MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE LEO XIV
ON SAFEGUARDING THE HUMAN PERSON
IN THE TIME OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
___________________________
INTRODUCTION
The res
novae of
our time
Two biblical images
Building for the common good Remaining human
CHAPTER ONE
A DYNAMIC APPROACH FAITHFUL TO THE GOSPEL
A Church journeying through human
history
The wisdom of the word of God in dialogue with the human
sciences
Social Doctrine as a shared discernment
The development of Social Doctrine from Leo XIII to the
present
The first stages of the Churchʼs Social Doctrine
The years of the Second Vatican Council
The recent Magisterium
Interpreting history
in the light of faith
CHAPTER TWO
FOUNDATIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE
CHURCH
The foundations of Social Doctrine
The human person: image of the Triune God The equal dignity of
all human beings
The supreme value
of human rights
The principles of Social Doctrine
The principle of the common good
The principle of the universal destination of goods
The principle of subsidiarity
The principle of solidarity
The principle of social justice
Integral human development
An examen for the Church
CHAPTER THREE
TECHNOLOGY AND DOMINANCE.
THE GRANDEUR OF HUMANITY IN LIGHT OF THE PROMISES OF AI
The technocratic paradigm and digital power
Artificial intelligence
A valuable tool that requires vigilance
Responsibility, transparency
and the governance of AI
What must not be lost
Underlying
narratives: transhumanism and posthumanism
The limit, the heart,
the grandeur of the human person
The authentic “more than humanˮ: grace and Christian
humanism
Two cities and two loves
CHAPTER FOUR
SAFEGUARDING HUMANITY AT A TIME OF TRANSFORMATION.
TRUTH, WORK,
FREEDOM
Truth as a common good
Truth and democracy
Communication and the collective imagination
Toward an ecology of communication
An educational alliance for the digital age
The central role of schools
The dignity of
work at a time of digital transition
The value of work
The problem of unemployment
An economy that values dignity
Families and young
people: the social conditions for hope
Protecting freedom against
dependencies and commercialization
Dependencies and societal control
Breaking the chains of new
forms of slavery A shared responsibility
CHAPTER FIVE
THE CULTURE OF POWER AND THE CIVILIZATION OF LOVE
The civilization of love in the digital age
The culture of power
The normalization of war
Force without limits
Weapons and artificial intelligence
The crisis of multilateralism
A supposed political realism
Building the civilization of
love We can all do our part
The need to disarm words
Building peace through
justice
Adopting the perspective of victims
Cultivating a healthy
realism
Reviving dialogue
The necessity of diplomacy and
multilateralism Praying and hoping
CONCLUSION
The Word became flesh
One body in Christ
The construction site of our time
The song of hope: the Magnificat
INTRODUCTION
1.
Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is
today facing a pivotal 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 every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and
fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an
inhumane and more unjust world. Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its
true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that
it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity
truly becomes clear.ˮ 1 In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes
the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward
fullness.
2.
Founded on Christ, the living stone, we
experience the powerful and mysterious action of the Holy Spirit, and we
believe that every authentic human effort to cooperate with him for the good
will be blessed by our heavenly Father, in whom we place our hope. For this
reason, we can diligently contribute to every initiative that builds a more
just world, and we can call others to collaborate in promoting the integral
development of every human being. We wish to engage in dialogue with all men
and women of our time, with whom we share in the events, questions and
aspirations of humanity. 2 Together with them, we seek to identify
new paths for the common good and for promoting a dignified life for all.
Indeed, openness to dialogue is an integral part of the Churchʼs vocation
because, constituted in Christ as “a sacrament… of communion with God and of
the unity of the entire human race,ˮ 3] she recognizes history as the place where
the Gospel challenges and directs human experience.
3.
In this spirit, Pope
Leo
XIII published his Encyclical Rerum Novarum in
1891, the 135 th anniversary of which we celebrate with deep
gratitude this year. With that document, my beloved predecessor gave impetus to the reflection on
society, the economy and politics, which is now known as the “Social Doctrine
of the Church.ˮ When some objected that the Church should not waste energy on
worldly matters, but instead focus on communicating the message of eternal
life, Leo
XIII responded with realism
and wisdom, saying that the proclamation of the Gospel cannot overlook the
concrete lives of people. 4 Many decades have passed since then, and
the Magisterium, pastors, theologians and faithful have continued to reflect on
social issues in the light of the Gospel. Today, the Social Doctrine of the
Church is a legacy of wisdom, where we find principles for thought, criteria
for discernment and judgment, and concrete guidelines for action. Founded on
Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and in engagement with the sciences, it helps
us clearly interpret the challenges of the present and identify appropriate
ways for living out a clear Christian witness, with joy and in service to the
world. It is not an inert set of concepts, but a living corpus of truth that safeguards and interprets humanityʼs vocation
to a full and just life. I therefore wish to add my own voice to this living
tradition, invoking the help of the Spirit of wisdom, who has dwelt in the
world since its beginning (cf. Prov
82231.
The res
novae of our time
4.
While Leo
XIII spoke in his time of “new thingsˮ ( rerum novarum), today we cannot limit
ourselves simply to repeating his insightful teachings. Instead, we must ask
God for the wisdom to interpret the great trends of our time, particularly
technological advances. In recent years, it has become increasingly evident how
rapidly and profoundly digitalization, artificial intelligence AI) and
robotics are transforming our world. Technology should not be considered, in
itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity. On the contrary, it has formed
part of our history since the beginning as “a profoundly human reality, linked
to the autonomy and freedom of man.ˮ 5 Over the centuries, technological
development has significantly improved the living conditions of humanity. At
the same time, each phase of progress has also revealed the ambiguity of tools
that can cause harm when not oriented toward the good. Today, however, we find
ourselves facing a new situation. The power and prevalence of emerging
technologies are interwoven into the fabric of daily life, shaping
decision-making processes and deeply affecting the collective imagination:
“Never has humanity had such power over itself.ˮ 6 New technologies open up a horizon
extending in directions that are imaginable but not yet fully predictable. This
complicates the assessment of their potential impact and the long-term effects
they may have on both the dignity of individuals and the common good.
5.
It now falls to us to face the challenges of our
time with clarity of thought and responsibility. It is necessary to establish
adequate regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the
distorting effects of technological power. Nevertheless, the issue is not
limited to regulation. As Pope Francis warned, we must
realistically ask ourselves who holds this power today and how they use it: “It
must also be recognized that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information
technology, knowledge of our own DNA, and many other abilities which we have
acquired… have given those with the knowledge, and especially the economic
resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and
the entire world.ˮ 7
In the past, it was largely up to the State to guide and direct innovation.
Today, however, 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. Technological power thus
takes on an unprecedented, predominantly “privateˮ aspect, which makes it even
more challenging to discern, govern and direct such power toward the common
good.
6.
For this reason it is necessary to begin a
shared discernment process for identifying the spiritual and cultural roots of
ongoing transformations. If we focus only on contingencies, we risk letting the
succession of emergencies dictate the direction of our path. We are living
through a rapid phase of transition, a “change of era,ˮ in which — while some
are vying for the future of new technologies and others dedicate themselves to
reflecting on the matter — most people are watching and waiting, observing from
afar and merely hoping for the best. For this very reason, crucial questions
impose themselves on our conscience and can no longer be avoided: Where are we
going? Toward what goal do we wish to orient ourselves? What direction should
we choose as a people and as a human community?
Two biblical images
7.
In order to answer these questions and discern
how to navigate responsibly the era of AI, I would like to bring to mind two
scenes from the Bible: the construction of the Tower of Babel (cf. Gen 1119) and the rebuilding of the
walls of Jerusalem (cf. Neh 26. The
story of Babel appears in the Book of Genesis, at the origins of humanity,
immediately after the genealogies of Noahʼs sons. After settling in a plain in
the land of Shinar, the people decided to build a city and a tower “with its
top in the heavensˮ (Gen 114.
Fearing being scattered across the earth, they sought to guarantee stability
and power for themselves, and above all to “make a nameˮ for themselves. It was
an impressive feat: a single language, a single technology, a single direction.
However, the project concealed a profound danger. It was a project conceived
without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity
and that chose homogenization over communion. When a city is built on pride and
the claim to selfsufficiency, communication breaks down, languages are confused
and people no longer understand each other. The result is not unity, but
dispersion. Babel thus reveals the limits of any effort that, however
grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for
efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without Godʼs blessing.
8.
The Book of Nehemiah, in turn, opens at a time
of great vulnerability in the history of ancient Israel. After the Babylonian
exile, a portion of the people returned to Jerusalem, but the city was still in
ruins, the walls collapsed and the gates burned (cf. Neh 12. Nehemiah, a Jew in the service of the Persian King
Artaxerxes, received news of the disastrous state of his ancestral city. Before
taking action, he fasted, prayed and interceded for the people. He then asked
the king for permission to return to Jerusalem and, upon arriving, examined the
destroyed areas in silence. He did not
impose solutions from above. He convened the families, assigned each of them a
section of the wall to rebuild, listened to their concerns, coordinated their
efforts and addressed any opposition. The narrative shows how the city is
reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared
responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and
young people all play a part. It is an undertaking with God at the center,
which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones. Thus, ancient
Jerusalem rediscovers a common language — not one of uniformity, but one of
communion, namely the harmony that arises when all persons assume their own role
and recognize that their strength comes from the Lord.
9.
In light of these two images, the Holy Spirit
challenges us today regarding our relationship with technology and the ongoing
digital revolution. Scientific discoveries are talents entrusted to humanity so
that they may bear fruit (cf. Mt
251430. Technology has the power to heal, connect, educate and protect our
common home; but it can also divide, exclude and generate new forms of
injustice. In the abstract, technology in and of itself is not a solution to
humanityʼs problems, just as it is not inherently 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 “yesˮ or “noˮ to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or
rebuilding Jerusalem; between a power that claims to dominate the heavens and a
people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild the walls of
fraternal coexistence.
10.
We must, then, avoid the “Babel syndrome,ˮ
namely the idolatry of profit 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 performance. The risk of dehumanization — of building a future
that excludes God and reduces the other to a means — is an ancient and ever-new
temptation that today takes on a technical guise. Instead, let us choose the
“way of Nehemiah,ˮ which highlights the importance of working together to make
the City of God a safe place for returning exiles. Rebuilding today means
recognizing that, precisely from the plurality of voices and visions which,
even though they sometimes remind us of the confusion caused by the diversity
of spoken languages, a bright possibility emerges. Indeed, this is the
possibility of building together, of transforming diversity into a resource and
of making listening and dialogue the common ground upon which to cultivate
justice and fraternity. Within this shared task, Christians discover their
unique role of guiding actions toward God so that, in his light, pluralism does
not dissipate into disorder, but instead, through the practice of synodality,
it becomes the space in which humanity rediscovers its solid foundations and
its final end. In the Book of Revelation, John sees the New Jerusalem
“coming down out of heaven from Godˮ (Rev 212) as a gift for all humanity.
And this vision of grace is an invitation for us
Christians to work together in order
to foster a peaceful, just and dignified life in community within todayʼs
“cities.ˮ Building for the common good
11.
Building a city founded on the common good
implies, first and foremost, building on a firm relationship with God. It means
recognizing that the truth of his love calls us to life “in all its fullnessˮ (
Jn 1010) and communion with him.
Like Saint Augustine, we too can say, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord,
and our heart is restless until it rests in you.ˮ 8 Indeed, God has inscribed
in our hearts a desire for happiness that embraces all the dimensions of life.
The Church, in dialogue with the men and women of our time, recognizes the
urgent need to safeguard and guide this aspiration toward its deepest truth.
12.
Secondly, building for the common good means
accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without considering them an error
to be corrected. Today, the human desire for fullness of life is at risk of
being misled by deceitful goals, such as the prospect of a technology that
promises to free us from all weakness, and models of wellbeing that leave
behind entire populations. All too often, we place our hope in unlimited
“upgrades,ˮ in forms of progress that exacerbate inequalities, and in immediate
solutions incapable of healing peopleʼs wounds. As a result, while some pursue
the illusion of unlimited self-assertion, many are deprived of basic
necessities. The Church reminds us, with a firm yet humble voice, that true
fulfilment is not achieved by eliminating weakness but through harmonious
growth. It is found where freedom and responsibility are intertwined with
mutual care and true solidarity, and where progress is measured by the dignity
of each person and the good of all peoples.
13.
Thirdly, building a world in which everyone can
flourish requires shared responsibility and courage. No one can singlehandedly
bear the weight of the challenges the world is facing, just as no one is so
weak that they cannot play their part, for “power is made perfect in weaknessˮ
(2 Cor 129. All are given their own
section of the wall: scientists and researchers, entrepreneurs and workers,
educators and legislators, civil society, popular movements and faith
communities. This is the logic of subsidiarity, which values the cooperation
between generations, peoples, disciplines and cultures as the best way for
fostering stability, prosperity and peace. We should not be intimidated by
tensions or differences because they can become creative forces when guided by
shared responsibility.
14.
Finally, building for the common good requires
an evangelical language. We must avoid humiliating or antagonistic words,
opting rather for a clarity that sheds light and a frankness that unlocks new
possibilities. We cannot condone naïve enthusiasms, nor fuel unfounded fears.
Instead, let us establish standards for discernment — the dignity of the human
person, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the
poor, care for our common home and peace — and let us translate these standards
into practices such as responsible planning, the assessment of human and social
impact, the inclusion of the most vulnerable, the promotion of digital literacy
and guiding research and industry toward justice and peace.
Remaining human
15.
In the recent Ordinary Jubilee Year of 2025, we walked as pilgrims of
hope and were blessed with many graces. Strengthened by these gifts, we can
move forward with confidence to face the arduous tasks and demanding challenges
that lie ahead. In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is
threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain
profoundly human. We must lovingly safeguard the grandeur of humanity bestowed
upon us and revealed in its fullness in Christ, the splendor of which no
machine can ever replace. True progress always stems from a heart open to
others, an intelligence willing to listen and a will that seeks what unites
rather than what separates.
16.
I address this heartfelt appeal to all the
Catholic faithful, to all Christians and to all men and women of goodwill. Let
us not be afraid to get our hands dirty on the “construction siteˮ of our time.
Like Nehemiah, let us pray, plan wisely and work perseveringly, placing God at
the forefront of our actions and the human person at the center of our choices.
Thus, the “rejected stonesˮ — the poor, the sick, the migrants and the least
among us — will become the cornerstone, and a solid, welcoming common home will
emerge on the earth, where love and faithfulness will finally meet, and
righteousness and peace will embrace (cf. Ps
8510. This is the blessing we implore from God; and the task that stands
before us is that of being builders of communion, rather than architects of
Babel. We are to be servants of the coming Kingdom, instead of lords of towers
destined for ruin. With the heart of a shepherd and a father, I ask everyone to
abandon the construction of yet another Tower of Babel and to join forces in building
up the common good, so that humanity will never lose its beauty, and the world
once again will come to recognize the human heart as the place where God
desires to dwell.
CHAPTER ONE A DYNAMIC APPROACH
FAITHFUL TO THE GOSPEL
17.
In this first chapter, I intend to present
synthetically how the Social Doctrine of the Church has taken shape in the
recent Papal Magisterium and in the Second Vatican Council, in order to demonstrate its dynamic
character. Indeed, in each era the res
novae require that this teaching address historical questions in the light
of revealed Truth. In this regard, artificial intelligence, too, should not be
considered as merely yet another theme to be studied or a crisis to be managed,
but rather as a development that challenges the categories of Social Doctrine
from within, calling for their further development in fidelity to the Gospel.
18.
This overview, however, would not be very
comprehensible if, before reflecting on the contribution of individual popes
and their most relevant documents, we do not first clarify some fundamental
principles concerning the way in which the Church exists in history and relates
to the world. Failing to do so would expose Social Doctrine to the risk of
being perceived as an undue interference in “worldlyˮ matters or as an external
code of ethics imposed from above. In reality, it stems from a Church that walks
alongside humanity, recognizing the autonomy of earthly realities and the
distinction between ecclesial and political communities. Indeed, it is for this
very reason that she strives to serve the common good.
A Church journeying through human history
19.
The Church is present in the world as a sign of
unity for the entire human family. She recognizes todayʼs questions and
challenges as the current setting in which to carry out her particular vocation
of listening, dialogue and service, and of being responsive to everything
concerning the lives of contemporary men and women. This involvement in
peopleʼs lives helps the Church understand ever more clearly that her mission
has a historical scope and entails a responsibility for the way in which social
relations are built. For this reason, she cannot consider herself a stranger to
the forces shaping society. On the contrary, the Church actively participates
in the processes by which society grows and is organized, and she offers her
own contribution to the creation of a more just and fraternal society. Pope Francis emphasized this
historical dimension of the Churchʼs mission: “No one can demand that religion
should be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without influence on
societal and national life, without concern for the soundness of civil institutions,
without a right to offer an opinion on events affecting society.ˮ 9
20.
The Churchʼs vocation and duty to accompany
humanity in the specifics of history leads her to recognize that earthly
realities possess their own proper character and order. The Second Vatican Council expressed
this principle with particular precision in the
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, whose
sixtieth anniversary we remembered and celebrated with gratitude on 7 December
2025 “If by the autonomy of earthly affairs is meant that created things and
societies themselves enjoy their own laws and values… then the demand for
autonomy is perfectly in order.ˮ 10 This affirmation shows that creation
bears the imprint of an original goodness that our human outlook must preserve,
cultivate and bring to fulfilment. In this regard, the Church offers herself in
a way that helps to interpret reality in all its depth. She supports with
humble firmness the choices that promote the dignity of every person, the
cohesion of communities and the good of all. The Church thus stands alongside
the world without overpowering it, so that the promise of justice and peace
that the Holy Spirit continues to sustain in the heart of humanity may come to
fruition in every human endeavor.
21.
Recognizing that God upholds the freedom of men
and women in the unfolding of history, the Second Vatican Council affirmed
the distinction between the ecclesial community and the political community,
emphasizing that each must operate with full autonomy. The Churchʼs presence in
the world is also expressed through her relationship with civil society and
public institutions. By engaging with these entities, the Church acknowledges
the value of social and political realities and honors their specific
responsibilities, supporting everything that fosters the wellbeing of
individuals and strengthens the fabric of society. The Church does not claim to
assume the functions belonging to the State. On the contrary, she esteems those
who serve the common good, and she firmly acknowledges the responsibility that
civil institutions hold within society. At the same time, the mission entrusted
to the Church prompts her to address the real suffering of the men and women of
our time. This closeness does not stem from an intent to supplant civil
institutions, much less from an implicit criticism of their work. Rather, it
stems from evangelical charity, which impels the Church to draw near to the
wounds of humanity whenever they surface with greater severity. When the Church
intervenes, she does so following the example of the Good Samaritan, with
discretion and closeness, aware that what arises from urgent necessity cannot
become the norm, nor replace the institutional responsibilities proper to the
civil community.
22.
Starting from this twofold acknowledgment — the
autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction between ecclesiastical and
political spheres of competence — allows for a clearer understanding of the
direction that the Second Vatican Council set
for the Church in her relationship with the world. Gaudium et Spes reminds
us that “it is the task of the whole People of God, particularly of its pastors
and theologians, to listen to and distinguish the many voices of our times and
to interpret them in the light of Godʼs word, in order that the revealed Truth
may be more deeply penetrated, better understood and more suitably presented.ˮ 11 Listening
to the “many voicesˮ is no mere sociological exercise, but instead requires
spiritual discernment. Guided by the Spirit, the People of God come to
recognize in cultural and social transformations both the signs of the presence
of Christ, who comes and guides history toward its fulfilment, and those
aberrations that obscure his face. In this way, the essential core of revealed
Truth is not altered, but made explicit and adopted as a living standard for
guiding concrete choices, inspiring paths of personal and communal conversion,
promoting structural reforms and supporting new forms of evangelical witness in
public life. History is thus understood as one of the places in which the
Church allows herself to be taught by the Spirit about the humanizing power of
the Gospel; and she learns to develop her own teaching at the service of the
dignity of every person and the good of all peoples.
The wisdom of the word of God in dialogue with
the human sciences
23. The
Church regards all who sincerely seek “truth, goodness and beautyˮ as
companions on the journey, and considers them as “precious alliesˮ 12] in
defending the dignity of every person and in caring for creation. Adopting the
pastoral approach of the Second Vatican Council, which
invites us to listen, discern and interpret the signs of the times, and
enlightened by the wisdom of the word, the Church is not afraid to encounter
human knowledge. Indeed, the word of God provides reliable standards for
establishing paths of justice and opening ways of reconciliation and peace
among peoples. When it comes to applying these standards to the complex
situations of our time, the contributions of philosophy and of the human and
social sciences is essential. These disciplines help us understand and analyze
cultural, economic and political dynamics more deeply. Saint John Paul II recalled
that the Church welcomes the contributions of the social sciences in order “to
draw from them concrete insights that help her carry out her magisterial
office.ˮ 13
A dialogue with such kinds of knowledge does not diminish the power of the
Gospel. On the contrary, it makes it possible to identify with greater clarity
what genuinely fosters the lives of individuals and communities. Following this
perspective, Pope Francis emphasized that
when dealing with many specific questions, the Church does not claim to offer
“a definitive opinion,ˮ 14] but recognizes the importance of
listening to scientific research and of encouraging a serious and honest debate
among experts while welcoming a diversity of opinions.
24. Nourished
by this fruitful dialogue between the Gospel and human knowledge, the Church
has progressively developed her
Social Doctrine, cultivating in history a wise patrimony
marked by theological and anthropological coherence rooted in the Christian
understanding of the person. Precisely because this patrimony arises from faith
and a corresponding vision of reality, it does not amount to a repertoire of
technical solutions or an economic or political model to be set against
others. Instead, it belongs to a
different order, 15]
namely that of the principles that guide the interpretation of events and
sustain an evangelical understanding of historical processes and the choices
these entail. Herein lies the proper function of Social Doctrine, which does
not claim to supplant the responsibilities of politics or institutions, but
offers itself as a foundation for collective discernment, helping to recognize
and promote whatever serves the dignity of persons, the vitality of communities
and the common good.
Social Doctrine as a shared discernment
25. Understanding
that the truth is a gift to be shared, not a possession to be monopolized,
frees the Church from the temptation of seeking forms of presence based on
power. In order to rediscover the evangelical approach of a gentle proclamation
of truth that is not imposed, Saint John Paul II invited
us to examine honestly the times when acquiescence was given to “intolerance
and even the use of violence in the service of truth.ˮ 16 In this same vein, I too
have reaffirmed that the Church “does not claim to possess a monopoly on
truth,ˮ 17]
because truth is not a territory to be defended, but a good to be shared. For
his part, Pope Francis expressed this same
perspective in his striking phrase, “time is greater than space.ˮ 18 What
matters most is not occupying positions of power or defending cultural
strongholds, but initiating good processes and enabling them to mature. In this way, the truth of the Gospel is not
imposed from above, but grows over time within the concrete interweaving of
lives, communities and cultures. This is not a truth that fears diversity, but
instead welcomes and guides it. It does not eliminate
conflicts, but transforms them, reuniting that which
history tends to scatter. This concept can also be illustrated by the image of
a multifaceted polyhedron, 19] in which the one truth of the Gospel is
reflected from different angles.
