical likeness. What is grasped bears [207:04] spiritual fruit. So now if you want to [207:06] understand the body of Christ, listen to [207:08] the apostle Paul speaking to the [207:10] faithful. Together you are the body of [207:12] Christ. 1 core 12:27. [207:15] If you are the body and members of [207:16] Christ, then it is your sacrament that [207:18] is placed on the table of the Lord. It [207:20] is your sacrament that you receive. you [207:22] respond, "Amen." And by responding in [207:25] this way, you are sent to it. For you [207:27] hear the words, "The body of Christ," [207:29] and respond, "Amen." Be then a member of [207:31] the body of Christ, that your amen may [207:33] be true. 2:35 The amen that we say in [207:37] the liturgy, the body we eat, and the [207:39] blood we drink shape our entire lives. [207:42] The Eucharist is an extremely personal [207:44] encounter with the Lord, and yet never [207:45] simply an act of individual piety. In [207:48] the Eucharist, we find a visible [207:50] manifestation of the reality that we are [207:52] the church of Christ, his members, his [207:54] body. We are brothers and sisters in [207:56] him. And in Christ, though many and [207:59] diverse, we are one in ilo unoim. [208:03] The Eucharist opens us to justice and [208:05] sharing with a preferential concern for [208:07] those who are burdened by poverty or [208:08] marginalization. And while new economic [208:11] and technological networks can generate [208:13] exclusion, isolation, and dependencies, [208:16] the church, nourished by the Eucharist, [208:18] is called to make visible a different [208:19] paradigm, one that preserves human [208:21] connections, gives a voice to the [208:23] invisible, and ensures that processes [208:25] are aimed at respecting people's [208:26] dignity. The construction site of our [208:28] time. 236. The spirituality I wish to [208:32] commend is that of the wise architect [208:34] who driven by hope for the kingdom of [208:35] God is committed to building the world [208:37] for the common good compared to 1 core [208:40] 310. As I mentioned at the beginning of [208:42] this reflection, the task of building in [208:44] our time must place our relationship [208:46] with God at its center. Our rule must be [208:49] the acceptance of human limitations as a [208:51] natural and positive reality and should [208:53] be characterized by shared [208:54] responsibility and a language [208:56] characterized by the gospel. At the end [208:58] of this reflection, the plan for a [208:59] civilization of love can be seen more [209:01] clearly, and the construction site [209:03] appears to be already up and running, [209:05] thanks especially to the many living [209:06] stones solidly united to Christ the [209:08] cornerstone compared to one pet 2 4-6. [209:12] In this task, we are called to assume an [209:14] active role without taking refuge in [209:17] spiritual sentimentality or retreating [209:19] into our own little worlds. We must be [209:21] faithful to the truth, invest in [209:23] education, cultivate relationships, and [209:25] love justice and peace. 237 Let us [209:29] remain faithful to the truth. Living [209:31] amid incessant flows of information, [209:33] opinions, and images, we know how easy [209:36] it can be to influence decisions and [209:38] preferences through increasingly [209:39] sophisticated algorithms. In this [209:41] context, it is imperative to cultivate [209:44] hearts that love the truth, prefer what [209:46] is right despite the most appealing [209:47] content, and pursue wisdom rather than [209:49] immediate results. We must always keep [209:51] before us the truth about God and [209:53] humanity, just as Christ has revealed [209:55] them to us. We must lay aside an [209:58] individualistic and technical view of [209:59] humanity, as if reality were mere matter [210:02] to be shaped according to selfish [210:03] interests, whether individual or [210:05] collective. Instead, let us cultivate [210:08] what Pope Francis called a situated [210:10] anthropocentrism, which recognizes the [210:12] human being as a creature embedded in a [210:14] network of relationships with other [210:16] living beings and with all of creation. [210:18] Fidelity to the truth requires [210:19] integrating the possibilities offered by [210:21] technology within a framework marked by [210:23] wisdom, which is capable of safeguarding [210:25] both the dignity of each person and the [210:27] future of our common home. 238. Let us [210:30] invest in education, beginning with [210:33] ourselves. We all need to learn how to [210:35] engage with the digital world in a human [210:37] way as an integral part of our education [210:39] in the faith and in a life lived [210:41] according to the gospel. Indeed, we must [210:43] consider the digital world as a new [210:45] continent to be evangelized, one that [210:47] requires generous missionaries who are [210:49] mature in the faith. In a particular [210:51] way, we need adults to rediscover their [210:53] vocation as artisans of education, [210:55] prepared to work patiently each day with [210:58] the support of extensive and shared [211:00] educational partnerships. Today, [211:02] accompanying children and young people [211:04] in using technology for developing [211:06] responsible relationships, helping them [211:08] to recognize the risks and choose what [211:09] fosters inner freedom is a concrete form [211:12] of charity and will safeguard their [211:13] dignity. Teaching new generations that [211:16] technological evolution does not follow [211:17] a predetermined path, but can be guided [211:20] by personal and collective [211:21] responsibility