26. This
attitude of openness to truth, which is at the same time both one and diverse,
profoundly expresses the catholicity of the
Church, for she embraces the entire human family yet is
also immersed in the concrete situations of peoples and cultures. The Second Vatican Council reminds
us that, in virtue of this very catholicity, “each part contributes its own
gifts to other parts and to the entire Church.ˮ 20 In this way, the Church grows as a whole
and as individual communities thanks to a mutual exchange and to shared efforts
toward an ever fuller communion. It follows, then, that the People of God are
not only gathered together from many peoples, but are also intertwined through
different functions, vocations, cultures and traditions, each being called to
support and enrich one another. From this perspective, Saint
Paul
VI acknowledged that, given
the great variety of historical situations, it is unrealistic to think that the
Churchʼs Social Doctrine can propose a single response that is valid in all
contexts. 21
For this reason, he invited each Christian community to interpret the reality
in its own country with clarity and responsibility. The fruitful tension
between the universality of the Churchʼs mission and her local roots is an
intrinsic aspect of her life, for she encompasses the whole world, while
addressing the specific issues of each context as the real setting in which the
Gospel takes shape.
27. In
light of what has been said so far, the Churchʼs Social Doctrine can be seen
more authentically. It is not a handbook of principles and norms to be applied,
but a process of shared discernment. It is born from the encounter between the
eternal truth of the Gospel and the questions of history. It allows itself to
be challenged by the signs of the times, and draws nourishment from the
contributions of science, culture and human experience. Therefore, when the
dignity of our brothers and sisters is violated, when politics fails to address
the tragedies of humanity, when the economy turns against the person or science
oversteps the limits of its competence, 22] the Church — together with other
Christian denominations and believers of other religions — must make her voice
heard, not in order to dominate, but to promote communion. Understood in this
way, Social Doctrine becomes a theology of communion in history, a history in
which the Word made flesh continues to be present through dialogue, memory and
prophecy.
The development of Social Doctrine from Leo
XIII to the
present
28. Having outlined the way in which the Church is present
in history and engages in dialogue with the world, I would now like to consider
the development of Social Doctrine in the Magisterium, which has responded to
the major social transformations from the nineteenth century to the present
day. Naturally, I cannot do justice to the full richness of this teaching,
whose fundamental principles are presented in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
and have been further examined by recent Magisterial teaching. Nor can I
systematically explore everything that has been developed in the Encyclicals of
my late venerable predecessors, especially in Laudato Siʼand
Fratelli Tutti.
Nevertheless, I will emphasize some essential points in order to show how the
present text stands in continuity with that tradition. I would also like to
stress how, within this tradition, the unchanging core of revealed truths
regarding the human person and society is constantly intertwined with a renewed
capacity for listening to historical situations and for responding to
contemporary issues. I will now review some of the significant stages of this
development, beginning with the period inaugurated by the Encyclical Rerum Novarum.
The first stages of the Church’s Social Doctrine
29.
What we now call the “Social Doctrine of the
Churchˮ is not a spontaneous product of the modern age. Instead, it is the
fruit of receiving and structuring a long tradition of ecclesial reflection on
life in society, rooted in Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers and the
theological and legal developments of the Middle Ages and modern era. Although
the expression “Social Doctrine of the
Churchˮ was coined by Pius
XII in 1950, 23] its content began to take shape as an
organic corpus of social teaching
with Leo
XIIIʼs Encyclical Rerum Novarum.
Confronted with the “new thingsˮ of his time — the conflict between capital and
labor, the question of the workforce, and economic and social transformations —
Leo
XIII did not limit himself
merely to acknowledging the unrest, but saw these situations as an area for the
Churchʼs pastoral mission. He exposed them to rigorous discernment,
illuminating their causes and possible solutions in the light of the Gospel and
an integral vision of the human person created in the image of God. Saint John Paul II regarded this approach as a “lasting
paradigmˮ 24]
of Social Doctrine: an exemplary practice through which the Church, when faced
with historical changes, exercises her right and duty to examine social
realities, make pronouncements about them and indicate paths for finding just
solutions. In this way, the perennial contents of the faith and ancient
ecclesial wisdom find expression in a living doctrine that remains faithful to
the Gospel while growing in response to the “new thingsˮ of every era.
30.
Leo
XIIIʼs Encyclical Rerum Novarum
constitutes a milestone in the development of the Churchʼs social teaching. The
document places the dignity of work and of workers at the forefront of its
reflection; affirms the right to a fair wage for oneself and oneʼs family;
recognizes that persons have a fundamental value that takes precedence over
capital and profit; defends private property along with its indispensable
societal role; esteems workersʼ associations; and proposes forms of cooperation
between the different components of society as an alternative to the mentality
of class struggle. It is not surprising, then, that Pius
XI defined it as the “ Magna Cartaˮ 25] of Christian social action. In Rerum Novarum, the
Churchʼs ancient wisdom regarding the human person and life in society took on
a new form capable of responding to the industrial age and offering the first
major systematic framework for the Social Doctrine that would be further
developed in the following decades. While many of the historical conditions
described by Leo
XIII have changed, at least two insights
remain highly relevant today: the primacy of human labor over any mindset
focused solely on finance or productivity — with the consequent attention to
the people and families most susceptible to exploitation — and the inseparable
link between proclaiming the Gospel and pursuing a more just social order. Rerum Novarum thereby
continues to remind us that there is no authentic evangelization that does not
also affect the structures of human society.
31.
Pius
XIʼs Encyclical Quadragesima Anno was
published in 1931 on the fortieth anniversary of Rerum Novarumat the
height of a major global economic crisis, marking a further step in the
Churchʼs social teaching. Rather than limiting itself to addressing the
“workforce question,ˮ it broadened its focus to encompass the overall structure
of the economic and political order. The Encyclical denounces the concentration of economic
power in the hands of a few; criticizes both unlimited competition and
collectivist projects that undermine the freedom and responsibility of the
individual; strongly affirms the workersʼ right to association; and reiterates
the requirement that wages be proportionate not only to performance, but also
to the needs of workers and their families. Within this framework, Pius
XI systematically formulated the principle of
subsidiarity, which was to become one of the cornerstones of Social Doctrine.
According to this principle, whatever can be carried out by individuals,
families, intermediary organizations and local communities should not be
carried out by higher-level authorities. Alongside these contributions, in
various interventions of his Magisterium — from the Encyclicals Non Abbiamo Bisogno and Mit Brennender Sorge to Divini Redemptoris
— Pius
XI clearly recalled the
societal role of private property and denounced forms of totalitarianism that
demean the dignity of the person, stifle life in society, exalt the State above
its just value and discriminate according to race. At least three insights of
his social teaching remain particularly relevant today: the awareness that
injustice concerns not only individual behavior but also economic and
institutional structures; the importance of the principle of subsidiarity,
which calls for the strengthening of the fabric of associations and communities
while avoiding further centralization of power; and the link between the
dignity of work, fair remuneration and the genuine possibility for families to
lead a dignified life.
32.
In the tragic context of the Second World War,
and the years of reconstruction that followed, the teachings of Pius
XII made a significant contribution to the
development of Social Doctrine. This is particularly true of his Christmas
radio messages, in which he outlined the framework of an international order
based on justice, peace and the recognition of human dignity. In these
messages, the
Pope proposed a dialogue with society based on
an appeal to natural law understood as a set of objective principles that
precede the interests of individuals and States, and which must regulate both
the internal life of nations and their mutual relations. Pius
XII also attributed a
decisive role to professional associations, labor unions and the various
intermediary organizations in the economic and social order. He recognized
these organized forms of society as an essential safeguard for civil
equilibrium and for protecting the common good. He affirmed the need for a
sound rule of law for guarding against the abuse of power, and he recognized
democracy as a means for ensuring the proper exercise of authority. At the same
time, he warned against any attempt to base law on utility or force, recalling
that an international order governed by the advantage of the strongest exposes
weaker peoples to oppression and fundamentally undermines trust between
nations. Finally, Pius
XII identified profound
economic imbalances between countries as one of the factors fueling conflicts. 26
Three guidelines remain particularly significant for our own times, currently
marked by new forms of global power and growing inequalities: the need for law
to take precedence over interests; the awareness that economic disparities are
a breeding ground for tension and violence; and the necessity of a network of
associations capable of mediating between the individual and the State. These
guidelines continue to provide important criteria that enable Social Doctrine
to interpret the dynamics of globalization and promote a more just and peaceful
international order.
The years of the Second Vatican Council
33.
A new phase in the Churchʼs social teaching
began with Saint John XXIII, who placed a greater emphasis on the
global dimension of social issues and the language of rights. In Mater et Magistra,
he presented the Christian faith as a light capable of uniting heaven and
earth. He recalled that, while the Churchʼs primary mission is the
sanctification and proclamation of eternal goods, she does not neglect the
concrete needs of peopleʼs daily lives, and is concerned with every authentic
human good. 27 Based
on this unified vision of humanity, John XXIII emphasized that societal life requires a
balance between the initiative of citizens and groups — who are called to
organize themselves and work together — and the action of the State, which must
coordinate and provide support without stifling the freedom and responsibility
of individuals. Hence, he drew attention to fair remuneration for work, worker
participation and the growing disparities between countries. A few years later,
in Pacem in Terris,
John XXIII addressed
for the first time not only the faithful, but also all people of good will,
organically linking the dignity of the person to the recognition of fundamental
rights and duties, and proposing a direction for society — at the international
level too — based on truth, justice, love and freedom. 28 In the present day, which
is marked by widespread conflict and new forms of global interdependence, the
following aspects of his thought remain particularly significant: the universal
perspective of his appeal; his reference to human rights as a shared framework;
and his conviction that lasting peace requires institutions and relations
between peoples that are inspired by the dignity of every person.
34.
The Second Vatican Council marked
a turning point in the Churchʼs understanding of herself in the contemporary
world. In the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, the Council presented
the image of a Church that is close to humanity, engaged with the world and
committed to reflecting on the concrete reality of historical situations,
rather than abstract concepts. The text addresses the major issues of marriage
and the family, economic and societal life, the political community, war and
peace. It insists that economic and institutional structures are just only to
the extent that they serve the integral development of the person and promote
the responsible participation of all. 29 The importance of this conciliar document
for the Social Doctrine of the Church lies not only in having opened up
horizons for thematic reflection, but also in its method of discernment that
invites us to interpret historical changes guided by the Gospel and human
expertise. This approach reveals that dialogue with the world is not a tactical
choice for the Church, but a concrete expression of her mission because the
Gospel, like leaven, is capable of transforming the structures of society from
within and forging paths toward a greater humanity. The Declaration Dignitatis Humanae
can be included in the same context. Here, the Council recognized that
religious freedom is a fundamental right grounded in human dignity that must be
guaranteed by law so as to prevent people from being forced to act against
their conscience or impeded from seeking and professing the truth both
privately and publicly. 30 This principle is highly relevant today
and continues to provide Social Doctrine with decisive criteria for protecting
individuals and building pluralistic and peaceful societies.
35.
During the Pontificate of Saint
Paul
VI, an understanding of
peace emerged that was not reduced to the mere absence of war, but took shape
within the scope of integral human development. In Populorum Progressio,
he described development as a transition from less humane to more humane living
conditions. He further understood it as a process that concerns “each person
and the whole person,ˮ 31] that is every dimension of the person and
all people without exception. For this reason, Paul
VI could affirm that
development understood in this way is in reality “the new name for peace,ˮ 32]
because it aims to eradicate the roots of injustice and conflict and create
opportunities for a more dignified life for all. The establishment of the
Pontifical Commission Iustitia et Pax
should also be seen in this light as an attempt to give stable form to this
insight at the ecclesial and international levels, while bearing in mind the
growing gap between rich and poor countries and the need for policies that
genuinely promote more humane living conditions for all.
36.
In Octogesima Adveniens,
written on the occasion of the eightieth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Paul
VI applied this perspective
to postindustrial society, marked by urbanization, new forms of poverty and
rapid cultural changes that called into question the future of individuals and
communities. Paul
VI believed that although
the Gospel was proclaimed, written and lived out in a historical and cultural
context very different from our own, its message was not “outdated.ˮ 33
Instead, it offers a vision of the human person, relationships, authority and
the common good that is still capable of guiding economic, political and
cultural choices today. In other words, the Gospel remains relevant because it
provides the criteria for recognizing what humanizes or dehumanizes and what
liberates or oppresses in ever-changing situations. For the Social Doctrine of
the Church, Paul
VIʼs most demanding legacy
is precisely this: as long as there are people in the world who are excluded
from the development befitting human dignity, the Christian community cannot be
content with a theoretical proclamation of peace. Rather, beginning where
people are marginalized, it must allow the Gospel to pass judgment on those
economic and political structures which — as John Paul II would
later remind us — can become veritable “structures of sin.ˮ 34 As a
result, no person or people will be treated as expendable in the processes of
development.
The recent Magisterium
37. The
rich social teaching of Saint John Paul II lies at the crossroads of the crisis of the
great ideological systems of the twentieth century and the onset of economic
globalization. His Encyclical Laborem Exercens,
written ninety years after the publication of Rerum Novarum,
opened up a new avenue for reflection on work. It presents fair wages as the
concrete means of verifying the justness of the entire socioeconomic system
because they reveal whether the worker is treated as a person or merely as a
cost of production. 35
Work is not considered simply as a problem to be dealt with or a means of
generating income, but a fundamental good for the person, a principle of
economic activity and the key to the entire societal question. Through work,
human beings bring their freedom, creativity and capacity
for cooperation into play, contributing to the cultural and moral elevation of
society. 36
In light of this, the various kinds of job insecurity, fragmented career paths
and automation must not be evaluated solely in terms of efficiency, but in
relation to the dignity of the worker, the right to sufficient remuneration and
the genuine possibility of participating in society.
38. With
his Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,
marking the twentieth anniversary of Populorum Progressio, John Paul
II reexamined
the scourge of underdevelopment. He acknowledged the failure of numerous
attempts to accelerate the economic development of poor peoples and to assist
them in the process of industrialization, noting the persistent and indeed
widening gap between the worldʼs North and South. 37 He also denounced the
economic, financial and commercial mechanisms that, managed by the strongest
economies, structurally favor their own interests while stifling weaker
economies, and he asked that they be subjected to serious ethical, not just
technical, scrutiny. 38
In this context, solidarity was understood as a concrete, shared responsibility
among individuals, peoples and nations — a form of social friendship or
political charity oriented toward the “civilization of loveˮ proposed by Paul
VI. 39
39.
On the centenary of Rerum Novarum,
the Encyclical Centesimus Annus offered
a reflection on the collapse of the Soviet system and the rise of democracy and
the market economy. Saint John Paul II reiterated
Pius
XIIʼs message that the Church values democracy
insofar as it guarantees the effective participation of citizens, enables them
to elect and peacefully replace their leaders and prevents power from being
monopolized by small elite groups motivated by particular or ideological
interests. 40 Likewise,
the Church recognizes the positive potential of the market and private
initiative only if they remain subordinate to the moral law and are guided by
the principle of solidarity, without sacrificing the most vulnerable to the
rationale of profit. 41
This adds a particularly relevant legacy to the Social Doctrine of the Church.
The affirmation of the link between the dignity of work, solidarity among
peoples, a critical assessment of democracy and the market economy continues to
provide criteria for evaluating new forms of exploitation, exclusion and crises
in political representation.
40.
In his social Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI sought
to reassess and expand the concept of development presented in Populorum Progressio,
interpreting it in light of globalization. He noted that such development
should translate into “real growth, of benefit to everyone and genuinely
sustainable.ˮ 42
That is, economic progress that is truly inclusive and respectful of the limits
of creation. He reaffirmed, however, that in wealthy countries new kinds of
poverty were emerging as well as unprecedented forms of exclusion, while, in
poorer regions, small minorities lived in consumerist affluence alongside
situations of dehumanizing poverty. 43 In addition, he observed that the new
global economic and financial system, marked by a vast mobility of capital and
means of production, had reduced the political power of States and their
ability to influence economic processes. 44 For this reason, Benedict XVI reiterated
that economic activity cannot claim to solve social problems simply through the
expansion of a commercial mentality, but must be ordered toward the common
good, for which the political community bears its own irreplaceable
responsibility. 45
41.
Benedict XVI placed charity at the center of his
analysis, stating that it “is at the heart of the Churchʼs Social Doctrine,ˮ 46] provided
that it is always united with truth. He also noted with concern that there is a
tendency to dismiss moral relevance precisely within the social, legal,
political and economic fields. The originality of his contribution lies in
showing that development, justice, institutions and the market are not neutral
realities, but spaces where charity in truth must find historical expression. This
teaching is especially relevant today in light of growing inequalities,
pressures in the financial markets, the environmental crisis and a lack of
trust in politics. It stands as an invitation to evaluate every model of
development on its ability to be inclusive and sustainable, to rebuild the
relationship between economics and politics on the common good, and to
acknowledge the critical and generative role of charity in public life.
42.
Pope Francisʼ social teaching
develops along the lines of Gaudium et Spes, which
invites us to view history through the lens of human hopes and vulnerabilities,
and to bring them into dialogue with the Gospel. This approach emerges with
particular clarity in Evangelii Gaudium,
where he states that the Christian proclamation has an intrinsic social
dimension and calls for a Church capable of listening to the cry of the poor,
migrants and victims of new forms of slavery. Francisʼ insistence on a
synodal Church, a Church that “walks together,ˮ that seeks to read the signs of
the times in the light of the Gospel and allows herself to be evangelized by
the poor with whom she shares history, also fits into this perspective. 47
43.
In Laudato Siʼ, Francis provided the first
significant systematic treatment of the environmental crisis in a social
Encyclical, demonstrating that it is not an isolated issue, but rather the
ecological aspect of the contemporary socio-economic crisis. His proposal for
an integral ecology combined care for our common home with the preferential
option for the poor, and strongly affirmed that “the cry of the earth and the
cry of the poorˮ 48]
cannot be separated. In this light, the universal destination of goods was
brought to the forefront, alongside the critique of a technocratic paradigm
that seeks to reduce everything to an object to be dominated; the defense of
human labor threatened by the mindset of waste; and the need for
intergenerational justice. Finally, he advocated for genuine dialogue between
those working in the fields of politics and finance, so that neither would
become self-referential.
44.
Faced with the breakdown of the social fabric, a
“world war being fought piecemeal,ˮ individualistic globalization and the
impact of the pandemic on community ties, Francis, in Fratelli Tutti ,
sought to revive the dream of a humanity that opts for social friendship and
universal fraternity. He proposed a culture of encounter, a “better politicsˮ
capable of seeking the common good, paths of reconciliation and a world that
ensures “land, housing and work for all.ˮ 49 Finally, in Dilexit Nos,
he showed that these significant social endeavors cannot be separated from a
personal relationship with Christ. Turning to the word of God, he reminded us
that the truest response to the love of the heart of Jesus is concrete love for
our brothers and sisters, and affirmed that “there is no greater way for us to
return love for love.ˮ 50
Interpreting history in the light of faith
45. Considering this historical overview, it is clear that
the Churchʼs Social Doctrine is not the result of a project devised at a desk,
but rather the product of a patient process in which each pontiff — together
with the Second Vatican Council — made a unique contribution in light
of the “new thingsˮ of each particular era. In response to the challenges of
their time, each one interpreted historical changes according to the Gospel,
bringing to light different aspects of a single heritage: the dignity of the
person, the value of work, the universal destination of goods, solidarity and
subsidiarity, care for creation and the centrality of peace and fraternity. The
result is a harmonious, though not always linear, development that is marked by
different emphases, progressive insights, and, at times, changes in perspective
that do not break with what came before, but allow its implications to mature.
If today we can speak of a corpus of
shared principles and criteria, it is because this faith-based interpretation
of history has never been interrupted, remaining ever open to the challenges
posed by each generation. It is to the
great principles of Social Doctrine, which direct the discernment of believers
in their personal and public lives, that I now wish to turn our attention, in
order to grasp more effectively their internal coherence and capacity to guide
our times.
CHAPTER TWO FOUNDATIONS AND
PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
46.
The Social Doctrine of the Church is a living
reality, in dialogue with history, cultures and sciences. At the same time, it
enshrines a core set of unchanging truths. For this reason, it can be
considered a form of wisdom that is capable of guiding the personal and
societal lives of believers even today. In this second chapter, I would like to
focus on some of the foundations and principles of the Churchʼs Social Doctrine
that will help us to interpret the “new thingsˮ of our time, particularly in
view of the inherent dignity of the human person. In order to protect the human
person in the age of artificial intelligence, I believe that today we must once
again reflect on the common good, the universal destination of goods,
subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. I am convinced that a harmonious
relationship between these principles requires that they be considered
collectively, so that it becomes clear how they relate to and complement each
other.
47.
In offering these reflections, my hope is, first
and foremost, to help the lay faithful and people of goodwill rediscover their
duty of implementing the above-mentioned principles in their daily lives,
family relationships, work and involvement in society. Thus, they will let
themselves be inspired by the aim of embodying Godʼs love in the concrete
events of life. At the same time, I would like to encourage academic
institutions and universities to give fresh impetus to these principles, and to
apply them in a way that will be relevant and effective in addressing the
digital revolution. In this way, theological and philosophical enquiry will be
able to further explore and support the Churchʼs pastoral journey, and
contribute to the Magisteriumʼs task of enlightening the consciences of the
faithful and guiding their efforts to make the life of our societies more just
and fraternal.
The foundations of Social Doctrine
The human person: image of the Triune God
48.
The Churchʼs Social Doctrine brings us to the
very heart of our faith: the mystery of the living God, revealed in Jesus
Christ, who, as a communion of Persons — Father, Son and Holy Spirit — is love
itself in relationship, expressed in the mutual gift of self and in sharing
with the world. 51
As the Council recalled, human persons are called to communion with God and
“can fully discover their true selves only in sincere self-giving.ˮ 52
Indeed their deepest vocation is to enter into the Trinitarian dynamic of love
received and shared.
49.
If the mystery of God as Love is the source of
Social Doctrine, we see its most concrete expression in the face of Jesus
Christ, the Incarnate Word. By becoming man, the Son of God enters our history
and takes on human flesh, bringing with him the love that unites him to the
Father and the Holy Spirit. In him, “the mystery of humanity truly becomes
clearˮ 53]
because his humanity is completely free, open to others, capable of building
healthy and beautiful relationships and committed to the total gift of self.
Those who believe in him are engaged in the great work of renewal that began
with the mystery of his passion, death and resurrection, and they cooperate in
building up the Kingdom of God, learning to embrace all men and women as
brothers and sisters, children of one Father. In this way, both the
proclamation of the Gospel and Christian life, guided by the action of the Holy
Spirit, tend to bring about social consequences in the world. 54
50.
At the heart of the Christian understanding of
the human person lies the great biblical affirmation that men and women are
created in the image and likeness (cf. Gen
12627) of the Triune God. Created for relationship, every human person is
planned and willed by God to enter into communion with him, with others and
with creation. Human dignity does not depend on a personʼs abilities, wealth or
position in life, nor on the right or wrong choices made; instead, it is a gift
that precedes and transcends each person, endowed by God as an expression of
his unfailing love. For this reason, the human person always remains the “way
for the Churchˮ 55]
and the heart of every authentic path of integral human development. 56
The equal dignity of all human beings
51.
Saint John Paul II stated that, “this heightened sense of the
dignity of the human person and of his or her uniqueness, and of the respect
due to the journey of conscience, certainly represents one of the positive
achievements of modern culture.ˮ 57 This statement follows the line already
laid out by the Second Vatican Council, which had noted a growing recognition
of the sublime dignity of all persons, their superiority over material things
and their universal and inviolable rights and duties. 58 It is important to ensure
that this growth in appreciation of human dignity is not obscured by the
pressure of new ideologies or very powerful interests in todayʼs world. Among
these ideologies, I consider particularly insidious the one that suggests that
every person must earn or justify his or her own worth, to the point of attributing
greater value to those who are more efficient or effective. From this
perspective, persons end up being reduced to a means of achieving results, a
resource to be used and exploited, and are no longer recognized as a proper end
in themselves who should never be instrumentalized. The value of persons,
however, does not depend on what they achieve or produce. There are rights that
apply to everyone simply by virtue of being human, and no human power can
legitimately deny or arbitrarily limit them. 59
52.
When we speak of dignity, we do not always use
the word in the same way. Sometimes we refer to moral dignity, namely the way
in which a person directs his or her choices and actions. At other times, we
think of social dignity, which refers to a personʼs living conditions and the
concrete respect received from society. In other cases, we refer to existential
dignity, meaning the way in which a person perceives his or her own worth and
the value of life. These aspects of dignity can be enhanced or diminished. In
addition to these notions, there is also the more profound and important level
of ontological dignity. This is the dignity that belongs to every human being
simply by virtue of existing, of having been willed, created and loved by God. 60 No
sin, failure, humiliation or exclusion can diminish the profound value of a
human life that God has willed and called into being. 61
53.
The fundamental dignity of each person,
therefore, is neither acquired nor earned, nor does it need to be justified.
The recent Declaration Dignitas Infinita offers
a summary of the Churchʼs thinking on this subject: “Every human person
possesses an infinite dignity, inalienably grounded in his or her very being,
which prevails in and beyond every circumstance, state, or situation the person
may ever encounterˮ 62
— in other words, always and without exception. The dignity of every human
being can be described as infinite, as Saint John Paul II stated, 63] for two reasons: first, because the love
of God, who calls us to friendship with him, is infinite; and second, his love
is absolutely unconditional, in the sense that, even if we search endlessly, we
will never find anything that can erase or deny it.
The supreme value of human rights
54.
The Church gratefully acknowledges that “the
movement toward the identification and proclamation of human rights is one of
the most significant attempts to respond effectively to the inescapable demands
of human dignity.ˮ 64 In this regard, Saint John Paul II stated
that the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, remains one
of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time. 65 It
is “a milestone on the long and difficult path of the human race.ˮ 66 For
this reason, from the Christian perspective, human rights are not an external
addition to the person, but an expression of intrinsic human dignity, which the
international community is called to protect and promote.
55.
Human rights are inviolable, since they are
“inherent in the human person and in human dignity.ˮ 67 Consequently, they are
universal and inalienable. 68 Precisely because they are grounded in
the common dignity of every man and woman, they have practical consequences and
legal effects, for “it would be vain to proclaim human rights if, at the same
time, everything were not done to ensure the duty of respecting them, respect
by all, in all places and for all.ˮ 69 Among these rights, the first is the
right to life, from conception to its natural end, 70] without which it is
impossible to exercise any other right. When this fundamental right is denied —
as in the cases of induced abortion, killing of the innocent and euthanasia —
we are faced with choices that the Church considers gravely wrong. 71
56.
Looking at our own time, we cannot ignore the
fact that the protection of human rights has been exposed to two particularly
serious dangers. The first is that these rights are declared in a purely formal
sense, while technological progress continues alongside covert or overt
violations of human dignity. The second, which is in fact the root of the
first, is the inability to recognize the foundation of their universality,
since we have abandoned “the search for the solid foundations sustaining our
decisions and our laws.ˮ 72 Pope Francis urged us not to
underestimate this last issue. He pointed out that when reason seriously
examines human nature, it is capable of discovering values that apply to
everyone, since they derive from human nature. If this task of inquiry were
abandoned, it is conceivable that rights considered untouchable today might, in
the future, end up being questioned or denied by those in power, perhaps after
having obtained only an apparent consensus from populations that are frightened
or manipulated. 73
57.
Along with a greater awareness of the value of
every human person and their rights, recognition of minority rights has also
grown. Yet, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the rights of a
great many, namely women, are equally and genuinely guaranteed throughout the
world. It is a fact that “doubly poor are those women who endure situations of
exclusion, mistreatment and violence, since they are frequently less able to
defend their rights.ˮ 74 It is, therefore, not enough to state simply that men
and women have equal dignity and rights; it is necessary that this be reflected
in concrete decisions, such as in laws, access to employment, education, social
and political responsibilities, and the way society listens to and values
womenʼs contributions. As long as this gap persists, we cannot say that society
truly and fully recognizes that women have the same dignity as men.
58.
It is individuals that matter, each and every
person, together with their families. Social movements, communal ideologies and
grand political proclamations in favor of a population are worthless unless
they lead to the flourishing of persons — men and women — with their
inalienable rights. Similarly, it is not enough to extol individual freedom or
private enterprise if we then allow a multitude of people to continue living
without decent work, protections or access to basic necessities. The principles of Social Doctrine
The principle of the common good
59.
Recognizing that every man and woman possesses
an inalienable dignity, together with rights that no human power can betray or
nullify, requires us to shape the way we live together, including our economic
and political choices, and the makeup of our cities. From this arises the first
major principle of Social Doctrine that I wish to highlight: the common good.
We can describe it as the social expression of the dignity recognized in every
person. When Benedict XVI referred
to the non-negotiable values that the Church must always defend, he included
among them “the promotion of the common good.ˮ 75 For a Christian, going beyond the narrow
confines of oneʼs own interests and committing oneself, within the limits of
oneʼs ability, to the common good is a nonnegotiable value, as is the promotion
of life.
60.
The Second Vatican Council affirmed that the common good consists
in “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or
as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.ˮ 76 This
definition provides us with a valuable initial reference point, because the
common good cannot be reduced to a mere list of conditions or institutions. It
is not the sum total of individual benefits, nor the intersection of their
particular interests; it is a greater good that belongs to everyone, and it can
only be achieved, nurtured and protected by our collective efforts. We can say
that social action reaches its fullness when it is directed toward this shared
good, just as a personʼs moral action finds its fulfillment in the choice of
the true good. 77
61.
In this sense, we can say that the whole is
“greater than the sum of its partsˮ 78] and that, for this very reason, “the mere
sum of individual interests is not capable of generating a better world for the
whole human family.ˮ 79
Indeed, it is an illusion to think that simply pursuing oneʼs own progress
without caring for others is sufficient for contributing to the good of all.
This view ignores the inherent and specific value of the common good, which is
the result of an “interdependenceˮ 80] that creates a network of social good
that expands and has an impact on people. The common good is a “plus,ˮ the
result of interaction and mutual influence that connects various actions,
initiatives, efforts and decisions. If we were to add up the individual goods,
we could not explain the existence of this “plusˮ that transcends them and, at
the same time, enriches them.
62.
It is the pursuit of the common good that gives
life to a people, understood not as a mere collection of individuals, but as a
living reality in which people learn to recognize that they themselves are
interconnected and jointly responsible for the res publica. In this sense, every person contributes to the
building up of oneʼs people through “a slow and arduous effort calling for a
desire for integration and a willingness to achieve this through the growth of
a peaceful and multifaceted culture of encounter.ˮ 81 Working together for the
common good means having a shared vision. It is clear that there are many
ideological and practical differences among people, as well as differing
interests and frequent disagreements, but that does not mean it is impossible
to engage in dialogue to establish a set of basic agreements that enable the
creation of a shared vision, upon which everyone can move forward together.
63.
It is the Stateʼs responsibility to ensure
cohesion, unity and the proper organization of civil society, so that the
common good can be pursued with everyoneʼs contribution. In practical terms,
this means that public authorities have the delicate duty to “harmonize the
different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice,ˮ 82]
seeking a balance between individual interests and the common good, without
leaving behind the most vulnerable. When politics abandons a long-term
perspective and reduces itself to short-term calculations or sterile
polarizations, then the language of the common good loses credibility, and, at
the same time, social inequalities and divisions grow.
64.
This also applies to international politics. As
the divide between nations widens, a mentality of confrontation and aggression
begins to take hold, and the difficult path toward a more united and fraternal
world suffers new and painful setbacks. In this context, speaking of a shared
journey toward a more just development for the entire human family “sounds like
madness.ˮ 83
Yet we must not lose hope. I invite everyone to conceive of ways of cooperating
and of more effective international institutions, capable of safeguarding the
global common good without compromising the legitimate diversity of peoples and
nations. Indeed, the promotion of the common good can never be separated from
respect for the right of peoples to exist, to preserve their own identity and
to contribute their unique qualities to the family of nations. 84
Moreover, any attempt or plan to eliminate or subjugate a nation is gravely
immoral and therefore unacceptable.
The principle of the universal destination of
goods
65.
“Among the numerous implications of the common
good, immediate significance is taken on by the principle of the universal
destination of goods.ˮ 85 First of all, this principle reminds us
that the earthʼs goods — soil, water, air and natural resources — are given by
God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all, and that every
person has an inherent right to the use of such goods, both now and in the
future. Saint John Paul II recalled
that, “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its
members, without excluding or favoring anyone.ˮ 86 Consequently, “it is not in accordance
with Godʼs plan to use this gift in such a way that its benefits accrue solely
to a select few.ˮ 87
Today, we are called to recognize that this universal destination applies not
only to material goods, but also to immaterial and cultural goods.
66.
Certainly there is a right to private property,
which has its own specific meaning and purpose, yet it is always subordinate to
the universal destination of goods.
According to John Paul II, this
subordination is the golden rule of social conduct and the “first principle of
the whole ethical and social order.ˮ 88 In the Churchʼs tradition, property has
been viewed as a means of protecting and managing goods so that they may better
serve the common good. Since “the Christian tradition has never recognized the
right to private property as absolute or inviolable,ˮ 89] its social function must
not be considered a mere theological opinion, but a doctrine of the Church,
already present in Sacred Scripture and in the writings of the Church Fathers.
For this reason, Pope
Francis reminded us that
solidarity, when lived out in its fullest sense, also means “to restore to the
poor what belongs to them.ˮ
90
67.
Today, among the goods that are universally
intended for everyone, we must also include new forms of property, such as
patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data.
In a context where the wealth of nations depends increasingly on knowledge and
technology, when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without
adequate forms of sharing and access, a new imbalance is created that
contradicts the universal destination of goods. In turn, it widens the gap
between the included and the excluded, between those who can participate in the
digital revolution and those who remain on the margins. Furthermore, care for
our common home and our responsibility toward the poor and future generations
require that the use of the goods of creation and the new possibilities offered
by technology be regulated in such a way as to respect the environment, avoid
waste and prevent new forms of exploitation.
The principle of subsidiarity
68.
The principle of subsidiarity stems from the
very same understanding of the human person that has guided our reflection on
dignity and the common good. If every woman and man is called to take ownership
of his or her own life and to contribute to the formation of society, then
social institutions must also respect and support this responsibility. The
Social Doctrine of the Church refers to subsidiarity as the principle according
to which the role of individuals, families, local communities and intermediary organizations
should not be supplanted by higher-level authorities. Moreover, higher-level
institutions must recognize, protect and promote the freedom and creativity of
lower-level entities, coordinating their contributions so that they can
cooperate effectively for the common good. 91
69.
Starting with Leo
XIII and the beginnings of modern social
teaching, the Church has insisted that neither the individual nor the family
should be subsumed by the State, but should be allowed to act freely, as far as
possible, without harming the common good. 92 Saint John Paul II took up and developed this perspective,
noting that the political community is at the service of civil society and that
the State must protect the common good, intervening when necessary, but without
permanently supplanting the responsibilities of intermediary organizations and
social institutions. 93
Subsidiarity does not justify the Stateʼs disengagement, but rather guides its
actions. Indeed, public intervention is necessary precisely to enable all
social actors to fulfill their mission without being stifled. It is the
responsibility of the political community to create the conditions that allow
individuals, families, associations and intermediary organizations to fulfil
their mission in society, without being replaced or reduced to mere
facilitators.
94
70.
This principle encourages us to move beyond any
form of paternalistic or welfare-based management of societal life, but instead
to promote a culture of shared responsibility in a State that values citizensʼ
initiative, and a civil society capable of forging bonds and mobilizing
energies in the service of the common good. In accordance with the principle of
subsidiarity, decisions are made at the closest level possible to the persons
involved, thereby fostering community life and avoiding people being presented
with decisions that have already been taken. In this way people can participate
in the decision-making process. When families, associations, local communities,
volunteer organizations and those in the so-called “third sectorˮ are
recognized and supported, social life becomes more accessible to people,
services become more attuned to real needs, and solutions are more creative and
respectful of the dignity of each person. 95
71.
The principle of subsidiarity applies especially
in the context of the digital revolution. Here, the highest level is not the
State, but rather major economic and technological actors that exercise de facto power over the conditions of
everyday life. This level, which monopolizes expertise, data and
decision-making authority, involves companies and platforms that define
conditions for access, rules of visibility, forms of interaction, and even
economic opportunities. The principle of subsidiarity requires that such
processes not be imposed from above in an opaque and unilateral manner, but
instead be directed toward the common good with transparency, accountability
and meaningful forms of participation (including independent checks,
transparency regarding algorithms, equitable access to data and avenues for
recourse). 96
72.
In this context, States and transnational
institutions are called to ensure fair rules and effective safeguards, so that
local communities, intermediary organizations, schools, universities, religious
institutions and associations have a voice and can contribute to the
discernment of choices that affect peopleʼs daily lives, such as employment,
access to services, data management and digital environments. When it comes to
decisions regarding economic flows and digital platforms, as well as the
governance of data and algorithms, we cannot allow a handful of actors to
dictate these processes on their own; instead, we must build forms of
cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make
them jointly responsible for the common good. 97
The principle of solidarity
73.
Having considered the common good and
subsidiarity, I would like to reflect on the principle of solidarity. This
emerges from a vision of the human person generated by faith, namely that every
human being is created in the image of God and is part of a network of
relationships that bind him or her to others, to specific populations and to
creation. Saint
Paul
VI observed that the
obligations of solidarity, justice and charity are rooted in the human and
supernatural fraternal bonds that unite individuals and populations. 98
Fraternity is not merely an aspiration of believers, but is a social and
political reality to be embodied in communal choices and endeavors. Solidarity,
then, is the concrete recognition that the future of each individual is
connected to the future of all; indeed, “no one is saved alone.ˮ 99 The
close link between subsidiarity and solidarity thereby becomes evident. It is
thus clear that there is an intimate link between subsidiarity and solidarity.
When subsidiarity is not linked to solidarity, it ends up becoming merely the
protection of particular interests; when solidarity is not supported by
subsidiarity, it degenerates into a form of welfare that does not foster
responsibility. 100
This interconnectedness also pertains to the responsibility of authentic
participation. Solidarity is expressed when each person, both individually and
collectively, takes part in the life of the community — by staying informed,
engaging with others, making their voice heard and contributing to public
decisions and choices — while also assuming real responsibility so that the
common good is achieved through shared decision-making.
74.
In many areas, we are already experiencing a
kind of “ de facto solidarity,ˮ for
our lives are intertwined; digital networks connect people and communities
across the world in real time, and global economies and communications mean
that events in one place have a far-reaching impact. This network of
relationships, however, only constitutes solidarity in the fullest sense of the
word when it becomes a conscious choice. Faith invites us to see this reality
as a call: we are not merely neighbors to one another, but entrusted to each
other, so that each of us may take responsibility, as best we can, for the
lives and wounds of our brothers and sisters. Solidarity arises precisely when
we decide not to remain indifferent to what happens to our neighbor but instead
to transform unavoidable bonds — economic, cultural and technological — into
paths of sharing, cooperation and mutual care, embracing the idea of “thinking
and acting in terms of community.ˮ 101
75.
The Churchʼs social teaching emphasizes that
solidarity is both a principle and a virtue. As a principle, it expresses the
objective order of relationships among individuals, groups and peoples,
pointing to an awareness of interdependence whereby the good of each person
depends on the good of others. As a virtue, it requires a “firm and persevering
determinationˮ 102]
to strive for the common good, with particular attention to those most in need. Pope Francis noted that
solidarity is “a way of making historyˮ 103] that creates communities and not just
masses of individuals. For this reason, it requires a modest and shared way of
life, the ability to forego immediate benefits in order to create opportunities
for others in the future, and a willingness to challenge habits and privileges
— including those related to digital consumption and the use of technology —
when they prevent others from living with dignity.
76.
In a world marked by increasingly close
connections between people, communities and nations, solidarity also takes on a
global dimension. Benedict XVI strongly emphasized the link between
development, justice and responsibility toward future generations, stating that
authentic development requires solidarity and inter-generational justice, 104] as
well as an awareness of the bonds that unite us to the natural environment.
Today, this responsibility also extends to digital and information
infrastructure. Like the natural environment, the “digital ecosystemˮ can be
preserved or exploited, shared or monopolized. Solidarity demands that
decisions regarding data, algorithms, platforms and artificial intelligence
take into account not only the immediate benefit for a few, but also the impact
on all peoples and on future generations.
The principle of social justice
77.
For the Christian community, social justice is a
concrete way of following Jesus and remaining faithful to the Gospel. In the
New Testament, Jesus proclaims the “good news to the poorˮ ( Lk 418) and identifies himself with the
lowly, the sick, the imprisoned and strangers (cf. Mt 253146. He thus teaches us that justice is born from, and
fulfilled in, fraternity, because the way we approach and relate to the least
among us becomes, in concrete terms, the measure of our relationship with God
and with our brothers and sisters. Justice, however, concerns not only the
behavior of individuals, but also the way in which the structures of society
are conceived and organized. In this regard, the Second Vatican Council reminds
us that every institution is called to serve the human person and his or her
dignity. 105
Social justice is, therefore, characterized by the capacity of a social,
economic and political order to allow everyone — particularly the weakest — to
live a truly dignified life, without leaving anyone behind.
78.
The recent Magisterium has insisted that social
justice begins with the least among us. Saint John Paul II spoke of a preferential option for the poor
106]
that must guide both personal and societal choices, while Pope Francis denounced a “‘throw awayʼ cultureˮ 107]
that generates ever new forms of exclusion. From this perspective, social
justice requires us to look at individuals and communities, starting with the
most vulnerable: the poor, migrants, refugees, internally displaced persons,
victims of violence and people living in urban or existential peripheries.
79.
The idea of “social justiceˮ helps us recognize
that injustices do not arise solely from the wrong choices of individuals, but
also from structures, mechanisms and economic and cultural systems that produce
inequality almost automatically. Saint John Paul II spoke
in this vein of structures of sin 108] that oppose Godʼs will and require a
commitment to personal and social conversion. In this perspective, justice is
not merely about the fairer distribution of resources or the correction of
current injustices, but also assumes a restorative dimension. It aims to mend
broken bonds and reintegrate those who have been excluded, taking into account
the wounds caused by injustices, such as wars, colonialism, racial or gender
discrimination, violence against entire peoples and exploitation. This may
include restoring dignity and a voice to those who have been ignored, fostering
processes of healing for collective memory, opposing discriminatory laws and
practices, and providing concrete support to those who still bear the
consequences of wrongs suffered in the past.
80.
In this day and age, social justice must also
grapple with the environment shaped by digital technologies. The spread of
global networks, platforms and artificial intelligence systems is changing the
way we obtain information, communicate and access services. Justice demands
that we prevent the emergence of new forms of exclusion and deprivation of
freedoms: individuals and peoples hindered or denied access to basic
technologies, communities exposed to invasive surveillance and social groups
penalized by opaque algorithms that perpetuate prejudice and discrimination. In
the digital age, a just social order guarantees everyone equal access to
opportunities, protects the youngest and weakest members of society, combats
hate and misinformation and subjects the use of data and technology to public
oversight, so that the guiding principle is not solely profit but the dignity
of every person and the common good of all people.
81.
A litmus test for social justice today is the
treatment of migrants, refugees and those forced to move due to poverty,
violence, climate change and environmental disasters. The way a society treats
them reveals whether its sense of justice is driven by fear or by the spirit of
fraternity. Pope Francis urged us to see
migrants not simply as a problem to be managed, but as a living image of the
People of God on the move. 109 They are people with dignity, resources
and dreams, who have the right to be treated with respect and to ask to become
active members of the societies that welcome them. Social justice in this area
entails at least two complementary commitments. On the one hand, this means
protecting the rightful hopes of those forced to leave by ensuring safe and
legal routes, dignified conditions for receiving them, and genuine pathways to
integration. On the other hand, it means promoting the right to remain in oneʼs
homeland in peace and security by addressing the root causes that force people
to migrate, including those linked to economic injustices and the climate
crisis. When these rights are respected, migration can become an opportunity
for encounter and mutual enrichment among peoples.
Integral human development
82.
In his Encyclical Populorum Progressio, Paul
VI affirmed that development
is authentic only if it is “integral,ˮ meaning that it can “foster the
development of each man and of the whole man.ˮ 110 In the decades that followed, the
Social Doctrine of the Church reprised and reflected on this expression in
order to indicate the practical ways in which the noble principles — dignity,
the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity
and social justice — are implemented in real life. By “integral human
development,ˮ we mean a process in which the growth of individuals and peoples
encompasses all dimensions of existence and opens the future to subsequent
generations as well.
83.