constitutes one of the [211:23] most valuable services to the common [211:25] good. 239 Let us cultivate [211:28] relationships. In an era that favors [211:30] speed and fragmentation, the human [211:32] person still yearns to receive care and [211:34] recognition from attentive minds, kind [211:36] words, and hands capable of tenderness. [211:39] The digital culture multiplies [211:40] connections and offers new opportunities [211:42] for interaction. Yet, the human heart [211:45] retains an irrevocable need for genuine [211:47] closeness. I invite everyone to cherish [211:49] places and times where physical presence [211:51] remains crucial such as shared meals, [211:54] Christian community gatherings, time [211:56] spent with the lonely and serving the [211:57] poor. These are signs of a humanity that [212:00] continues to believe that every person's [212:01] body is a dwelling place of God and a [212:03] temple of the Holy Spirit. It is [212:05] precisely this covenant between glory [212:07] and fragility that becomes the criterion [212:09] for evaluating the anthropological [212:11] models offered by contemporary culture. [212:14] 240 Let us love justice and peace. The [212:17] same technologies that facilitate [212:19] communication and access to resources [212:21] can also support models that exploit the [212:23] most vulnerable, create new forms of [212:25] slavery, and derive profit from [212:26] conflict. Every technical or economic [212:29] decision should include spiritual [212:30] discernment and be an opportunity for [212:32] assessing whether the advances in AI are [212:34] promoting justice and participation or [212:36] concentrating wealth and power in the [212:38] hands of a select few. I would encourage [212:40] a careful examination of the supply [212:42] chains of digital production, the [212:44] working conditions hidden behind our [212:46] devices, and the mechanisms that profit [212:47] from manipulation and war. At the same [212:50] time, practical ways of fostering [212:52] fairness, participation, and care for [212:54] creation must be found. We proclaim a [212:57] hope rooted in the one who came down [212:58] from heaven to create a new story here [213:00] below. For this reason, those who [213:03] believe are committed to ensuring that a [213:05] greater justice will take the place of [213:06] inequality and that the industry of war [213:09] will be replaced by the craft of peace. [213:11] 241 As we look to the future, I would [213:14] like to recall the image of Nehemiah [213:15] whom we chose as our companion and guide [213:17] at the outset. Nehemiah heard the cry of [213:20] a devastated city, brought that pain to [213:22] prayer, discerned before God, asked for [213:24] help, received permission to return, [213:26] organized the work, confronted internal [213:28] and external resistance, and rebuilt the [213:30] walls of Jerusalem with the assistance [213:32] of the people brick by brick. In this [213:34] era of digital transformation, I see in [213:37] him a striking parable of our own [213:38] vocation, which is not to be passive [213:40] spectators of social and cultural [213:42] fractures, nor mere commentators on what [213:44] is crumbling, but men and women prepared [213:46] to enter the construction sites of [213:47] history, research laboratories, [213:49] technology companies, schools, the [213:52] media, institutions, and local [213:54] communities in order to rebuild what has [213:56] collapsed and protect what is [213:57] threatened. Like Nehemiah, we too are [214:00] called to unite listening and courage, [214:02] prayer and responsibility, so that even [214:04] when a technocratic mentality or [214:06] partisan interests seem to prevail, the [214:08] human city may become a more fitting [214:10] place to live. 242 The image of [214:13] rebuilding Jerusalem evokes the New [214:15] Testament promise of the holy city, [214:17] which is given to us first and foremost [214:19] as a gift. In the book of Revelation, [214:21] the new Jerusalem descends as a gift for [214:23] all God's people, prepared as a bride [214:25] adorned for her husband. Revelation [214:27] 21:2, [214:29] "The walls of Jerusalem are no longer [214:31] defensive fortifications, but the [214:33] precious adornments of the bride of the [214:35] Lamb. Its gates, which Nehemiah guarded [214:38] so diligently, remain permanently open [214:40] to all nations. God's presence offers [214:42] light and life to all. The city is a new [214:45] Eden with its living water offered to [214:47] the thirsty, and its tree of life whose [214:49] leaves are for the healing of the [214:50] nations." Revelation 22:2. [214:54] As we await its fulfillment, this vision [214:56] is set before us as an encouragement, a [214:58] call to overcome our divisions and to [215:00] work together. For this is the way of [215:02] Jesus Christ yesterday, today, and [215:04] forever. The song of hope, the [215:06] Magnificat. 