For individuals as well as for nations,
development is both a duty and a right. Minimum conditions are required for
enabling every person and people to flourish in accord with their dignity,
without being kept in a state of dependence or excluded from access to
necessary goods. Development is truly human when it places people at the center
instead of the accumulation of wealth, and when it concerns peoples as well as
individuals. Justice demands the recognition of the rights of society and the
rights of peoples, and includes a responsibility toward future generations.
Development is not truly human if it increases consumption for some while
shifting costs and burdens onto others, or relegates entire regions to
subordinate roles, preventing them from realizing their full potential. 111
Development is integral when it is not limited to the economic sphere, but
promotes quality of life in its spiritual, cultural, moral and relational
dimensions, while respecting our common home, the diversity of peoples and their
ways of life. 112
84.
Today, the concept of integral human development
is a benchmark for the evaluation of integral ecology, which has become an
indispensable dimension of the Churchʼs Social Doctrine. Indeed, the quality of
development is measured by the ability to integrate justice toward people and
the care of our common home, and to promote dignified living conditions, access
to necessary goods, just social relations, care of creation and consideration
for future generations. It follows that true progress is not what increases the
wellbeing of some by degrading ecosystems, shifting costs onto the most
disadvantaged communities, or compromising the living conditions of those who
will follow us.
85.
Seen in this light, integral human development
is the framework through which we can interpret the changes of our time,
including those brought about by the digital revolution. Technological
innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral, for they can
either foster participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control and
exclusion. For this reason, they must be evaluated by asking a crucial
question: Do they truly help individuals and peoples to become more humane and
fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations? It is here
that the principles of Social Doctrine become concrete criteria for discernment
regarding the issues which we will address in the following chapters.
An examen for the Church
86.
In conclusion, I would like to touch on a point
that is particularly close to my heart. Social Doctrine is not merely a message
addressed to society; it is also an examination of conscience for the Church —
a home and school of communion that is always called to ensure that the
principles outlined in this chapter are applied, especially within its own
structures. In the ecclesial context, the common good takes the form of a
synodal approach for mission at the service of the Kingdom. Indeed, the Church is the “communitarian and
historical subject of synodality and mission.ˮ 113 This requires attention to the way
decisions are taken and responsibilities are exercised. The Final Document of the Synod identifies a culture of transparency,
accountability and evaluation as key practices for missionary transformation. 114
87.
With this in mind, subsidiarity becomes the
guiding principle for governance and pastoral life. It involves recognizing and
supporting the faithful and intermediary ecclesial organizations as they carry
out their responsibilities, valuing charisms and skills and avoiding any form
of paternalism that suffocates evangelical freedom. In practical terms, the
participation of the baptized in decision-making processes and their shared
responsibility in the mission are achieved through genuine, rather than merely nominal,
participatory bodies. 115
88.
For the Christian community, solidarity finds
its source in the mystery of Christ and is nourished by the Eucharist.
Solidarity emerges from communion in faith and the Sacraments: Baptism and
Confirmation unite us in Christ, so that we may become one Body and one Spirit,
one heart and one soul (cf. Eph 44; Acts 432. The Eucharist, which is the
sacrament of unity, nurtures our belonging to the Body of Christ and teaches us
how to share. The diverse sensibilities present in the Church and the strong
convictions that animate each person are a source of richness if they remain
anchored in the certainty that unity is a gift received and a responsibility to
be fulfilled.
89.
Living out justice in the Church means purifying
ecclesial relationships and structures from distortions that give rise to
inequality, lack of transparency and abuse of power. In this regard, listening
to the victims of spiritual, economic, institutional, sexual and power-based
abuse, as well as abuses of conscience, is an integral part of a journey toward
justice, which includes acknowledging the harm done, just reparation and taking
steps to prevent it from happening again. Every power is at the service of
communion and mission. All authority is at the service of the People of God.
This ministry of service is expressed not only through our faith celebrated and
lived in the Sacraments, and in the adoption of a synodal style, but also in
the concrete sharing of goods.
Following the example of the early Church, ecclesial
resources need to be shared so that no one among us may be in need (cf. Acts 434, and so that their
administration may support the mission of proclaiming the Gospel to the
poorest. Regular assessments of the exercise of ministerial responsibilities
should be encouraged, not as judgments on individuals, but as tools for learning
and correction oriented toward mission. 116 Only to the extent that we are open to
the action of the Holy Spirit will these principles of Social Doctrine become
incarnate in ecclesial life. In this way, the Church will be able to bear
credible witness to society that seeking the common good together, with shared
responsibility and fraternity, is not a utopia, but a real possibility. 117
CHAPTER THREE
TECHNOLOGY AND
DOMINANCE.
THE GRANDEUR OF HUMANITY IN LIGHT OF
THE PROMISES OF AI
90.
Having recalled the principles that shine a
light on Social Doctrine, I would now like to focus on certain challenges that
profoundly shape our way of living today.
The biblical image accompanying these reflections is that of a building
project. On the one hand, there is the Tower of Babel, where collective effort
follows a plan that dominates and ultimately dehumanizes (cf. Gen 1119. On the other hand, there
are the ruins of Jerusalem, which under Nehemiahʼs direction are rebuilt piece
by piece as a project of shared responsibility (cf. Neh 26. We are called to reflect on the great “construction
sitesˮ of our era and ask: What are we building? As technological development
rapidly transforms languages, relationships, institutions and forms of power,
we believers must and can choose which projects to work on and in what manner,
so as to safeguard and value the grandeur of humanity that has been given to us
as a gift. This is a choice not only for our future but also for our present,
since artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies are already part
of our daily lives.
91.
I am convinced that the concrete way of living
out social relationships in the light of the Gospel is not established once and
for all, but remains a task entrusted, from generation to generation, to the
Christian community. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church allows
herself to be enlightened by Godʼs word, reads the signs of the times and
creatively seeks new ways for relationships between peoples and nations to
become ever more conformed to the demands of the Kingdom of God. 118 For
this reason, I encourage all members of the Church not to be afraid of the
present challenges, but to listen to one another and firmly embrace their
responsibilities in building a more humane and fraternal society.
The technocratic paradigm and digital power
92.
In his Encyclical Laudato Siʼ, Pope Francis denounced the
growing dominance of a technocratic paradigm 119] in our globalized world: the tendency to
let the logic of efficiency, control and profit alone shape personal, social
and economic decisions. This makes it clear that technology is not simply a
tool. When it becomes the standard by which everything is judged, it begins to
dictate what matters and what can be discarded, reducing creation to an object
of exploitation and human beings to mere cogs in a system driven toward ever
greater efficiency.
93.
This paradigm has spread rapidly in recent
years, fueled in part by the expansion of artificial intelligence, cognitive
science, nanotechnology, robotics and biotechnology. In themselves, these
innovations can greatly serve integral human development and the care of our
common home. Yet precisely because of their power, they can also hasten the
expansion of the technocratic paradigm and therefore require a new spiritual,
ethical and political framework. More power does not necessarily imply
something better. In this respect, the words of Romano Guardini remain
relevant: “Contemporary man has not been trained to use power well.ˮ
120
94.
The danger of humanity becoming a victim of its
own achievements was already clearly recognized by Saint
Paul
VI, who warned that “the most extraordinary
scientific progress, the most astounding technical feats and the most amazing
economic growth, unless accompanied by authentic moral and social progress,
will in the long run go against man.ˮ 121 For this reason, technological progress
— valuable in itself — requires careful discernment of the anthropological
vision that guides it and the ends it pursues. If technological development
advances without a corresponding ethical and social progress, the result may be
an increase in means without a growth in humanity: “having moreˮ without “being
more.ˮ In such a scenario, there is a risk that individuals will be evaluated
principally according to the outcomes they produce. 122
95.
Here, we must recognize another crucial aspect,
which I have noted earlier. In many cases within the digital context, control
over platforms, infrastructure, data and computing power does not rest with
States, but with major economic and technological actors. These entities
effectively set the conditions for access, determine the rules of visibility
and shape the very possibilities for participation. When such power is
concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public
oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise
to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities.
96.
Faced with this concentration of power in the
digital world, the criteria for judgment and discernment in this new situation
are the noble principles of Social Doctrine: the inalienable dignity of the
human person, the common good, the universal destination of goods,
subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. They demand that we assess whether
the power of digital infrastructures and algorithms truly fosters participation
and responsibility, protects the vulnerable, ensures fair access to
opportunities and remains directed toward the good of all. On this basis, we
can now examine more closely what artificial intelligence is, the possibilities
it opens up and the risks it entails.
Artificial intelligence
97.
It is not my intention here to offer a
comprehensive treatment of artificial intelligence, nor to give an overview of
the extensive relevant literature, since authoritative contributions already
exist, including within the ecclesial context. 123 I
limit myself to recalling a few essential elements for a moral and social
discernment that safeguards the primacy of the human person, in order to ensure
that it will always be human intelligence, with its conscience and freedom,
that guides technical innovations and responsibly determines their use and
limits.
98.
It is appropriate to preface this discussion
with two considerations. First, any statement regarding AI risks becoming
quickly outdated, given the remarkable pace at which these systems are
developing. Second, all of us, including those who design them, possess only a
limited understanding of their actual functioning. Indeed, current AI systems
are more “cultivatedˮ than “built,ˮ for developers do not directly design every
detail, but instead create a framework within which the intelligence “grows.ˮ
As a result, fundamental scientific aspects — such as the internal
representations and computational processes of these systems — remain, at
present, unknown. There thus emerges an urgent need for a twofold commitment:
on the one hand, a deepening of scientific research; on the other, the exercise
of moral and spiritual discernment.
99.
It is not possible to provide a single,
comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated, however, is that we must
avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligenceˮ with that of
human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human
intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and
computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this
power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial
intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel
joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within
what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral
conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning
of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate
language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and
understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the
affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow
in wisdom. Even when these tools are described as capable of “learning,ˮ their
way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the
experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over
time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form
of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very
effective, but does not imply inner growth.
A valuable tool that requires vigilance
100.
In light of what has been said, we can better
understand why AI can be a valuable tool and, at the same time, why it calls
for a measured and vigilant approach. In recent years, its private use has
expanded significantly, prompting growing reflection on both the opportunities
it offers and the risks tied to its rapid spread. In personal use, three
aspects in particular deserve careful consideration: the ease with which
results are obtained, the impression of objectivity and the simulation of human
communication. The speed and simplicity with which information, complex
analyses, media content and practical assistance can be accessed undoubtedly
makes life easier. Yet they can also encourage excessive reliance and the
search for ready-made answers, and weaken personal creativity and judgment. The
apparent objectivity of the responses and suggestions these systems provide can
lead us to overlook the fact that they reflect the cultural assumptions of
those who designed and trained them, with all their strengths and limitations.
The artificial imitation of positive human communication — words of advice,
empathy, friendship and even love — can be engaging and at times genuinely
helpful. However, for less discerning users, it can also be misleading,
creating the illusion of a relationship with a real personal subject. When
words are simulated, they do not build genuine relationships, but only their
appearance. The artificial imitation of care or support can become particularly
risky when it enters contexts where real relationships and emotional bonds are
lacking. Here, the danger is not so much that a person may believe they are
communicating with another person, but rather that they may gradually lose the
very desire to form genuine human connections.
101.
Broadening our perspective to the use of AI in
society, we see that it is now embedded in decision-making processes across
many sectors and at multiple levels: in communication, management and control.
The gains in efficiency and the potential to improve certain services are
clear, yet rapidly and uncritically adopting them exposes us to a range of
risks, including the tendency to overlook the environmental impact. Current AI
systems require enormous amounts of energy and water, significantly influencing
carbon dioxide emissions, and place heavy demands on natural resources. As
their complexity increases, especially in the case of large language models,
the need for computing power and storage capacity grows too, which requires an
extensive network of machines, cables, data centers and energy-intensive
infrastructure. For this reason, it is essential to develop more sustainable
technological solutions that reduce environmental impact and help protect our
common home. 124
Responsibility,
transparency and the governance of AI
102.
The use of AI is never a purely technical
matter: when it enters processes that affect peopleʼs lives, it touches on
rights, opportunities, status and freedom. Important and sensitive decisions —
concerning employment, credit, access to public services or even a personʼs
reputation — risk being fully delegated to automated systems that do not know
“compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able
to change,ˮ 125]
and can therefore give rise to new forms of exclusion. There are clearly
harmful uses, such as the manipulation of information or violations of privacy.
Yet there is also a subtler danger, for when AI systems present themselves as
neutral and objective, they end up reflecting and reinforcing the stereotypes
or ideological bias of their designers and developers.
103.
Indeed, entrusting an algorithm in practice with
the power to select who is worthy or not, without anyone bearing responsibility
for that judgment, is to hand over the task of redefining the boundaries of
human possibilities. In this process, political responsibility is also lost,
not just empathy toward those excluded, which can, after all, be simulated. The
exclusion of the vulnerable becomes cloaked in a veneer of neutrality and
objectivity, against which it becomes difficult to raise objections. In this
way, injustice goes unnoticed, and compassion, mercy and forgiveness —
understood not as mere appearances but as real political actions — gradually
disappear from view.
104.
From this follows a simple but compelling
consequence: we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral. In reality, every
technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures,
ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations. If a system
is designed or used in a way that treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes
them without the possibility of appeal, then it is not merely a tool “to be
used well,ˮ since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the
inalienable dignity of the human person. For this reason, ethical discernment
cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad
purposes; it must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of
the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it. 126
105.
For AI to respect human dignity and truly serve
the common good, responsibility must be clearly defined at every stage: from
those who design and develop these systems to those who use them and rely on
them for concrete decisions. In many cases, however, the internal processes
leading to a result remain opaque, making it harder to assign responsibility
and correct errors. This is where accountability becomes crucial: the
possibility of identifying who must “accountˮ for decisions, justify them,
monitor them, and, when necessary, challenge them and remedy any harm caused. 127
106.
Calling for prudence, rigorous evaluation and
even, at times, a slower pace in adopting AI does not mean opposing progress;
instead, it is an exercise of responsible care for the human family. This need
is all the more urgent given the frequent imbalance between the speed of
technological growth and the slower development of awareness, norms, safeguards
and institutions capable of governing its effects. It is not enough to invoke
ethics in the abstract; robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed
users and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility are
required. Otherwise, change will be governed only by technocratic thinking and
presented as necessary and inevitable, ultimately imposing rules shaped by
those who control data, infrastructure and computing power.
107.
We cannot be satisfied with merely calling for
the moralization of machines — the so-called “alignmentˮ of AI with human
values — without also having the courage to insist on a further condition: the
possibility of openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved and subjecting
them to shared standards of social justice. Otherwise, those who control AI
will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible
infrastructure of these systems. A more moral AI is not enough if that morality
is determined by a few. What is needed is a more active political involvement
that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating, and of
protecting the opportunities for communities still to be able to participate
and ask questions.
108.
In fact, as with every major technological
shift, AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic
resources, expertise and access to data. In light of the common good and the
universal destination of goods, this raises serious concerns, since small but
highly influential groups can shape information and consumption patterns,
influence democratic processes and steer economic dynamics to their own
advantage, undermining social justice and solidarity among peoples. For this
reason, it is essential that the use of AI, especially when it touches on
public goods and fundamental rights, be guided by clear criteria and effective
oversight, grounded in participation and subsidiarity. Communities and
intermediary organizations must not be reduced to passive recipients of
decisions made elsewhere; they must be able to contribute to discernment and
oversight. Moreover, ownership of data cannot be left solely in private hands
but must be appropriately regulated. Data is the product of many contributors
and should not be treated as something to be sold off or entrusted to a select
few. It is necessary to think creatively in order to manage data as a common or
shared good, in a spirit of participation, as Saint John Paul II already
suggested regarding collective goods. 128
109.
The principles of Social Doctrine offer a
framework for understanding this new reality. In a world where data,
computational resources and regulatory influence remain in the hands of a few,
to speak of the common good means exposing this new form of epistemic, economic
and political asymmetry and naming the new monopolies of AI. To speak of the
universal destination of goods means finding ways of ensuring universal access
to both technologies and the education needed to use them. To speak of
subsidiarity calls for protecting the ability of communities to make choices
and corrections, rather than confining their role to mere oversight after the
standards have been set elsewhere. To speak of solidarity obliges us to
recognize the hidden, often exploited workers, who sustain algorithmic systems.
To speak of justice requires questioning the global distribution of power that
decides who in fact can train these models and who is merely subjected to them.
Likewise, it means acknowledging that social justice is not only a goal to be
safeguarded after technologies are deployed, but a condition that must shape
their very design from the outset.
110.
Finally, I would like to employ the expression
“to disarm,ˮ which is close to my heart. Disarming AI means freeing it from the
mentality of “armedˮ competition, which today is not limited simply to the
military context, but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon. This
entails a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by
the desire to secure geopolitical or commercial dominance. To disarm means
discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right
to govern. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from
dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and
opening it to discussion and debate, therefore making it human-friendly and
restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life. Our task
today is not only ethical or technical. It is ecological in the deepest sense,
for it concerns a new dimension of our common home. AI is already an
environment in which we are immersed, as well as a force with which we must
engage. For this reason, merely regulating it is insufficient; it must be
disarmed, welcoming and accessible.
111.
I wish to address a special appeal to those who
develop artificial intelligence. In one sense, technological innovation can
represent human participation in the divine act of creation. Developers,
therefore, bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility, for every
design choice reflects a vision of humanity. Just as the creator of an artistic
or literary work must consider the values it conveys, so developers are called
to embed values in their projects with due seriousness: with transparency, responsibility
toward affected communities and careful attention to ensuring that what is
being cultivated is a genuine good.
What must not be lost
112.
Having considered the issues of responsibility
and governance of AI, we must now return to our central question: what does it
mean to safeguard our humanity? The risk extends beyond the misuse of certain
technologies. More gravely, the pervasive technocratic paradigm in which we are
immersed, and that is amplified by the digital revolution and AI, threatens to
normalize an anti-human vision. In that vision, the fullness of life is equated
with having more, reducing weakness, eliminating uncertainty and exerting total
control. When efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings
are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as
persons called to relationship and communion.
113.
In reality, elevating any single dimension of
human existence to an absolute is always a mistake. Indeed, disorder does not
arise only from scarcity; even unchecked growth can give rise to
impoverishment. In an ecosystem, balance is disrupted when one species expands
at the expense of others; in human life, something similar occurs when one
faculty claims to be the measure of everything. Thus, intelligence, when
absolutized, overshadows other essential dimensions of life, such as affection,
the will, commitment and relationships. Similarly, technical power, if left
unbalanced, does not make us more capable; it makes us more isolated and more
vulnerable to being dominated and excluded. This critical point does not oppose
intelligence, but serves as a reminder that when intelligence becomes
self-referential, its true purpose of serving life and the human person is
lost.
114.
The quality of a civilization is measured not by
the power of its means, but by the care it is able to offer, by its ability to
recognize the other as a face not merely as a function. The ability to care for
one another is a fundamental dimension of our humanity, one that is learned and
mastered through lived experience. Reading stories to a child, offering company
to an elderly person and arranging a home so that it is welcoming are simple
gestures often rooted in family life. They teach us to value care at a societal
level and train us to recognize others as persons worthy of attention.
Technology can also support this mutual care between people, for example, by
providing tools that help us anticipate and organize things, without
undermining human freedom and judgment. After all, human beings are the
subjects of relationships and responsible for their own decisions.
Underlying narratives: transhumanism and
posthumanism
115.
In an attempt to shed light on the cultural
assumptions accompanying the ongoing digital revolution, I would now like to
turn our attention to certain currents of thought that interpret progress as
surpassing the human condition, and which are often grouped under the labels of
transhumanism and posthumanism. These perspectives form the ideological
background present in some centers of technological power and occupy the
collective imagination in a simplified form, especially in the media and on
social networks. They tend to foster enthusiasm for new technologies through a
futuristic vision of an “enhanced human beingˮ or “human-machine hybrid.ˮ
116.
Transhumanism and posthumanism encompass a range
of currents and sensibilities, making it difficult to define them in a single,
unambiguous way. They can be likened to an archipelago of conceptual “islands,ˮ
distinct yet connected by a common “seaˮ of assumptions, namely the central
role of technology and the aspiration to transcend the limits of the human
condition. In general, transhumanism envisions the enhancement of human beings
through technologies — such as biomedicine, body engineering, devices and algorithms
— with the aim of increasing performance and capabilities. Posthumanism,
especially in its more radical forms, goes further: it challenges
anthropocentrism and envisions a hybridization of human beings, machines and
the environment, even anticipating a threshold where humanity surpasses itself
in a new evolutionary stage. Even when such ideas remain largely speculative,
they gain relevance by altering the collective imagination and thereby
influence social, economic and political choices. 129
117.
From the perspective of the Churchʼs Social
Doctrine, the key issue is not the use of technology as such, but the vision
that underlies it. If the human being is treated as something to be perfected
or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less
desirable or less worthy. In the name of progress, “necessary sacrificesˮ may
begin to be justified, placing the burden on the most vulnerable in pursuit of
a supposed optimization of the species. In this regard, the aforementioned warning
of Saint
Paul
VI retains great foresight: indeed, scientific
and technological advances, when detached from moral and social progress, end
up turning against humanity. 130 For this reason, a clear distinction
must be made. It is one thing to integrate technology within a human-centered,
relational vision; it is quite another to be guided by an outlook that devalues
human limits and promises a purely technical form of “salvation.ˮ
The limit, the heart and the grandeur of the
human person
118.
Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis
today. Everything that appears as a “limitˮ — incapacity, illness, old age,
suffering, vulnerability — tends to be seen primarily as a defect to be
corrected, rather than as a reality through which our humanity matures and
opens itself to relationship. And yet we must remember that humanity flourishes
not despite limitations, but often through them. The light of faith offers
a perspective on reality that helps us recognize what we call the “contingencyˮ
of the things of this world. While it is right to strive to alleviate the
suffering that marks human life, it is also wise to acknowledge our fundamental
finitude, knowing that “religious experience, and in particular Christian
faith, propose that we live, without oversimplification, this ambivalence
between human greatness and limitation, interpreting it in the light of our
original and fundamental relationship with God.ˮ 131
119.
It is precisely within our limitations that the
following find a place: compassion, as well as a sincere concern for the needs
of others; a generosity that can emerge even in the midst of darkness and
failure; spiritual experience and the worship of God. We see this at many
moments when our limits become tangible: when we face rejection, when we suffer
the illness or loss of a loved one, when we encounter our own weakness or
failure. Mysteriously, it is precisely in such moments that we can discover a new
wisdom, tangibly experience the closeness of others and encounter the presence
of the Lord.
120.
Even when limitations are experienced as inner
suffering, human wisdom teaches us not to deny or suppress it, but to integrate
it. To eliminate suffering entirely would mean, in the end, extinguishing love
and desire as well. Those who love and desire cannot avoid passing through
trial and suffering; and over the years, we carry within us lessons that leave
their mark like scars, the memories of a journey shaped by freedom and failure,
dreams and disappointments. It is only thanks to the interplay of these elements
that the wonders of the soul occur within us, allowing us to sense the richness
of our humanity. 132
To renounce this adventure, both tragic and splendid, in the name of a presumed
transcendence of all limits, could mean many things, but it would no longer be
human.
121.
The moral corruption of our limitations as
created beings — namely the evil that clearly agitates the human heart — ruins
society and life, at times reaching extreme forms of inhumanity. Yet even these
painful expressions of our limitations leave openings for the good. Even when
persons dehumanize themselves and bring about tragedy, a small light continues
to shine within humanity, one that can be rekindled, with Godʼs grace, along
paths of conversion and reconciliation. As Viktor Frankl rightly observed, in
moments of horror, “we have come to know man as he really is. After all, man is
that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that
being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lordʼs Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips.ˮ 133
122.
Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish
us but opens us to recognizing the face of God and others. Indeed, precisely
because we experience limits — vulnerability, suffering and failure — we can
recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of
others. In this same experience, we remain capable of intuiting a fraternity
greater than ourselves and of perceiving injustice as a scandal. Authentic
culture and art preserve this spark, resisting the normalization of evil. For this
reason, certain works have taken on an almost prophetic significance:
Beethovenʼs Ninth Symphony can be seen as a desire for unity; Guernica as a denunciation of
dehumanization; Schindlerʼs List as a
call not to consign the past to oblivion.
123.
History does not appear solely as a record of
human violence, but also as evidence that humanity is capable of creating
institutions that protect our shared life. Over the past two centuries, this
can be seen in several emblematic achievements: the founding of the
International Committee of the Red Cross 1863, whose operational neutrality
ensures compassionate care for all; the long process that led to the abolition
of slavery, which represented not only a legal shift but a transformation of
conscience; the establishment of the United Nations 1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1948, which articulated a shared language for affirming, at least as a common
ideal, the universality of human dignity; and the 1951 Refugee Convention, which recognizes the duty to protect those
fleeing persecution and danger. In each of these cases, the desire for good
took concrete shape in public contexts — laws, institutions and practices —
capable of limiting the abuse of power and defending the vulnerable. Yet none of these developments emerged
without encountering resistance, narrow interests or cultural inertia. Moral
progress almost always unfolds through a long and demanding journey, often
marked by setbacks. We need only think of stalled peace processes or the slow
implementation of environmental commitments. The very fragility of these
achievements highlights how precious the responsibility is of those who
initiate and sustain them.
124.
Certain events make it clear that history can
also change when individuals truly take the dignity of everyone seriously: the
civil rights movement in the United States of America, closely associated with
the testimony of Martin Luther King Jr., or the end of apartheid in South
Africa following the release of Nelson Mandela and his decision not to
surrender the future to hatred. In
different contexts, many courageous and generous women have
also stood out, including Saint Laura Montoya, Saint Teresa of Calcutta,
Dorothy Day, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, Maria Montessori, Elisabeth Elliot,
Wangari Maathai, Benazir Bhutto and countless others from every continent whose
commitment has contributed to making history more humane.
125.
Alongside these public signs, there is a more
hidden but decisive story. We see it in religious communities that choose to
serve in poor and dangerous places. We
also see it in the martyrs of fraternity and justice, such as Saint Maximilian
Mary Kolbe, Saint Oscar Romero and Blessed Enrique Angelelli; and in those
witnesses who embodied the hope of the Gospel as well as human dignity amidst
harsh, often inhumane conditions, such as Venerable Francis-Xavier Nguyễn Văn
Thuận. Above all, it is visible in the “martyrs of everyday lifeˮ who care for,
educate, accompany and comfort without fanfare, such as parents, nurses,
doctors, volunteers and those who remain alongside an elderly person or an
outcast. Their testimony demonstrates that goodness does not advance
automatically, but requires the perseverance, memory and interior conversion
necessary to begin anew, even after defeat.
126.
It is this intertwining of just institutions,
credible witnesses and daily fidelity that sustains hope and provides clear
direction for technological progress without allowing the heart to regress. For
this reason, humanity — in all its grandeur and woundedness — must never be
replaced or surpassed. We can embrace the technological progress that
alleviates suffering and unlocks new possibilities, provided that we do not
abandon the very essence of our humanity, namely the capacity for relationship
and love. This leads to a crucial question: if an authentic “more than humanˮ
exists, where is it to be found? The
Christian faith answers that question by pointing to a fulfilment that does not
arise from a technological divinization, but through Godʼs grace received in
Christ.
The authentic “more than human”: grace and
Christian humanism
127.
The expression “more than humanˮ is not an
exclusive domain of technological promise. For centuries, the Christian
tradition has maintained that human beings are not confined by the boundaries
of their own nature; rather, they are called to selftranscendence, not through
an escape from reality or a contempt for their limitations, but through their
fulfillment in love. Faith recognizes an openness toward the “beyond,ˮ which
originates as a gift from God. This transformation is a work of the Holy
Spirit. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, this process of elevation and
transformation “surpasses every capability of created nature,ˮ 134] for
an infinite disparity separates our finite nature from the life of God. 135
Nevertheless, it remains possible to enter into the heart of that inexhaustible
life, even as we journey through the limitations of this world. The one who
makes this passage possible can only be the Eternal One who gives of himself.
Indeed, it is God himself who overcomes the “infiniteˮ disproportion. 136 In
him, the re-creation of the human person happens. “If anyone is in Christ, there
is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become
newˮ ( 2 Cor 517.
128.
When we embrace the possibility of transcending
ourselves through Godʼs grace, we do not deny our nature, nor do we become less
human. On the contrary, as Pope Francis explained, “We become fully human when
we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order
to attain the fullest truth of our being.ˮ 137 Herein lies the radical departure from
Promethean dreams: what saves humanity is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a
relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms. In this light, a
technology that merely classifies and optimizes what already exists can,
however unintentionally, become an obstacle to change and growth. For an algorithm,
an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, however, an error can be a
catalyst for profound change. A personʼs future is not calculable, but depends
on oneʼs freedom — elevated by the inexhaustible grace of God — and on the
relationships cultivated.
Two cities and two loves
129.
Christian humanism does not reject science or
technology, but embraces them with gratitude and realism, and grounds them
within a higher vocation. The creative intelligence of humanity is a gift that
can alleviate suffering and open up new possibilities, but it must remain
ordered toward the common good, justice, the care of the vulnerable and
creation. In this sense, the true alternative is not between enthusiasm and
fear, but between two paths of development: a progress that serves individuals
and peoples, or a progress that subjects them to the mentality of power.
Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI “make human life on earth ‘more
humanʼ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?ˮ 138 If
the answer is yes, then we can recognize it as an opportunity to be embraced responsibly,
on a path of patient, shared reconstruction, akin to the rebuilding of
Jerusalem narrated in the Book of Nehemiah. If, however, power grows while the
heart withers and human bonds fray, then we are faced with a new form of Babel
— a construction that is grandiose, yet fundamentally dehumanizing.
130.
Questioning this alternative path of progress
and how we interpret and live it is ultimately a matter of examining our own
hearts. The way we understand and shape relationships, work and institutions,
in practice reveals our fundamental values. In the end, it all stems from what
we hold most dear. This is a love that guides us as to what we truly cherish,
both as individuals and as a society, and directs our lives and actions. Saint
Augustine described human history as a struggle between two loves, which give
rise to two ways of inhabiting the world and living together — or two “cities,ˮ
as it were: on the one hand, the love of God and neighbor; on the other, the
exclusive love of self. “Two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the
love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God
even to the contempt of self.ˮ 139 As throughout history, these two loves
continue to contend for dominance in our hearts today. The age of AI is no
exception: the construction of Babel or the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins
within each one of us.
CHAPTER FOUR
SAFEGUARDING HUMANITY
AT A TIME OF TRANSFORMATION.
TRUTH, WORK, FREEDOM
131. Having outlined the context in which the challenge of
technological transformation is situated, especially those linked to AI and to
transhumanist and posthumanist currents, we cannot remain at the level of
general analysis alone. When languages and tools change, so do everyday actions
and social relationships. For this reason, we must focus on certain areas in
which these transformations have particularly concrete, and at times tragic,
consequences. In light of the principles of the Churchʼs Social Doctrine, the
digital transformation invites us to rediscover truth as a common good, to
protect the dignity of work and to safeguard freedom against all forms of
dependence and commercialization.
Truth as a common good
Truth and democracy
132.
The use of digital platforms and AI systems is
driving profound changes in public and political communication. Tools that
could foster dialogue and participation are often used to construct distorted
narratives and blur the boundaries between truth and falsehood, mixing facts
with opinions. Disinformation did not begin with AI, yet today it finds a
powerful amplifier in AI. The ability to manipulate content, images and videos
exposes people to biased or misleading perspectives. This problem has both cultural
and moral dimensions, since the quality of public communication depends
directly on social trust and, in turn, shapes it. At the same time, truthful
information does not arise from centralized or automated control. In public
discourse, the truth of facts has a rational dimension, as it requires
verification, cross-checking of sources and responsible argumentation.
Moreover, it is deeply relational, built through bonds of trust and shared
practices, as well as an honest exchange with others and with the world. Only
the shared pursuit of the veracity of facts, perceived as a common good, can
provide a solid foundation for just communication.
133.
Those who command powerful technological and
economic resources, along with substantial human capital for intervention,
possess significant capabilities for influencing cultural change. Ultimately,
they can influence a significant number of people concerning the truth about
humanity, the world, the meaning of existence, the family and even God. This is
pure power detached from truth, which subtly or overtly imposes what it wishes
others to accept as true. At its root lies a deeper and often unrecognized “sicknessˮ:
the fact that “modern man is wrongly convinced that he is the sole author of
himself, his life and society. This is a presumption that follows from being
selfishly closed in upon himself.ˮ 140 Consequently, people believe that they
can construct reality, and that whatever best suits their claims corresponds to
what is true. Saint John Paul II reflected
on the consequences of this “crisis of truth,ˮ going so far as to state that
“once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason,
is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes.ˮ 141 In
such a context, universally valid truths, which precede us and which conscience
must accept, are no longer recognized. This led Pope Francis to ask with
realism: “What is law without the conviction, born of age-old reflection and
great wisdom, that each human being is sacred and inviolable?ˮ To which he concluded: “If society is to have
a future, it must respect the truth of our human dignity and submit to that
truth. Murder is not wrong simply because it is socially unacceptable and
punished by law, but because of a deeper conviction. This is a nonnegotiable
truth attained by the use of reason and accepted in conscience. A society is
noble and decent, not least for its support of the pursuit of truth and its
adherence to the most basic of truths.ˮ 142
134.
The search for truth is an essential element of
democracy, which is itself a means of contributing to the common good. When
questions about what is true lose their appeal, and a pragmatism takes hold
that is content with what appears useful or effective, then democratic life is
weakened. After all, democracy does not consist of rules and procedures alone,
but above all of a solid concordance with the facts and a genuine commitment to
the good of individuals and society as a whole.
Indifference to the truth leads, slowly but surely, to a descent into
totalitarianism. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote, the ideal subjects of
such regimes are not so much those who are ideologically convinced, but rather
“people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of
experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of
thought) no longer exist.ˮ 143
Communication and the collective imagination
135.
In view of this, it is important to recall that
communication “is not only the transmission of information, but it is also the
creation of a culture.ˮ 144 The content that circulates within
digital environments shapes how people perceive the world and introduces into
the collective consciousness images and narratives that direct our desires and
influence our daily choices. This is “not a parallel or purely virtual world,ˮ 145]
since what originates online now becomes a part of peopleʼs lives, especially
of the youngest.
136.
For this reason, those who control digital
platforms and means of communication have a considerable ability to affect the
collective imagination and to present a particular vision of reality as
desirable. Such power should be constantly guided by the pursuit of truth and
respect for human dignity, so that the culture fostered on the internet does
not become an instrument of excessive distraction, homogenization or dominance,
but rather a setting in which inner freedom and critical thought can mature.
Toward an ecology of communication
137.
Our first task is neither to demonize nor
idolize technological tools, but to utilize them on the basis of a fundamental
principle, namely that truth is a common good and not the property of those
with power or influence. We must therefore promote an ecology of communication.
On the level of public policy, this entails establishing norms so that the
decision-making behind content selection and its development becomes more
transparent and protects personal data. Regarding social and cultural aspects,
this requires a strengthening of intermediary organizations, serious journalism
and forums for debate, where reasoned argumentation and verification carry
greater weight than immediate reaction. For families and schools, there is a
growing need for new educational awareness and for formation concerning the
proper and critical use of digital tools, AI and online commercial and
financial platforms. In universities, the principal challenge lies in the
integration of knowledge, cultivating both the capacity to connect and
synthesize knowledge in order to grasp complexity, and the skills necessary to
verify facts.
138.
Christian communities, too, are called to commit
themselves to transparency in communication and to the honest pursuit of facts.
Sadly, this has not always been the case. We have witnessed with shame the
emergence of painful truths concerning even members of the Church and ecclesial
realities. In particular, some journalists, driven by a passion for truth, have
played a crucial role in bringing injustices and abuses to light. To them, I
wish to repeat the words that Pope Francis used in speaking to journalists: “I
also thank you for what you tell us about what goes wrong in the Church, for
helping us not to sweep it under the carpet, and for the voice you have given
to the victims of abuse.ˮ 146 Yet vigilance and transparency remain
first and foremost a grave responsibility for the Church herself, and we must
not wait for others to compel us to confront uncomfortable truths about
ourselves.
An educational alliance for the digital age
139.
In an era when truth is often distorted in order
to serve particular interests and communication strategies, the field of
education assumes decisive importance. Yet rapid technological transformations
reveal just how unprepared we are on the educational level. The pervasiveness
of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper-stimulation, which
gives rise to fatigue, boredom and apathy concerning the effort required for
seeking the truth.
140.
Education, by contrast, is a long journey
requiring patience, and therefore needs time for development and for engagement
with reality beyond appearances. This is a fundamental issue because every
technology shapes those who use it. Educating people about the use of AI, then,
involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used. The speed and ease with
which answers or summaries can be obtained risk extinguishing the desire to ask
questions, which is a process that bears fruit only over time. As Plato wrote,
the deepest and most important things are learned only after much time and
effort, by engaging in discussion with others, “striking uponˮ ideas and
experiences together like flint until the spark of understanding is kindled
within us. 147
We must learn, then, how to exercise restraint in the use of AI and to protect
our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle
temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it
is most needed.
141.
In recent years, psychological and psychiatric
literature has documented with growing insistence how early and unsupervised
exposure to digital devices and social media can negatively impact sleep,
attention span, control of emotions and relationships, especially during the
most vulnerable stages of life, at times with tragic consequences. This is
further aggravated by easy access to violent or degrading content that offends
sensibility, to pornographic and hypersexualized material, to messages that trivialize
the body and emotions, and to proposals that normalize risky behavior. Online
phenomena such as grooming, blackmail and the sexual exploitation of minors are
not uncommon, and are made more insidious by the use of fake profiles,
algorithms that facilitate dangerous contact, and AI tools capable of
manipulating images and videos. Having a personal mobile device at too early an
age and using it without adult supervision can exacerbate young peopleʼs
vulnerabilities, foster addiction and expose them to isolation, bullying and
cyberbullying, as well as to pressures to share intimate images or sensitive
information.
142.
It is difficult for parents by themselves to
resist the influence of business models that monetize attention and time.
Therefore, it is essential to form an alliance among policy-makers, educational
institutions and families that is capable of concretely supporting adults in
this task. Far-sighted public policies are needed to oppose the immediate
interests of platforms, concentrated in a few hands, when they conflict with
the wellbeing of minors. In this regard, interventions by legislators are
appropriate for setting age limits, holding service providers accountable
rather than shifting the whole burden of control onto families, and for
providing specific protections against all forms of online sexual exploitation
and violence. Thus can children and adolescents, who are entrusted to our care,
be genuinely protected as a precious treasure. 148 At the same time, it is also necessary
to teach children, adolescents and young people how to recognize manipulation,
defend their dignity and respect that of others in digital environments. 149
The central role of schools
143.
School is the place where new generations can
learn to seek and love the truth, to reflect on the meaning of life and to
recognize the dignity of every person. For this reason, many parents, who want
their children to grow in the capacity to form relationships, develop critical
thinking skills and embrace solid values, place great expectations on schools
as valuable partners in their childrenʼs education. Yet parents have the
primary and inalienable right to choose the kind of education and formation for
their children, in a manner consistent with their moral, cultural and religious
convictions. Today, the world of education faces a number of urgent challenges.
144.
The first challenge is socio-political. Both
within individual nations and across different regions of the world,
significant inequalities persist concerning access to basic education and
higher studies. In many nations, Governments have not yet invested the
necessary resources for guaranteeing a quality education for all, whether by
adequately supporting the public school system or by assisting private
institutions that offer this essential service. When a substantial portion of
education, at various levels, is entrusted to private institutions, access to
schooling may become overly dependent on familiesʼ financial means, especially
in the absence of adequate public support. In the face of this risk, it is
nevertheless important to acknowledge and encourage the contribution of the
many private Catholic educational institutions which ensure inclusive access
for children and young people of every background, even when familiesʼ economic
circumstances would not otherwise allow it.
145.
The second major challenge is pedagogical. Many
educational systems struggle to keep pace with change and to support the
integral development of students. The advance of information technologies and
AI is rapidly rendering curricula obsolete that were designed for a different
era. Meanwhile, the organization of schools, physical spaces, evaluation
methods and the role of teachers themselves must be rethought in order to
promote an authentically integral education that addresses every dimension of
the person. It is necessary to support the ongoing formation of teachers
throughout their professional lives, so that they can engage positively with
new technologies, helping students to use them responsibly, critically and
creatively, rather than passively succumbing to their influence.
146.
The third major challenge is intellectual and
concerns knowledge. Without careful attention, an educational system lacking in
a love for truth may emerge, in which an incessant flow of information replaces
the essential exercise of research, reflection and discernment. As knowledge
becomes increasingly fragmented, it becomes difficult to grasp reality as a
whole, to ask profound questions about meaning, or to develop authentic,
critical and creative thought. Many educators already report signs of dehumanization,
where people may “know many thingsˮ but struggle to find direction in their
lives, partly due to an inability to connect information with deeper knowledge
or maintain a sense of purpose. A genuinely healthy attitude is needed,
requiring rhythms that incorporate silence, in-depth study, reading and
judicious analysis, for without these elements inner freedom may be
compromised.
147.
The Churchʼs Social Doctrine invites families,
schools, Christian communities and public institutions to form a renewed
educational alliance. This takes shape when fundamental principles are
translated into educational goals, including teaching students a sense of
moderation and limits; recognition of the rights of others and of future
generations to enjoy the goods that are either provided for us or made
available by human ingenuity; freedom and responsibility; and a sense of
transcendence and the common good. Schools are not called to follow the pace of
the digital world, but to offer that which the digital sphere by itself cannot
provide, namely a shared time for learning and developing trustworthy
relationships. The dignity of work at a
time of digital transition
The value of work
148.
Since the emergence of her Social Doctrine,
beginning with Rerum Novarum, the
Church has emphasized the protection of workers and the need to combat all
forms of exploitation. Above all, however, the Magisterium has recognized in
work “the essential keyˮ 150] to understanding the entire social
question, since it is through their work that individuals develop many
dimensions of their existence. In view of this, we can understand the great
intuition of Saint Benedict of Nursia, who united prayer and work, showing
daily activity to be a part of the human response to Godʼs call. Created in the
image of the Creator, our own work in some way continues his, for thereby we
contribute to the progress of society and the common good, put to good use the
capabilities we have received, improve and beautify the world, support our
families, engage in cooperative relationships and, through listening and
dialogue, learn to build together something that no one could achieve alone.
149.
For these reasons, work is not simply an
instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a
requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development
and personal fulfilment. In this regard, financial assistance to the poor may
at times be necessary in emergencies, but it cannot become the sole response,
since the goal is to enable each person to live with dignity through his or her
own work. 151
150.
Today, the convergence of automation, robotics
and AI is rapidly transforming the very structure of work. It is said that this
will bring great improvements for everyone. In reality, however, the “new waysˮ
of working are not necessarily better, for “while AI promises to boost
productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to
adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed
to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI,
current approaches to technology can paradoxically de-skill workers, subject
them to automated surveillance and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks.
The need to keep up with the pace of technology can erode workersʼ sense of agency and stifle the innovative
abilities they are expected to bring to their work.ˮ 152 Precisely in order to
avoid this drift, it is necessary to design systems that are centered on the
human person and not solely on performance.
The problem of unemployment
151.
Saint John Paul II recognized
that unemployment is a grave evil. Indeed, when it reaches massive proportions,
it becomes a true social calamity that especially requires the State to
exercise responsibility. 153 Today, amid the “fourth industrial
revolution,ˮ this concern is even more acute, as innovation is often pursued
solely for reducing costs and increasing profits. 154 In some contexts, there
is a legitimate fear of a significant and rapid contraction in available jobs
that would create a chain reaction deeply impacting families, young people and
local economies. In many sectors, this can already be seen in new forms of job
insecurity and inequality, characterized by outsized remuneration for a highly
specialized minority alongside declining wages for a large portion of the
workforce.
152.
It is certainly desirable for technology to
relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks and to provide
intelligent support for human activity. Yet, the protection of employment
opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the
general rule. The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that
systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means,
and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common
good.
153.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that every
real transition involves discontinuities, for it is uneven, fragmented and
sometimes conflictual. Consequently, no single model of change or universal
solution exists, since there are places and situations that require different
responses. Given the inequality that characterizes our world, the spread of AI
and computational systems produces varied effects in different places. Wealthy
societies automate rapidly and chaotically, reducing the need for a workforce
and creating room for unemployment and institutional friction. Vast regions of
the world, by contrast, remain trapped in hybrid economies, where underpaid
human labor and partial technologies coexist without achieving genuine
transformation. These areas become places of precarious labor, and hotbeds of
instability and forced migration. Therefore, solutions must be sought at
national and local levels through the involvement of intermediary communities.
We need adaptive tools, including well-structured models, local initiatives,
progressive redistribution and new rights of access to essential goods. While
not pursuing an abstract harmony, we must build concrete forms of human
coexistence at this time of transformation.
154.
Work remains a fundamental dimension of the
human experience, for not only is it a means of sustenance, but it is also a
context for expression, relationships and contributing to the community.