243 After having considered [215:10] faith, which contemplates the Father's [215:12] loving plan, love, which unites us in [215:14] one ecclesial body, and hope, which [215:17] sustains our actions in the world, the [215:19] fourth pillar of this program for [215:20] Christian life is prayer. Mary's song [215:22] accompanies our commitment before [215:24] Elizabeth who announces to her that she [215:26] has become the mother of the Lord. Mary [215:28] bursts into a hym of praise and joy. Her [215:31] soul magnifies the Lord and her spirit [215:33] rejoices in God her savior for he chose [215:35] a young, poor and humble girl for his [215:38] plan of salvation. Mary suddenly sees [215:40] all of history through the lens of this [215:42] revelation. Nothing has changed around [215:44] her. The socopolitical situation of her [215:47] time remains the same. The Romans [215:49] continue to control her land and her [215:51] people are still subjugated and [215:53] humiliated. Yet everything has changed [215:56] within her and this allows her to see [215:58] what is invisible. God has already shown [216:00] the strength of his arm. He has already [216:02] scattered the proud, cast down the [216:04] mighty, lifted up the lowly, filled the [216:06] hungry with good things, and sent the [216:08] rich away empty-handed. He has already [216:10] helped Israel, his servant. God takes [216:13] the part of the lowly. His plan is one [216:15] that is often hidden beneath the opaque [216:17] context of human events that see the [216:19] proud, the mighty, and the rich triumph. [216:21] Yet his secret strength is destined in [216:23] the end to be revealed. 244 The blessed [216:27] virgin Mary not only teaches us to [216:29] recognize God's invisible work, but also [216:31] directs our gaze to the points at which [216:33] humanity is broken and the world becomes [216:34] distorted. the contrast between the [216:36] humble and the powerful, the poor and [216:38] the rich, the satiated and the hungry. [216:41] Teaching us to look at the world from a [216:42] lower position through the eyes of those [216:44] who suffer rather than the mighty. To [216:46] view history through the eyes of the [216:47] little ones, rather than through the [216:49] perspective of the powerful, to [216:52] interpret the events of history from the [216:53] viewpoint of the widow, the orphan, the [216:55] stranger, the wounded child, the exile, [216:58] and the fugitive. The blessed virgin [217:00] thus becomes poet and prophetess of [217:02] redemption because on her lips is [217:04] proclaimed the strongest and most [217:06] innovative hymn ever articulated. The [217:08] Magnificat. It is she who reveals the [217:10] transformative vision of the Christian [217:11] economy, the historical and social [217:13] result that still draws its origin and [217:15] strength from Christianity. 245 With the [217:19] same faith as Mary, let us become [217:20] weavers of hope in our world, sharing [217:22] who we are and what we have so that the [217:25] presence of Jesus may grow among us and [217:26] his kingdom takes shape. In the humble [217:28] fidelity of daily life, even the era of [217:31] AI can become a time in which the Holy [217:33] Spirit brings about the civilization of [217:35] love in our lives. Indeed, the Lord [217:38] continues to make all things new and [217:40] offers every era the possibility of [217:42] becoming part of salvation history in [217:43] the light of the incarnation. I entrust [217:46] our desire to the mother of Christ, to [217:48] the woman of the Magnificat, that she [217:49] may guide our steps through this time of [217:51] change and preserve in each of us true [217:53] faith in the gospel, so that we may bear [217:55] witness to the grandeur of humanity in [217:57] which God has made his dwelling. Given [217:59] in Rome at St. Peters on the 15th of May [218:02] in the year 2026, the second of my [218:04] pontificate.  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Magnifica Humanitas - Full Audio.md|Magnifica Humanitas - Full Audio by YouTube]] ## Highlights - choice either to construct a new tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kta3bw9f5jtjg7fxtxqyzh77)) - Note: The framing choice that opens the document: construct a new Tower of Babel, or build the city where God and humanity dwell together — each generation inherits the task. - Tags: primary-source, atom/literature/h1, magnifica-humanitas, human-dignity - 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 ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kta3ccbc30eqcpm1sgsdfe0q)) - Note: The Nehemiah/Jerusalem model: rebuild relationships before rebuilding with stones — a common language not of uniformity but of communion. - Tags: primary-source, atom/literature/h2, magnifica-humanitas, nehemiah - evil. In practice, however, technology is never neutral because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it. Therefore, the primary choice is not between a yes or no to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem, between a power that claims to dominate the heavens and ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kta3bn2vm45g6rqpgrfq3xhp)) - Note: The encyclical's central claim: technology is never neutral — it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it. The choice is not yes/no to tech, but Babel vs. Jerusalem. - Tags: atom/literature/h1, ai-ethics, primary-source, magnifica-humanitas - avoid the Babel syndrome, namely the idolatry of prophet that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences and the pretense that a single language, even a digital one, can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kta3c4zw38ka8aa7yftk3ke6)) - Note: "The Babel syndrome": idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a digital language can translate the mystery of the person into data. (Audio captions render "profit" as "prophet.") - Tags: atom/zettel/z1, ai-ethics, primary-source, magnifica-humanitas - necessities. The church reminds us with a firm yet humble voice that true fulfillment is not achieved by eliminating weakness, but through harmonious growth. It is found where ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kta3ckyxgr41z6xnnrsk98qt)) - Note: The rebuttal to transhumanism: true fulfillment is not achieved by eliminating weakness, but through harmonious growth. - Tags: primary-source, atom/literature/h2, magnifica-humanitas, transhumanism