Therefore, the problems related to work extend beyond the income necessary for
family survival. A society that guarantees employment to only a small fraction
of the population, despite having a high level of technical development, risks
exposing many to forced inactivity, a lack of responsibility and the absence of
daily tasks and stimuli, resulting in human and cultural impoverishment. This
creates a paradox of material progress and anthropological regression that
undermines the foundations of a just and stable social peace. For this reason,
the Churchʼs Social Doctrine insists that access to work for all must be a high
priority for public policies and economic processes, serving as a criterion for
evaluating the human quality of any development model. 155 Moreover, in those parts
of the world where work tends to diminish or change radically due to
technological and organizational processes outside of democratic control, we
must rethink the nature of work and its connection to citizenship, ensuring
that unemployment does not jeopardize social participation.
155.
In light of this conviction, we can better
appreciate the history of the Churchʼs Social Doctrine after Rerum Novarum.
The initiatives which emerged from that tradition, including associations,
trade unions, cooperatives and welfare organizations, have contributed
decisively to improving labor legislation, protecting the most vulnerable and
promoting more humane conditions. 156 Today, however, these instruments are no
longer sufficient by themselves in the face of the transformations driven by
AI, the new organization of markets and the competitiveness that is rarely
concerned with social sustainability. New collaborative efforts are needed
among political leaders, labor organizations, the business world and the
scientific community in order to develop rapidly adequate shared regulations
and protections, including at the international level. 157 Labor unions, which the
Church has consistently supported, are called upon to be open to new types of
employment and the corresponding needs of workers, in order to represent and
defend them. In this context, without bold decisions, the prospect of greater
poverty and inequality looms large, which would leave many individuals
marginalized, stranded and surrounded by the machines and automated systems
that have replaced them.
156.
At this time of transition, it is not enough to
react only when jobs disappear; we must oversee the transformation in advance.
One viable path is, first of all, to establish social criteria for innovation.
Here, every introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by
verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining and participation of
workers. In this way, technology will be oriented toward freeing up human time
and capabilities, rather than producing exclusion. Second, we need proactive
policies that make continuous training and professional transitions accessible
to all, ensuring that the cost of adaptation does not fall solely on
individuals. Finally, there needs to be a corporate commitment to include
quality and dignity of work among its indicators of success. When these
conditions are present, innovation can serve as an ally of safer, more creative
and dignified work; without them, innovation tends to become an accelerator of
injustice.
An economy that values dignity
157.
The labor market is one area in which the risks
associated with new technologies more clearly emerge. It is thus necessary to
remember that economic freedom is not absolute; it must always be measured
against the common good and the dignity of every person. Entrepreneurial
initiative can indeed be a true vocation, generating wealth and improving
lives, rather than a variable that is dependent only on profit. This is
possible when it recognizes that the creation of dignified, valuable jobs are
an essential part of its proper service to society. 158
158.
With prophetic spirit, Pope Francis warned against an economic freedom
proclaimed in words alone, while actual conditions prevent many from benefiting
from it. 159
Economic models that exalt efficiency and individual success often view
investment in disadvantaged people or in those with slower development paths as
useless or inconvenient, as if their futures depended solely on their ability
to keep pace with the “winners.ˮ In reality, a just society requires a vigilant
State and civil institutions that are capable of overcoming the singular
mentality of efficiency, and of ensuring that resources, creative solutions and
regulations favor the most vulnerable. 160 Instead of waiting for the benefits of
growth to reach the poor “eventually,ˮ decisions need to be taken to ensure
that growth becomes inclusive from the outset. The experience of recent decades
shows that in economic and financial crises, it is always the poor who pay the
highest price, while the theories that promise automatic general prosperity
often prove to be illusory.
159.
It is important to move beyond the current
metrics of development — which for more than eighty years have been tied to the
concept of Gross Domestic Product GDP — since these metrics almost
systematically neglect aspects essential to the overall wellbeing of people and
the environment. The development of parameters and metrics complementary to GDP
is crucial for improving the databases used for conducting analyses, political
and economic decision-making and establishing regional, national and international
priorities. The introduction of new parameters will allow for a comprehensive
and timely assessment of how legislative and regulatory decisions impact the
dignity of work, shared prosperity, inequality reduction and environmental
protection. It will also affect the concept of development, educational
processes, mindsets and public opinion, as well as peace, which is only
authentic when based on justice.
160.
In recent years, finance has increased in
importance and has undergone significant innovation, driven partly by the
introduction of cryptocurrencies. The reflections and observations contained in
the teaching of my predecessors, particularly in their Encyclicals, have
highlighted how the financial intermediation sector, “when operating without
the necessary anthropological and moral foundations, has not only produced
manifest abuses and injustice, but also demonstrated a capacity to create
systemic and worldwide economic crisis.ˮ 161 It is likewise the case that income from
capital risks replacing income from labor, which is often confined to the
margins of the economic systemʼs primary interests. Yet savings transformed into credit for the
real economy, thereby creating both jobs and self-employed work, remain central
for development and the investments that must accompany ongoing transitions.
The social function of credit remains irreplaceable. Finance for its own sake
is fundamentally different from finance aimed at the development, creation and
evolution of work.
161.
This perspective needs to become part of a
broader view of global dynamics. While the worldʼs wealth has grown in absolute
terms, it is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands, widening inequalities
both within and between countries. “There are a few who have too much, and too
many who have little, that is the logic of today.ˮ 162 Scientific and
technological advances, even in the medical field, are not easily accessible to
the vast majority of people, as was dramatically demonstrated during the recent
pandemic. While some regions spend heavily on superfluous interventions or dreams
of individual enhancement accessible only to a select few, other parts of the
world lack the essential equipment needed to save millions of human lives. To
think that new technologies will automatically benefit everyone is to ignore
the evidence. Unless transformations at the design stage prioritize the
prevention of new and further disparities, technological progress will
inevitably produce structural inequalities. Today, justice requires access to
the benefits of innovation, including care, knowledge, tools and opportunities.
162.
Just laws and methods of redistribution are
certainly necessary for correcting imbalances, including tax systems that
lighten the burden on the weakest and ask for more from those with greater
resources. However, the pursuit of social justice should not be considered a
separate issue that follows only after the production of wealth, as if the
economy existed solely to create wealth, with politicians only intervening
afterwards in order to distribute it. Indeed, justice concerns every phase of
economic activity, from resource acquisition to financing, and from production
to consumption; every choice has moral consequences. 163
163.
More than ever, in the age of AI and robotics,
it is no longer possible to rely solely on the “invisible handˮ of the market. 164 Politics
has the task of orientating economies and technologies to the common good,
promoting dignified work, social inclusion and an equitable distribution of the
benefits of innovation. Since many economic decisions transcend national
borders, there is also a need for international cooperation capable of defining
common strategies, especially in favor of the most vulnerable countries and
people, in order to promote development and overcome welfare dependency. The
thinking behind these choices is the immeasurable dignity of every person, the
common good and a world truly governed for everyone. The interdependence
between peace and development, as Saint
Paul
VI prophetically wrote in
1967, 165]
remains applicable today, for prosperity contributes to building and
reinforcing peace only if it is widespread, inclusive and sustainable.
164.
In practical terms, in the age of AI and
robotics, ensuring that the economy favors human dignity means adopting certain
criteria for firm action. First, transparency and accountability: when data and
algorithms influence credit distribution, personnel selection or access to
services and opportunities, it is necessary that decisions be understandable,
contestable and subject to oversight, so that individuals are not reduced to
mere profiles. Second, inclusion and access: the benefits of innovation must be
paired with investments in skills, infrastructure and essential services to
ensure that technology does not widen the gap between those who have and those
who have not. Finally, measures to ensure equity: taxation, social protection
and industrial policies must correct the imbalances created by the
concentration of wealth and power. Indeed, these criteria do not constitute a
curb on innovation; instead they make it civilized and humane.
Families and young people: the social conditions
for hope
165.
The family is a primary social good. Founded on
the enduring union between a man and a woman, it is the first environment in
which all persons develop their potential, become aware of their dignity and
learn the earliest forms of truth and goodness, internalizing the habits that
prepare them for life in society. 166 As the first natural society, endowed
with foundational rights, the family is the fundamental and irreplaceable cell
of every community organization. 167 Consequently, when political projects
and major economic decisions relegate the family to a marginal or secondary
role, the authentic growth of the entire social body is compromised. 168
166.
The family, however, is a fragile social good
immediately affected by the economic and technological transformations
reshaping the nature of work. It thus requires cultural, juridical and economic
support. The devastating impact of unemployment and job insecurity on family
structures is well known. In the short term, it may seem advantageous to reduce
labor costs or maximize financial efficiency, but in the long term this
undermines the very foundations of social coexistence. While technological
successes are celebrated, the social fabric is progressively eroded, as if by a
silent virus.
167.
For young people, job insecurity is particularly
devastating. As the Bishops of the United States of America have recalled, work
is not merely a source of income but a crucial sphere in which identity is
formed, friendships and relationships are forged, practical responsibilities
are learned and oneʼs vocation is discerned. 169 When access to work is hindered by high
levels of unemployment, inadequate systems of training or structural barriers,
many young people find the path to their human and professional fulfilment
blocked. The need to change jobs several times over the course of life requires
that continuous updating and retraining be provided, so that new generations
can competently and independently face the risks of an economic environment
that is both changing and often unpredictable. 170
168.
This gives rise to a specific public
responsibility. The State has the duty to support business activity by
fostering conditions favorable to employment, promoting work where it is
lacking and defending it in times of crisis, since it is a primary good for
families and for society. 171 Particularly in an age of continuous
technological transformation, we need a political creativity that will promote
“workˮ and place the family and coming generations at the center; otherwise our
economic progress will translate into new forms of insecurity and exclusion.
169.
Supporting families and young people in this
transition requires choices that make stability feasible. As has been noted
above, labor policies need to promote continuity and the quality of employment,
countering insecurity as a normal condition of life and encouraging realistic
paths for entry into the workforce and for professional growth. Second,
measures are needed to ensure a healthy way of living, for without a proper
balance between work, leisure and rest, families are weakened and young people
struggle to develop a sense of responsibility.
Furthermore, it is essential to invest in accessible education and
retraining, so that the professional mobility demanded by the digital economy
does not become a harsh selection between those who are able to update their
skills and those who cannot. Finally, social ties must be supported, with
networks and educational communities that accompany life choices and prevent
uncertainty from giving rise to loneliness or addictions. If implemented, these
technological transformations can be navigated without undermining the capacity
to build the future, which is what makes a society prosperous. Protecting freedom against dependencies and
commercialization
Dependencies and societal control
170.
Having reflected on truth and education, work
and families, we must now consider the impact of the digital revolution on
human freedom, addressing risks to both the mental health of individuals and
broader social challenges. The subtler forms of addiction linked to the
“digital attention economyˮ should not be underestimated, since platforms and
services are often designed to capture usersʼ time and attention, exploiting
their vulnerabilities and weakening their inner freedom. When business models
thrive on human weakness, the person is treated as a means rather than as an
end; those who design or finance such systems bear a moral responsibility that
cannot be ignored. There is an urgent need to promote technologies that
strengthen interior freedom by fostering education in digital sobriety and the
protection of minors, thus countering models that exploit vulnerability.
171.
A further risk, less visible but no less
serious, is that of social control made possible by the massive collection of
data and use of algorithmic systems. When every action—movements, purchases,
relationships and preferences—leaves a trace, a new form of power emerges,
namely the power to profile, predict and influence behavior, often without
individuals being fully aware of it. If such kinds of data are used to make
decisions affecting concrete opportunities — such as access to credit,
employment or essential services — there is a risk of undermining freedom and
discriminating against the most vulnerable. Furthermore, control is exercised
not only through explicit prohibitions, but also through the architecture of
visibility: what is amplified or rendered invisible, what is rewarded or
penalized, ultimately shapes opinions and choices, fostering conformity and
self-censorship. For this reason, freedom in the digital age is not merely a
matter of interiority but also a public concern. It calls for clear rules,
transparency, the possibility of recourse and proportionate limits on the use
of intrusive technologies, so that technology will remain at the service of the
human person and not become a form of control over consciences.
172.
At the root of these problems lies a
technocratic and post-humanist mentality that tends to regard the human person
as an object to be manipulated or a resource to be optimized, 172]
removing all safeguards against the unchecked pursuit of profit. What prevails
is efficiency, rather than respect for freedom and human dignity. Some
post-humanist currents even go so far as to envision “second-classˮ human
beings, subordinate to the interests of elites who consider themselves
superior. This troubling prospect becomes all the more serious when combined
with technological tools that exponentially increase the capacity for control
and selection. Even certain forms of structural indebtedness, which keep entire
peoples in conditions of dependence, reflect the same mentality, in new forms,
that tolerates relationships of subordination akin to slavery.
Breaking the chains of new forms of slavery
173.
This distorted view of the human person is
reflected today in various forms of servitude directly linked to the digital
economy. Nothing in the world of AI is immaterial or magical. Every seemingly
immediate and flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation,
involving vast networks of natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above
all, people. A significant part of the digital economyʼs functioning relies on
the silent work of millions of people engaged in essential yet largely unseen
activities, such as data labeling, model training and content moderation, often
involving disturbing material. In many cases, these workers are young people,
predominantly women, working under demanding conditions for minimal wages.
Added to this invisible labor is the even harsher work of extracting the
resources required for the production of the devices and microprocessors on
which AI depends. In some regions of the world, children and adolescents work
in dangerous conditions, crushing the materials from which rare earth elements
are extracted. The bodies of these people are scarred, injured and worn down so
that computational flow may continue uninterruptedly. Furthermore, criminal
networks use online platforms, messaging systems, anonymous payment methods and
profiling techniques in order to recruit, control and transport victims of
trafficking — very often minors — reducing men and women to “dataˮ to be
tracked and “packagesˮ to be moved around within the same digital circuits that
support much of the global economy. This reality deeply challenges the moral
conscience of our time. It is not enough to invoke efficiency, nor to celebrate
the benefits of innovation, if they are built on a chain of exploitation that
remains deliberately hidden. If technology promises emancipation, yet produces
new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the
fundamental principle of human dignity.
174.
The fight against new forms of slavery is a
decisive test for the ethical discernment of AI and digital transformation. In
continuity with the tradition inaugurated by Leo
XIII, the Church renews her firm condemnation
of all forms of slavery, trafficking and the commodification of persons. She
likewise highlights the urgent need for reflection and action that keep the
inalienable dignity of every human being and the common good, as both the focus
and goal of society, as well as the guiding criteria for every personal, social
and political choice. Without this ethical and humanizing reflection, the
growing power of digital systems could lead us toward new atrocities that are no
less shameful than those of the past that we now deplore, while we continue to
present ourselves as “advancedˮ and “civilizedˮ societies.
175.
Human trafficking must be recognized as a
contemporary form of slavery and a grave violation of human dignity. Failing to
respond firmly, or tolerating these practices in any way, is in some way to
become complicit in todayʼs sins, which are akin to those of the past when
slavery was being concealed and justified. 173
176.
In the development of her doctrine, the Church
has gradually come to a deeper awareness of the gravity of these issues. It is
true that past events cannot be judged anachronistically, as though the moral
criteria that matured over time had always been available. Yet neither can we
deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the Church came to
denounce the scourge of slavery. In antiquity and the Middle Ages many
individuals and even ecclesiastical institutions had slaves. Already in the
early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to requests from
Sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms
of subjugation, and, in certain cases, the enslavement of “infidels.ˮ 174 It
was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal
condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated, notably under Pope
Leo
XIII. 175 This development offers a
clear example of the Churchʼs growth in understanding the perennial truths of
Revelation that she safeguards. Although there was not always consistency in
practice — given that slavery was long tolerated before being unequivocally
condemned — there has been a continuous affirmation throughout history of the
dignity of every human being, created in the image of God, even if it took
eighteen centuries for its full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly
recognized. This constitutes a wound in Christian memory, one from which we
cannot consider ourselves detached. 176 It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow
when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in
stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the
Lord. For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon.
177.
This is why the memory of past complicity and
blindness in the face of the injustice of slavery becomes a call to vigilance.
What we have learned must be translated into discernment and responsibility in
the present. If we want to avoid the need to ask for pardon again in the future
for having failed to respect the treasure of human dignity that is required by
our faith, it falls to us today to denounce, clearly and firmly, trafficking in
its many forms and, together with all who are committed to this cause, to
support concrete efforts of prevention, protection, liberation and
rehabilitation.
178.
Even today, colonialism assumes new forms. It no
longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data, transforming personal
lives into exploitable information.
Entire regions, especially those marked by structural fragility and
limited geopolitical relevance, are currently subjected to a new mindset of
extraction: that of health data, epidemiological profiles, genetic maps and
demographic information. These have become the new “rare earthsˮ of power:
vital data which, once aggregated and analyzed, can be used to train predictive
models, guide investment strategies, anticipate crises and, above all,
determine who and what is deemed to matter. Those who control the health data
of entire peoples — often collected under the pretext of aid, research or
innovation — possess a structural leverage over the future, for they can shape
needs and markets. They can also decide, before others, to whom medicines,
investments and protections will be allocated. Here lies one of the most urgent
moral challenges of our time: to ensure that shared knowledge becomes a true
common good rather than an instrument of dominance. This requires restoring to
individuals not only the data that describes them, but also the ability to
decide how it is used, by whom and for whose benefit. Otherwise, the digital
age will not be post-colonial, but colonial in another form.
179.
New forms of slavery are fueled by economic
chains and digital infrastructures.
Therefore, action is required on several fronts. First, the supply
chains that underpin the technological industry and the digital economy need to
become more transparent, so that no competitive advantage is built upon hidden
exploitation. Second, companies and investors need to adopt clear criteria for
preventive ethical verification (due diligence), placing among their priorities
the protection of workers, the fight against forced labor and the assessment of
the social impact of data-driven business models. Furthermore, digital
platforms must cooperate responsibly with authorities and civil society to
prevent communication, payment and profiling tools from becoming channels for
the recruitment and control of victims. When such efforts converge, the digital
environment can be transformed from a space of exploitation into one of
protection, prevention and the promotion of human dignity.
A shared responsibility
180.
The various areas just considered— the search
for the truth in public life, education in the digital environment, the
transformation of work, the fragility of families and new forms of slavery—are
not isolated phenomena. Rather, they reflect a common underlying issue, namely
that if technology becomes the ultimate criterion, the human person risks being
reduced to data, a cog in a machine or a commodity. If, however, technology is
integrated with a wise perspective, it can become an instrument of growth, justice
and fraternity.
181.
From this perspective, the Social Doctrine of
the Church calls for a shared responsibility. It asks that these processes be
guided with foresight: by institutions capable of regulating without stifling,
and protecting without taking over; by businesses that recognize work and
dignity as measures of success; by intermediary organizations and educational
communities that rebuild trust and relationships; and by citizens who cultivate
responsibility, moderation, discernment and a sense of truth. Only in this way
can innovation genuinely serve integral human development, rather than becoming
a source of exclusion and dominance. And only in this way can the promise of
progress be recognized as authentic, because it is measured against the
inviolable dignity of every man and woman.
CHAPTER FIVE THE CULTURE OF POWER
AND THE CIVILIZATION OF LOVE
182.
Having considered how AI is transforming certain
aspects of life and society, in particular the serious implications for human
dignity, we must now turn our attention to the yet more tragic issue of war.
Here the question is not merely the efficiency of new tools, but also the risk
that technology, detached from ethics and responsibility, will render decisions
about life and death more rapid and impersonal, and will present the use of
force as an immediate and viable option. In an increasingly interdependent
world, peace is not simply one issue among others, but a prerequisite for the
universal common good and a test of the moral maturity of peoples, especially
of those who bear responsibility for governing.
183.
The digital revolution is changing the nature of
conflict. Alongside conventional warfare, there are hybrid forms such as
cyberattacks, information manipulation, campaigns of influence and the
automation of strategic decisions. AI acts as an accelerating factor in these
processes, particularly within a context where many technologies are
intrinsically ambivalent. Consequently, what is created for defense can be
rapidly repurposed for offense, and the fine line between protection and
aggression becomes blurred. While AI can enhance the defense and protection of
civilians, it can also lower the threshold for the use of force, shield people
from responsibility and foster a culture in which the enemy is reduced to a
statistic and the victim to “collateral damage.ˮ Faced with these
transformations, we must recall the principles of Social Doctrine — the dignity
of the person, the common good, the universal destination of goods,
subsidiarity, solidarity and justice — for they are criteria for judging
whether technologies truly serve humanity or are subjugating it. We should,
therefore, consider these principles as guidelines for our decision-making.
184.
In this chapter, therefore, I will compare two
opposing approaches, which I have already evoked through biblical imagery in
the Introduction. On the one hand, there is the temptation of constructing the
Tower of Babel, relying on power and pride. On the other hand, patience is
required in order to rebuild Jerusalem “piece by piece,ˮ as in the time of
Nehemiah, by safeguarding humanity and the common good.
185.
If we examine global dynamics, we can recognize
more clearly the spread of a culture of power characterized by polarization and
violence. The modern Babel can be seen not only in the globalized technocratic
paradigm, but also in the remote clash between opposing imperialisms, between
powers that wish to preserve their supremacy, and those that aspire to seize
that supremacy, resulting in a multiplicity of local conflicts. Moreover, there
seems to be no limit to the race — driven by a dehumanizing ambition — to
develop evermore powerful technologies or to secure control over them. Yet,
despite this downward spiral, we can also glimpse a great part of humanity that
is striving to remain human and working to build the holy city of coexistence
and peace. All too often, we are unwitting builders and clumsy architects of
this city, capable of generous gestures but lacking an overall vision. This
building project is slower, less visible and less spectacular, and awaits a
better understanding and greater coordination so that it may become the
conscious and clear responsibility of every community, from families to States,
and the relations between Nations. It is this prospect of commitment, this
construction site of hope, that we call the “civilization of love.ˮ
The civilization of love in the digital age
186.
When Saint
Paul
VI coined the phrase “the civilization of
love,ˮ 177]
the world was in the midst of the Cold War, an arms race and severe economic
instability. In that context, the Church proposed an alternative path to that
of ideological opposition between systems, and envisioned a social order in
which justice and charity are intertwined and love becomes the guiding
principle of economic, political and cultural life. Today, we must resolutely
recover this vision, for the civilization of love is no naïve utopia, but a demanding
project, which consists in translating charity into structures of justice,
giving institutional form to fraternity and regarding others — whether
individuals or peoples — as allies necessary for building the common good. As
the Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti reminded
us, only this social love is capable of becoming a culture and a norm, and
thereby of bringing about a stable international order, transforming mere armed
coexistence into a community with a shared future. 178
187.
This insight proves even more fundamental in the
current context of digital transformation. Digital networks, the globalized
economy and the development of AI create increasingly tighter bonds, linking —
in real time — decisions made in one place to the effects they produce
elsewhere. In this sense, the words of the Second Vatican Council on the growing interdependence between
peoples remain timely, for the common good is taking on an increasingly
universal dimension, with rights and duties concerning the entire human family.
179
The project for a civilization of love, therefore, must undertake the task of
transforming this imposed interdependence into a willed and chosen solidarity.
This is the guiding principle for technological processes: it is not enough for
artificial intelligence to make us more efficient or connected; it must also serve
to build a universal human family, with shared rights and duties, where digital
proximity becomes a real opportunity for encounter and mutual care.
The culture of power
188. In our time, a culture of power is taking hold, in
which the availability of resources and the ability to dominate tend to dictate
the agenda and criteria for decision-making. In this way, the common good of
humanity is relegated to the background and the concrete tragedy of peoples at
war is reduced to a secondary consideration in relation to strategic interests.
This culture of power infiltrates society, changes relationships and behaviors,
and grows by normalizing war, pursuing ever-greater military power, taking
advantage of the crisis of multilateralism and fueling a false realism that
insists that there is no alternative.
The normalization of war
189.
In 1965, the words of Saint
Paul
VI resounded powerfully at
the UN General Assembly: “Never again war, never again war!ˮ 180 We
must acknowledge that, despite the desires and declarations for peace, the past
sixty years have been marked by conflicts of astonishing brutality, often
affecting civilian populations on a massive scale, leading to the death of
innocent victims, mass displacement, social destabilization and long-lasting
wounds. Nevertheless, in public discourse, there was a widespread conviction
that war should remain a last resort, subject to strict ethical and legal
limits, and always oriented toward a political vision of peace. Following
developments in the immediate post-First World War period, a turning point
occurred after the Second World War: peace was made the focus of the
international order, as attested in particular by the United Nations Charter,
with the intention to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.ˮ 181 Likewise,
many national constitutions restricted the use of force to extreme and strictly
limited circumstances. Even during the Cold War, despite the existence of
serious conflicts, there remained the awareness that a new world war had to be
avoided at all costs.
190.
Today, however, we are witnessing a real
paradigm shift in public discourse and in decisions regarding rearmament, with
a troubling revival of war as an instrument of international politics, while
the very ethical principles that had previously limited its use are being
eroded. Regional conflicts that drag on over time, escalating tensions and
reciprocal threats are becoming almost commonplace, and forms of conflict
driven by the desire for territorial expansion that were thought to be overcome
are reemerging. Public opinion is gradually being shaped and conditioned by
polarizing media narratives, which are often amplified by algorithms that
prioritize conflict and confrontation.
191.
We are also witnessing a disconcerting loss of
historical memory, as first-hand accounts of the Holocaust and the two World
Wars are disappearing. This leads to a selective or distorted rewriting of the
past, in a context where fake news and the manipulation of narratives obscure
the lessons that have been learned. Without a living memory of the horrors of
war, political decisions risk being made on the basis of power alone, without
any consideration for the long-term consequences.
192.
To all of this, the media and digital dimensions
are adding new and decisive elements. Communication networks, fragmented
information environments and algorithms that reward conflict can magnify
polarization and resentment, increase propaganda and make shared discernment
more difficult. Thus, war is not only fought, but also culturally conditioned
through simplistic narratives, a friend-or-foe mentality, disinformation and
fear. When historical memory fades and the ethical principles that protect
civilians and the most vulnerable are weakened, it becomes easier to justify
violence as necessary, inevitable or even “sanitized.ˮ It is in this context
that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no
longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval
between conflicts. Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to
self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just
warˮ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is
now outdated. 182 Humanity possesses far more effective and
capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as
dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons
reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for
civilian populations.
Force without limits
193.
The growth of the military-industrial complex
has become a defining feature of the current political landscape and has become
a key sector in the economy of various countries. The close link between
economic interests, the military apparatus and political decisions produces an
“armed nation,ˮ in which war appears as a natural extension of politics, and
the arms market becomes an autonomous driving force behind military decisions.
Nor can we ignore the enormous economic interests behind war. The armaments industry,
and countries that supply weapons, profit from a market that thrives precisely
on conflicts. In this sense, there are also financial interests that contribute
to fueling tensions in various regions of the world.
194.
Military arsenals are receiving renewed
attention. In the past, recognition of the threat posed by weapons capable of
destroying all of humanity had promoted paths toward détente and disarmament negotiations. Unfortunately, this approach
has been left behind, and the evolution of nuclear arsenals — including the
prospect of its “tacticalˮ use — makes the use of such weapons seem less
improbable. In this context, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons,
which came into force in 2021 with the support of over seventy countries, is an
important step. However, it risks remaining largely symbolic since the major
nuclear powers have not agreed to it. This has led to the widespread yet
erroneous belief that nuclear deterrence is an indispensable prerequisite for
security. This has also contributed to a new arms race, which is hard to
control and accompanied by the gradual dismantling of nuclear reduction
agreements, as well as the development of “miniaturizedˮ weapons, that make
their use seem like a more viable option.
195.
The same logic applies to conventional warfare.
Military force, weak diplomatic initiatives and the complexity of the interests
at stake contribute to conflicts that tend to become protracted, with extremely
high human and environmental costs. It is much easier to start a war than to
stop it, and yet, discussion on conflict prevention remains tragically
marginal.
196.
The situation is further destabilized by the
presence of new armed operatives, such as jihadist groups, private militias and
criminal networks that mark the end of the Stateʼs monopoly on the use of
force. Often these groups intertwine vague ideological motivations with
concrete economic interests, transforming war into a “way of lifeˮ for entire
generations of young people and children. Here, the objective is no longer a
definitive victory, but the perpetuation of conflict as a source of power and
income.
Weapons and artificial intelligence
197.
The above-mentioned scenario is linked to the
unceasing development of weapons systems, particularly those involving AI. The
Holy See has recently observed that the growing ease with which autonomous
weapons systems can be deployed makes war more “feasibleˮ and less subject to
human control. This violates the principle that armed force should be used only
as a last resort in cases of legitimate self-defense. 183 For this reason, the
development and use of AI in warfare must be subject to the most rigorous
ethical constraints, to guarantee respect for human dignity and the sanctity of
life and to avoid a race to develop such arms. 184
198.
Sometimes there is talk of “artificial moral
agents,ˮ as if machines were able to distinguish between right and wrong with
greater consistency than a human being. Yet moral judgment cannot be reduced to
calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the
recognition of the other as a person. Therefore, it is not permissible to
entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems. No
algorithm can make war morally acceptable. AI does not remove the intrinsic
inhumanity of conflict; indeed it can only bring about conflict more quickly
and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to
violence, transforming defense into threat prediction and thus reducing victims
to data. In this way, it will accustom us to the idea that violence is
inevitable and needs only to be optimized. This does not diminish the
importance of instilling, as far as possible, values and sound judgment into
the artificial systems we build, so that they can contribute to a moral ecosystem
in which humans are better able to listen to their own consciences, as well as
allowing AI models to establish appropriate boundaries.
199.
It is not enough to invoke a generic type of
ethics. Concrete criteria for discernment must be established. The first such
criterion concerns personal responsibility. When a decision to strike becomes automated
or opaque, the risk of abdicating responsibility increases. For this reason,
the chain of responsibility must be identifiable and verifiable; those who
design, train, authorize and employ technology must be held accountable for
their decisions. The second criterion pertains to the moral timeframe for
making judgments. While AI tends to expedite the decision-making processes,
speed and efficiency should never be the supreme motivating force for the
irreversible decisions made in the context of war. The third criterion is the
identification and protection of civilians. Any technology that facilitates
attacks without seeing the face of human beings lowers the moral threshold of
conflict. Target selection and the use of force must not confuse combatants and
non-combatants, nor ignore the impact on defenseless populations.
200.
These criteria give rise to certain
non-negotiable requirements. First, all systems used in a war setting must
guarantee the possibility of retracing and reconstructing decision-making
processes, so that accountability and blame are not collapsed into “the
machine.ˮ Second, the decision to use lethal force cannot be delegated to
opaque or automated processes, but must remain under effective, self-aware and
responsible human control. Finally, it is imperative to establish a shared
framework — also at the international level — in order to curb the
technological arms race and ensure robust protection for civilians and the
infrastructures necessary for their survival.
The crisis of multilateralism
201.
The culture of power also stems from the crisis
of the multilateral system. The institutions established to safeguard the
concept of a common future for all peoples and a global common good appear to
have been weakened. This is due not only to structural limitations, but also to
a frequent lack of shared will to support and reform them, or to recognize
their moral authority. Instead of making progress, we are regressing from the
significant turning point of the twentieth century. After 1989, the collapse of
communist regimes in Europe was followed by a predominantly economic
globalization, which lacked an adequate political framework capable of
sustaining dialogue and peace. An almost blind faith was placed in the ability
of the markets to generate prosperity, democracy and stability. In reality,
rather than automatically generating unity and peace, globalization has
provoked fundamentalist, identity-based and nationalistic reactions. The result
is a far cry from genuine multilateralism; instead, what has appeared is a
disorderly and conflict-ridden multipolarism with a prevailing sense of
mistrust.
202.
What has also re-emerged is the temptation to
forge a collective identity in opposition to an enemy, fueled by narratives in
which each party portrays itself as a victim entitled to retribution. The
reduction of complex issues into simplistic categories — “me first,ˮ “friend or
foe,ˮ “us or themˮ — facilitates decisions that are often irresponsible and
undermine mutual trust among nations. The force of international law is thus
replaced by the claim that “might makes right.ˮ Consequently, tribunals that
are competent for settling disputes between States or dealing with war crimes
are often weakened or bypassed, with devastating ramifications for political
culture and social cohesion. 185
203.
In this context, peacebuilding has been
relegated to a secondary role.
Cooperation for development, disarmament, conflict prevention and the
establishment of mutual trust are neglected in the name of power politics. The
achievements of humanitarian law are also being compromised. Indeed, the
principle of proportionality in responding to aggression, the protection of
access to water, food and essential goods, and respect for the lives of
civilians, especially children, come to be regarded as naïve relics of the
past.
A supposed political realism
204.
We live at a time of significant spiritual and
cultural blindness. A false pragmatism urges us to sever the roots of our
history, as if it were possible to inaugurate a kind of “new creationˮ detached
from the past. Even those who cite important moral principles can fall into
this historical nihilism, mistakenly believing that the atrocities of the
twentieth century can never happen again. Yet, in reality, the same dynamics
are re-emerging under new guises. The mentality of armed equilibrium and
deterrence appears to be reasserting itself. Today, however, in contrast to the
two-sided dynamic of the Cold War, the proliferation of operatives and
battlefields makes this mentality increasingly fragile. Escalating conflicts
lead to asymmetric and “hybridˮ wars, fought not only on the battleground but
also on the economic, financial and cyber fronts, where disinformation and
campaigns that feed peopleʼs fears are used to manipulate public opinion. In
many countries, including those in the Global South, increased military
spending is presented as the only response to an uncertain future or perceived
threats. Meanwhile, the real cost falls on the poorest, who see resources for
healthcare, education and social services being reduced.
205.
At the core of these issues is a false realism,
based not only on the prevailing mentality of force, but on the cultural and
anthropological belief that war is an inevitable part of human nature. It is
said that things have always been this way, except for occasional pauses, and
that it will always be so! As a result, the concern is no longer the search for
peace — which has been lost as a point of reference on the international stage
— but rather how and when to take military action. This same argument maintains
that it would be irresponsible not to prepare for conflict. I would argue,
however, that what is truly irresponsible is Realpolitik, the form of political “realismˮ that sows in
consciences and in society an attitude of resignation to the inevitability of
war, and dismisses peace and dialogue as utopian or irrational positions that
ignore the risks at stake. In fact, peace is neither a naïve hope nor merely
the absence of war; instead, it is always possible as the fruit of justice and
charity.
206.
In such a climate, nihilism and pragmatism
become intertwined and end up normalizing grave errors. Religious extremism and
identity-based fanaticism ally themselves with irrational economic policies,
while politics often turns to misinformation and ridiculing opponents, and
systematically cultivating fears and resentments. Thus, diversity is
increasingly perceived as a threat, which fuels a desire for possession, a will
to dominate, hegemonic ambitions, abuses of power and a fear of those who are
different, thereby creating an environment in which new conflicts can develop
almost imperceptibly. 186
207.
This, then, is the fertile ground for new wars
that are perhaps even more dangerous than those of the past, since they tend to
disregard all ethical limits. What was once considered unacceptable can now be
carried out almost without hesitation, while the international response is
increasingly influenced more by the interests of individual Governments than by
the objective gravity of situations.
Decisions now seem to be driven almost exclusively by economic calculations,
justified through media distortions, manufactured enthusiasm and “dreamsˮ that
inevitably shatter, generating frustration and further violence. When people
come to believe that nothing is genuinely true and that principles are hollow
words, then the fuse in their hearts is lit for new eruptions of intolerance
and aggression.
208.
In these situations, the issue of concrete
safeguards to prevent future violence remains an open question. When a culture
normalizes and justifies conflict, a dangerous pathway opens up, in that what
seems unthinkable today may become acceptable tomorrow in the name of utility
or security. In countries marked by serious social tensions, we cannot rule out
the possibility that some leaders may consider armed conflict as an effective
way of diverting attention from domestic problems and a cynical tool for managing
difficulties.
209.
A particular responsibility rests on the
shoulders of those who work in the field of research. All the key players in
this field — scientists, business owners, investors, academic authorities,
politicians and others — must work with a transparent and responsible mindset,
while maintaining an acute awareness of the broader context of the
technological advancements they help to cultivate, including those related to
AI. When people limit themselves to looking only at their own sector, they may
deceive themselves into believing they are performing actions that are morally
neutral and avoid questions about the ultimate ends that guide certain
experiments. In this way, they risk cooperating — perhaps unknowingly — with
questionable projects that fuel new forms of violence, manipulation and
dominance.
Building the civilization of love
210.
The construction of a world in a state of
perpetual conflict is an evil and must be named for what it is. This way of
portraying our current situation may seem bleak or pessimistic, yet I consider
it necessary to do so. The Christian perspective, however, is not limited to
denouncing evil. We view history in the light of the crucified and risen Lord,
to whom the Father has given “all authority in heaven and on earthˮ (Mt 2818. We do not consider the
present as a predetermined fate, but an opportunity for personal and collective
conversion. Moreover, we believe in the power of the Kingdom, which grows from
the tiny size of a mustard seed, which, once sown, sprouts and grows (cf. Mk 42632. While the tumult of
confusion is all around us, goodness grows silently from the earth. In the
words of the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs
forth, do you not perceive it?ˮ (Is 4319.
211.
A closer analysis of history confirms this. Even
in the darkest nights, the Lord raises up men and women who refuse to give up,
who persevere in doing good, who protect the vulnerable and open pathways to
reconciliation. The memory of the saints, righteous people and the
oft-forgotten peacemakers, show us that grace does not magically eliminate
conflict, but instead it inspires active resistance to evil and an astonishing
creativity in doing good. Christians see the darkness and acknowledge it for
what it is, yet they do not merely gaze upon it passively, for they know the
light and understand that the darkness has not overcome it and cannot defeat it
(cf. Jn 15. For this reason, even
when suffering seems to have the last word, Christians serve the good and are
sustained by a theological hope that gives reality both meaning and direction.
We can all do our part
212.
At this point, however, a subtle temptation may
emerge, namely the thought that the problems are too big and we are too small,
and that our choices, therefore, cannot make a difference. This is a polite
form of resignation, often disguised as realism. Certainly, not everyone has
the same power to make a difference. There are those who govern, make
investment decisions, lead institutions, conduct research, educate, produce or
provide information, and then there are those who only seem to live their daily
lives. Yet, no one is without responsibility. We all have our own areas for
action, and it is precisely there — and nowhere else — that we must choose
whether to fuel the mentality of force (even if only through indifference,
cynicism, lies or hatred), or to preserve the mindset of peace (with truth,
moderation, closeness and care).
213.
The twentieth-century Catholic author J.R.R.
Tolkien, in the words of a protagonist in one of his novels, described our
responsibility in this way: “It is not our part to master all the tides of the
world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are
set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live
after may have clean earth to till.ˮ 187 The civilization of love will not arise
from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and
steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization. For
this reason, it is worthwhile pausing to reflect on some aspects of how we,
each in our own way, can cooperate in building the civilization of love.
Without presuming to exhaust this theme, I would like to propose five paths
toward daily and public responsibility: the need to disarm words, building
peace through justice, adopting the perspective of victims, cultivating a
healthy realism and reviving dialogue and multilateralism.
The need to disarm words
214. The first contribution we can make toward a more
humane civilization is to be mindful of our words. “Let us disarm words and we
will help to disarm the world.ˮ 188 Words have enormous power, something we
experience in our daily interactions; for example, spoken words can change our
mood for better or for worse. “Peace begins with each one of us: in the way we
look at others, listen to others and speak about others. In this sense, the way
we communicate is of fundamental importance: we must say ‘noʼ to the war of
words and images, we must reject the paradigm of war.ˮ 189 We must all, therefore,
examine our conscience regarding the words we use, the prejudices we have and
the explicit or implicit aggression that lies within them. We have a real
opportunity to contribute to the common good each time we speak the truth, offer
wise advice, support those in need of comfort, denounce injustice and give a
voice to the voiceless.
Building peace through justice
215. All of us, at every level, can contribute to building
the foundation of peace, which is justice. We do not merely seek any kind of
peace — such as an absence of conflict at any cost — but instead, the true
peace born of justice. “There exists a very close connection between the
justice of the individual and the peace of everyone.ˮ 190 Commenting on the psalm
verse “justice and peace have embracedˮ ( Ps
8411, Saint Augustine wrote: “There is no one who shuns the desire for peace,
yet not everyone is willing to practice justice… But perform the works of
justice, keeping in mind that justice and peace have embraced; they are not at
odds with one another. Why do you set yourself against justice? Here, for
example, is justice telling you not to steal, but you pay no heed; not to
commit adultery, and you turn a deaf ear; not to do to others what you would
not want done to yourself; not to say about your neighbor the things you would
not want said about yourself… Do you therefore wish to attain peace? Then practice
justice!ˮ 191
Let us never grow weary of seeking justice!
Adopting the perspective of victims
216.
There are times when, in order to remain human,
we must set aside our reservations and take a stand. In some conflicts, it is
unjust to remain neutral, nor is it enough merely to claim that we are not
complicit. 192
When we witness the bombing of civilians, attacks on hospitals, schools or
vital infrastructure, and violence that affects children, we are confronted
with scandals that wound humanity itself. For this reason, we cannot limit
ourselves to the level of abstract analysis. Pope Francis encouraged us to
“touch the wounded fleshˮ 193] of those who suffer, look at their
faces, listen to their stories and acknowledge their wounds. Painful events
require both history and memory, the former to recount the facts, the latter to
bear witness to lived experiences.
217.
Giving space to the perspectives and voices of
victims through communication and education helps us to become aware of the
abyss of evil inherent in war, and generally in all forms of violence. It helps
us to reject the normalization of conflict; not to turn away when human dignity
is violated; and to restore to victims the dignity of being recognized and
heard. 194
Paying attention to these voices strengthens the conviction that, apart from
violent minorities, humanity does not desire war. In a particular way, the
Church can be a place of living memory for victims. As Saint
Paul
VI recalled, the Church feels she must make
her own both the voice of those who died in past wars and the voice of the
living who still bear wounds today, so that their cries may become an appeal
for peace and harmony and not a prelude to new conflicts. 195
Cultivating a healthy realism
218. We are in need of a healthy realism that avoids both
political idealism and cynicism. There is a kind of idealism that, in order to
preserve its own worldview, tends to choose facts selectively, distorting and
renaming them. Its proponents eventually, inhabit a reality constructed to fit
their own convictions. Conversely, there is also a debased form of realism that
confuses observation with resignation, arguing that since force prevails, it
will always prevail. Authentic realism does not give up on changing the world;
indeed, it starts by clearly identifying interests, fears, constraints and
power dynamics, precisely in order to determine what can be achieved, and the
measures needed to achieve it. It does not reduce politics to morality; neither
does it surrender to violence. Instead, it seeks viable paths for making peace
more than a mere word, through credible institutions, verifiable guarantees,
patient negotiations, conflict prevention and the protection of civilians.
Reviving dialogue
219.
In order to build the civilization of love, we
must engage in dialogue, for this is the primary means of coexistence between
people and nations, and it is the alternative to open conflict. On the eve of
the Second World War, Pius
XII affirmed that nothing is lost with peace,
whereas with war everything can be lost. He insisted that people must return to
speaking with one another, because a sincere and persevering dialogue always
opens up the possibility of an honorable solution. 196
220.
Indeed, dialogue is an ordinary part of human
life and does not only concern relations between States. It involves acquiring
an attitude that seeks to forge bonds of fraternity built on listening, an open
demeanor, making time for each other and even wasting time together. For if we
experience authentic encounters with others, with those who are different,
strangers and migrants, it becomes much more difficult even to imagine war.
221.
At the political level, there is an urgent need
to shift from the “culture of powerˮ to a genuine “culture of negotiation,ˮ in
which dialogue and diplomacy become the standard means of resolving conflicts.
Giorgio La Pira expressed the hope that “the method of war be replaced by the
method of peace: the method of negotiation, of encounter, of convergence, that
is, the authentically human method!ˮ 197 The awareness that all peoples share a
common future demands that the “culture of negotiationˮ become an increasingly
shared political and cultural commitment, capable of gradually leading humanity
away from the cycle of violence.
222.
To those who have the honor and responsibility
of governing, I would like to repeat the words that I spoke at the start of my
Pontificate: “The peoples of our world desire peace, and to their leaders I
appeal with all my heart: Let us meet,
let us talk, let us negotiate! War is never inevitable. Weapons can and must be
silenced, for they do not resolve problems but only increase them. Those who
make history are the peacemakers, not those who sow seeds of suffering. Our
neighbors are not first our enemies, but our fellow human beings; not criminals
to be hated, but other men and women with whom we can speak. Let us reject the
Manichean notions so typical of that
mindset of violence that divides the world into those who are good and those
who are evil.ˮ
198
223.
In rejecting the mindset of violence,
interreligious dialogue plays a decisive role, because at the heart of the
great spiritual paths lies a message of peace. 199 Whereas those who use the name of God to
legitimize terrorism, violence or war betray his true nature, for to fight in
the name of religion means attacking religion itself. 200 The “spirit of Assisi,ˮ
evoked by Saint John Paul
II and
carried forward by Pope Francis — for example, through his dialogue
with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar — shows that believers can draw upon the most
authentic sources of their particular spiritual traditions, where there is no
room for “sanctified hatred.ˮ
The necessity of diplomacy and multilateralism
224.
In international relations, dialogue is an
irreplaceable diplomatic tool for preventing conflicts and rebuilding bonds of
trust. Faced with the impulsive broadcasts, aggressive rhetoric and power
politics that characterize our time, “the vocation of diplomacy is to foster
dialogue with all parties, including those interlocutors considered less
‘convenientʼ or not considered legitimized to negotiate.ˮ 201 Therefore, every ounce of
humility and patience should be employed in order to nurture even the faintest
signs of goodwill among parties in conflict, so as to advance the process of
peace.
225.
Cyberspace too has become a battleground.
Cyberattacks, data manipulation and campaigns of influence, orchestrated with
the help of AI, can destabilize entire countries even before open armed
conflict erupts. Moreover, in this area, the attribution of responsibility is
often uncertain. When it is unclear who carried out an attack, the risk of
disproportionate reaction, miscalculation and escalation increases. For this
reason, diplomacy must be capable of operating effectively in this new
environment, negotiating shared regulations on the use of digital technologies,
in order to protect civilians and the most vulnerable from “invisibleˮ yet real
forms of violence.
226.
International organizations, particularly the
United Nations, are essential instruments for promoting a civilization of love,
for they can foster dialogue among nations and promote the peaceful resolution
of conflicts, the integral development of peoples, the protection of the most
vulnerable, disarmament and the care of creation. Through such efforts, the
international community can work to reduce inequalities, defend the rights of
refugees and minorities, reallocate resources from military spending to human
development and protect our common home. The Holy See supports and accompanies
these endeavors, while also recognizing that the current weaknesses of the UN
and the international political system reveal the need for profound reforms.
This is not simply a question of technical adjustments, for the crisis of
convictions and values that also concerns the ethical foundations of nations
makes it more difficult to direct multilateralism toward the true common good. 202
227.
In the international context, the Holy Seeʼs
diplomacy adopts the Gospelʼs principle of mercy as a concrete criterion for
political action. This is one of the ways in which the Holy See places itself
at the service of humanity, thereby appealing to consciences in the name of
charity and truth, defending the dignity of every person and speaking up on
behalf of the poor, migrants and victims of war. In this way, papal diplomacy
expresses the catholicity of the Church and contributes to the building of a civilization
of love, where even new technologies can be oriented toward the common good.
Praying and hoping
228. These avenues for exercising responsibility are
sustained by prayer, and in turn nourish prayer. Indeed, for each of us, peace
primarily comes “from God, God who loves us all, unconditionally.ˮ 203 It
is a gift given by Jesus to his disciples on the day of Easter: “Peace be with
you! It is the peace of the risen Christ. A peace that is unarmed and
disarming, humble and persevering.ˮ 204 With these words, I greeted the Church
and the world on the day of my election to the See of Peter. I wish to repeat
them now, and to invite everyone to pray for this gift. Let us never tire of
praying for peace and of committing ourselves to achieving it in our
relationships and in society.
CONCLUSION
229. “Let each builder choose with care how to buildˮ (1 Cor 310. With these words, Saint
Paul encouraged the Christians of Corinth to preserve unity. Dear brothers and
sisters, we have reflected on the world we are building, and we asked ourselves
what it means to safeguard the human person in the era of artificial
intelligence. At the end of this reflection, I would like to propose a sober
yet demanding program of Christian life with which we can navigate this epochal
change in the light of the Gospel. This avenue emerges through contemplating
Godʼs plan, living ecclesial unity by partaking of the Eucharist, building a
world centered on the common good and praying in union with the Blessed Virgin
Mary.
The Word became flesh
230. Our
world is filled with attempts to seize control of markets and spheres of influence,
often shrouded in reassuring rhetoric and seductive ideologies. Yet our hearts
yearn for an approach that is wise and benevolent, akin to that which Mary
praises in her Magnificat, when she
proclaims that Godʼs mercy extends in every generation to those who fear him. 205
This plan of mercy continues to unfold throughout history today, even amid the
rapid and unsettling changes brought by algorithms and global networks, and it
becomes a compass in the digital era for living our lives according to the
Gospel.
231. At
the heart of everything is the mystery of the Incarnation, the Word who became
flesh and dwelt among us. The flesh of the
Son, poor and vulnerable, evokes the flesh of so many
brothers and sisters stripped of their dignity and reduced to silence. 206 Through
the Lordʼs closeness, the gift of peace enters into the world in a paradoxical
way. It does so through the power to become children of God, and is awakened
when we allow ourselves to be moved by the tears of the little ones, the
fragility of the elderly, the silence of victims and the struggle of those who
fight against the evil they do not wish to commit. 207 In this wounded yet
beloved flesh, the Father shows us the true humanity of a life fulfilled
through openness and communion, which leads us to desire that his will be done
on earth as it is in heaven. 208
232. In
the promises of transhumanism and some posthumanist currents of thought, which
seek an enhanced and almost disembodied humanity, we recognize a yearning that
is of concern to us, namely the need for a fuller life, less exposed to
limitations and suffering. Yet the Incarnation opens a different pathway. On
the one hand, old and new ideologies alike urge humanity to overcome
limitations through technology, and to rise above others by asserting
dominance. Contrary to this, the mystery of the Son of God entering into our
human condition promises something quite different. The living God descends
into our history in order to free us from all forms of slavery. 209 He
takes upon himself our weakness and transforms it into a setting for salvation.
There is no moment or human situation that is not worthy of God. “According to
the teaching of our faith, we have and adore, in our mysteries, a God who is
born in a manger, a God who lives and travels in Judea, a God who dies on the
cross, a dead God who lies in the tomb.ˮ 210 The future of humanity, therefore, finds
its standard in the ability to welcome this divine way of drawing near, of
sharing the burden of the world, of transforming relationships from within. “O
wonder… man is God and this GodMan passes through all those stages, endures
all those states and ennobles them, sanctifies them, deifies them in himself!ˮ 211 What
saves humanity is the divine love that descends into the most fragile point of
our history and renews it from within.
233. For
this reason, as a believer among believers, I invite everyone to contemplate,
in the face of the Son of God, the grandeur
of humanity that shines a light also on the era of AI. In Christ, we are
called to cooperate in the work of creation, rather than be disinterested
observers of technological processes that limit our freedom and responsibility.
212
The dignity inscribed in each of us by the Holy Spirit can also be seen in our
capacity to reflect critically, choose and love freely, and form authentic
relationships. No computational system, however sophisticated, can create a
heart that gives itself, or a conscience that discerns good from evil. Even
when machines excel in efficiency, a human face that asks to be gazed upon
remains the center of our history. This human face is the fullness toward which
history is moving. It is the mystery of “recapitulationˮ: the certainty that
the Father has decreed to bring all things, those in heaven and those on earth,
back to Christ, the one Head (cf. Eph
110. In this plan, nothing will be lost that is authentically human. Indeed,
everything will be purified and reunited in the One, who gathers every fragment
of life, every tear and every authentically human achievement, rescuing them
from nothingness and delivering them, redeemed, to the Father.
One body in Christ
234.
The spirituality that we need is a Eucharistic
spirituality, that is, a spirituality of ecclesial unity in love. The
Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery reveal God entering into our human
condition and transforming it through the gift of himself. This gift remains
present and active in the Eucharist, in which the Lord gives himself and
gathers the Church together, so that his offering becomes the principle of
unity and source of new life. It is from this communion that Christian
solidarity also arises, since “union with Christ is also union with all those
to whom he gives himself.ˮ 213 As Saint Augustine explained to the new
Christians of his local Church, the bread and wine on the altar are the
sacrament of the unity of the faithful in Christ: “What is seen is a mere
physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want
to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the
faithful: together you are the body of
Christ ( 1 Cor 1227. If you are
the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the
table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. You respond ‘Amen,ʼ
and by responding in this way you assent to it. For you hear the words, ‘the
Body of Christʼ and respond ‘Amen.ʼ Be then a member of the Body of Christ that
your Amen may be true!ˮ 214
235.
The “Amenˮ that we say in the liturgy, the Body
we eat and the Blood we drink shape our entire lives. The Eucharist “is an
extremely personal encounter with the Lord and yet never simply an act of
individual piety.ˮ 215
In the Eucharist we find a visible manifestation of the reality that we “are
the Church of Christ, his members, his body. We are brothers and sisters in
him. And in Christ, though many and diverse, we are one: In Illo uno unum.ˮ 216 The Eucharist opens us to justice and
sharing, with a preferential concern for those who are burdened by poverty or
marginalization. And while new economic and technological networks can generate
exclusion, isolation and dependencies, the Church — nourished by the Eucharist
— is called to make visible a different paradigm, one that preserves human
connections, gives a voice to the invisible and ensures that processes are
aimed at respecting peopleʼs dignity. The construction site of our time
236.
The spirituality I wish to commend is that of
the “wise architectˮ who, driven by hope for the Kingdom of God, is committed
to building the world for the common good (cf. 1 Cor 310. As I mentioned at the beginning of this reflection, 217] the
task of building in our time must place our relationship with God at its
center. Our rule must be the acceptance of human limitations as a natural and
positive reality, and should be characterized by shared responsibility and a
language characterized by the Gospel. At the end of this reflection, the plan
for a civilization of love can be seen more clearly, and the construction site
appears to be already up and running, thanks especially to the many living
stones solidly united to Christ the cornerstone (cf. 1 Pet 246. In this task, we are called to assume an active role,
without taking refuge in spiritual sentimentality or retreating into our own
little worlds. We must be faithful to the truth, invest in education, cultivate
relationships and love justice and peace.
237.
Let us remain faithful to the truth! Living amid
incessant flows of information, opinions and images, we know how easy it can be
to influence decisions and preferences through increasingly sophisticated
algorithms. 218
In this context, it is imperative to cultivate hearts that love the truth,
prefer what is right despite the most appealing content and pursue wisdom
rather than immediate results. We must always keep before us the truth about
God and humanity, just as Christ has revealed them to us. We must lay aside an
individualistic and technical view of humanity, as if reality were mere matter
to be shaped according to selfish interests, whether individual or collective. 219
Instead, let us cultivate what Pope Francis called a “situated anthropocentrism,ˮ 220]
which recognizes the human being as a creature embedded in a network of
relationships with other living beings and with all of creation. Fidelity to
the truth requires integrating the possibilities offered by technology within a
framework marked by wisdom, which is capable of safeguarding both the dignity
of each person and the future of our common home.
238.
Let us invest in education, beginning with
ourselves! We all need to learn how to engage with the digital world in a human
way, as an integral part of our education in the faith and in a life lived
according to the Gospel. Indeed, we must consider the digital world as a new
continent to be evangelized, one that requires generous missionaries who are
mature in the faith. In a particular way, we need adults to rediscover their
vocation as artisans of education, prepared to work patiently each day, with
the support of extensive and shared educational partnerships. Today,
accompanying children and young people in using technology for developing
responsible relationships, helping them to recognize the risks and choose what
fosters inner freedom, is a concrete form of charity and will safeguard their
dignity. Teaching new generations that technological evolution does not follow
a predetermined path, but can be guided by personal and collective
responsibility, constitutes one of the most valuable services to the common
good.
239.
Let us cultivate relationships! In an era that
favors speed and fragmentation, the human person still yearns to receive care
and recognition from attentive minds, kind words and hands capable of
tenderness. The digital culture multiplies connections and offers new
opportunities for interaction; yet, the human heart retains an irrevocable need
for genuine closeness. I invite everyone to cherish places and times where
physical presence remains crucial, such as shared meals, Christian community
gatherings, time spent with the lonely and serving the poor. These are signs of
a humanity that continues to believe that every personʼs body is a dwelling
place of God and a temple of the Holy Spirit. It is precisely this covenant
between glory and fragility that becomes the criterion for evaluating the
anthropological models offered by contemporary culture.
240.
Let us love justice and peace! The same
technologies that facilitate communication and access to resources can also
support models that exploit the most vulnerable, create new forms of slavery
and derive profit from conflict. Every technical or economic decision should
include spiritual discernment and be an opportunity for assessing whether the
advances in AI are promoting justice and participation or concentrating wealth
and power in the hands of a select few. I would encourage a careful examination
of the supply chains of digital production, the working conditions hidden
behind our devices and the mechanisms that profit from manipulation and war. At
the same time, practical ways of fostering fairness, participation and care for
creation must be found. We proclaim a hope rooted in the One who came down from
heaven to “create a new story here below.ˮ For this reason, those who believe
are committed to ensuring that a greater justice will take the place of
inequality, and that the industry of war will be replaced by the craft of
peace. 221
241.
As we look to the future, I would like to recall
the image of Nehemiah whom we chose as our companion and guide at the outset.
Nehemiah heard the cry of a devastated city, brought that pain to prayer,
discerned before God, asked for help, received permission to return, organized
the work, confronted internal and external resistance and rebuilt the walls of
Jerusalem with the assistance of the people, brick by brick. In this era of
digital transformation, I see in him a striking parable of our own vocation, which
is not to be passive spectators of social and cultural fractures, nor mere
commentators on what is crumbling, but men and women prepared to enter the
construction sites of history — research laboratories, technology companies,
schools, the media, institutions and local communities — in order to rebuild
what has collapsed and protect what is threatened. Like Nehemiah, we too are
called to unite listening and courage, prayer and responsibility, so that, even
when a technocratic mentality or partisan interests seem to prevail, the human
city may become a more fitting place to live.
242.
The image of rebuilding Jerusalem evokes the New
Testament promise of the holy city, which is given to us first and foremost as
a gift. In the Book of Revelation, the new Jerusalem descends as a gift for all
Godʼs people, “prepared as a bride adorned for her husbandˮ (Rev 212. The walls of Jerusalem are no
longer defensive fortifications, but the precious adornments of the Bride of
the Lamb. Its gates, which Nehemiah guarded so diligently, remain permanently
open to all nations. Godʼs presence offers light and life to all. The city is a
new Eden, with its living water offered to the thirsty, and its tree of life
whose leaves “are for the healing of the nationsˮ (Rev 222. As we await its fulfillment, this vision is set before
us as an encouragement — a call to overcome our divisions and to work together
— for this is the way of Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and forever.
The song of hope: the Magnificat
243.
After having considered faith, which
contemplates the Fatherʼs loving plan; love, which unites us in one ecclesial
body; and hope, which sustains our actions in the world, the fourth pillar of
this program for Christian life is prayer. Maryʼs song accompanies our
commitment. Before Elizabeth who announces to her that she has become the
mother of the Lord, Mary bursts into a hymn of praise and joy. Her soul
magnifies the Lord, and her spirit rejoices in God her Savior, for he chose a
young, poor and humble girl for his plan of salvation. Mary suddenly sees all
of history through the lens of this revelation. Nothing has changed around her;
the socio-political situation of her time remains the same. The Romans continue
to control her land, and her people are still subjugated and humiliated. Yet,
everything has changed within her, and this allows her to see what is
invisible. God has already shown the strength of his arm; he has already scattered the proud, cast down the mighty, lifted up the
lowly, filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty-handed.
He has already helped Israel, his
servant. God “takes the part of the
lowly. His plan is one that is often hidden beneath the opaque context of human
events that see ‘the proud, the mighty and the richʼ triumph. Yet his secret strength
is destined in the end to be revealed.ˮ 222
244.
The Blessed Virgin Mary not only teaches us to
recognize Godʼs invisible work, but also directs our gaze to “the points at
which humanity is broken and the world becomes distorted: the contrast between
the humble and the powerful, the poor and the rich, the satiated and the
hungry,ˮ teaching us “to look at the world from a lower position: through the
eyes of those who suffer rather than the mighty; to view history through the
eyes of the little ones, rather than through the perspective of the powerful; to
interpret the events of history from the viewpoint of the widow, the orphan,
the stranger, the wounded child, the exile and the fugitive.ˮ 223 The
Blessed Virgin thus becomes “poet and prophetess of Redemption,ˮ because on her
lips is proclaimed “the strongest and most innovative hymn ever articulated,
the Magnificat; it is she who reveals
the transformative vision of the Christian economy, the historical and social
result that still draws its origin and strength from Christianity.ˮ 224
245.
With the same faith as Mary, let us become
“weavers of hopeˮ in our world, sharing who we are and what we have, so that
the presence of Jesus may grow among us and his Kingdom take shape. In the
humble fidelity of daily life, even the era of AI can become a time in which
the Holy Spirit brings about the civilization of love in our lives. Indeed, the
Lord continues to make all things new and offers every era the possibility of
becoming part of salvation history in the light of the Incarnation. I entrust our
desire to the Mother of Christ, to the Woman of the Magnificat, that she may guide our steps through this time of
change and preserve in each of us true faith in the Gospel, so that we may bear
witness to the grandeur of humanity, in which God has made his dwelling.
Given
in Rome, at Saint Peterʼs, on 15 May, in the year 2026, the second of my
Pontificate.
LEO PP. XIV
1 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes,
22 AAS 58 1966, 1042.
2 Cf. ibid., 11 AAS
58 1966, 10331034.
3 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium,
1 AAS 57 1965, 5.
4 Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum 15
May 1891, 22 ASS 23 18901891,
653.
5 Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate
29 June 2009, 69 AAS 101 2009,
702.
6 Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ʼ
24 May 2015, 104 AAS 107 2015,
888.
7 Ibid.
8 Saint Augustine, Confessions, I, 1, 1 CCSL
27, Turnhout 1981, 1.
9 Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium 24
November 2013, 183 AAS 105 2013,
1097.
10
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes,
36 AAS 58 1966, 1054; cf. Decree
on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem, 7 AAS 58 1966, 843844.
11 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 44 AAS 58 1966, 1065.
12 Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium 24
November 2013, 257; AAS 105 2013,
1123.
13 Saint John Paul II, Apostolic Letter
issued “Motu Proprioˮ Socialium
Scientiarum 1 January 1994 AAS
86 1994, 209.
14 Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ʼ
24 May 2015, 61 AAS 107 2015,
871.
15 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis
30 December 1987, 41 AAS 80 1988, 570572.
16 Saint John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente 10
November 1994, 35 AAS 87 1995,
27.
17 Address to the Members of the “Centesimus Annus Pro Pontificeˮ Foundation 17
May 2025 AAS 117 2025, 696.
18 Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium 24
November 2013, 222 AAS 105 2013,
1111.
19 Cf. ibid., 236 AAS 105 2013, 1115; Francis,
Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti
3 October 2020, 215 AAS 112
2020, 10451046.
20 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium,
13 AAS 57 1965, 17.
21 Cf. Saint Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens 14
May 1971, 4 AAS 63 1971, 403.
22 Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium 24
November 2013, 243 AAS 105 2013,
1118.
23 Cf. Pius XII, Apostolic Exhortation Menti Nostrae 23 September 1950 AAS 42 1950, 657702.
24 Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus
1 May 1991, 5 AAS 83 1991, 799.
25
Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno 15
May 1931, 39 AAS 23 1931, 189;
cf. Pius XII, Radio Message on the 50th
Anniversary of “Rerum Novarumˮ: AAS
33 1941, 198.
26 Cf. Pius XII, Address to the Sacred College of Cardinals and the Roman Prelature
24 December 1940 AAS 33 1941,
13.
27 Cf. Saint John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra
15 May 1961, 23 AAS 53 1961,
402.
28 Cf. Saint John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris
11 April 1963, 87 AAS 55 1963,
301.
29 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes , 26
AAS 58 1966, 10461047.
30 Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Declaration Dignitatis Humanae,
2 AAS 58 1966, 930931.
31 Saint Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio 26 March 1967,
14 AAS 59 1967, 264.
32 Ibid .,
76 AAS 59 1967, 299.
33 Cf. Saint Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens
14 May 1971, 47 AAS 63 1971;
404406.
34 Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 30
December 1987, 36 AAS 80 1988,
561.
35 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens
14 September 1981, 19 AAS 73
1981, 625629.
36 Cf. ibid, 10 AAS 73 1981, 600602.
37 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 30 December 1987, 14 AAS 80 1988, 526528.
38 Cf. ibid., 16 AAS 80 1988, 531.
39 Cf. ibid., 3133 AAS
80 1988, 555559.
40 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus 1 May
1991, 46 AAS 83 1991, 850851.
41 Cf. ibid., 42 AAS 83 1991, 844846.
42 Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate 29
June 2009, 21 AAS 101 2009, 656.
43 Cf. ibid., 22 AAS 101 2009, 657.
44 Cf. ibid., 24 AAS 101 2009, 658659.
45 Cf. ibid., 36 AAS
101 2009, 671672.
46 Ibid., 2 AAS 101 2009, 642.
47 Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium
24 November 2013, 198 AAS 105
2013, 1103.
48 Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ʼ
24 May 2015, 49 AAS 107 2015,
866.
49 Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti
3 October 2020, 127 AAS 112
2020, 1013.
50 Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos
24 October 2024, 167 AAS 116
2024, 1421.
51 Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
Vatican City 2004, 32.
52 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 24 AAS 58 1966, 1045.
53 Ibid., 22 AAS 58 1966, 1042.
54 Cf. Pontifical Council For Justice and
Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 38.
55 Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis 4
March 1979, 14 AAS 71 1979, 284.
56 Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate 29
June 2009, 11 AAS 101 2009,
647648.
57 Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor
6 August 1993, 31 AAS 85 1993,
1159.
58 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes,
26 AAS 58 1966, 10461047.
59 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus 1 May
1991, 11 AAS 83 1991, 806807.
60 Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the
Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita
2 April 2024, 7 AAS 116 2024,
592593.
61 Cf. ibid., 8 AAS 116 2024, 593594.
62 Ibid., 1 AAS 116 2024, 589590.
63 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Angelus with disabled people in the
Cathedral of Osnabrück 16 November 1980 Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, vol. III/2, Vatican City 1980,
1232.
64 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
152.
65
Cf. Saint John Paul II, Address to the 50th General Assembly of the United Nations 5
October 1995, 2 Insegnamenti di
Giovanni Paolo II, vol. XVIII/2, Vatican City 1998, 731.
66 Saint John Paul II, Address to the 34th General Assembly of the United Nations
2 October 1979, 7 AAS 71 1979,
1148.
67 Saint John Paul II, Message for the 32nd World Day of Peace 1
January 1999, 3 AAS 91 1999, 379.
68 Cf. Saint John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris 11
April 1963, 5 AAS 55 1963, 259.
69 Saint Paul VI, Message to the International Conference on Human Rights 15
April 1968 AAS 60 1968, 285.
70 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Evangelium Vitae
25 March 1995, 2 AAS 87 1995,
402.
71
Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 27 AAS 58 1966, 10471048; cf. Saint John
Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor
6 August 1993, 80 AAS 85 1993,
11971198; cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae 25
March 1995, 728 AAS 87 1995,
408427.
72 Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti 3
October 2020, 208 AAS 112 2020,
1043.
73 Cf. ibid., 209 AAS 112 2020, 10431044.
74 Ibid., 23 AAS 112 2020, 977. Cf. Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium 24
November 2013, 212 AAS 105 2013,
1108.
75 Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis 22
February 2007, 83 AAS 99 2007,
169.
76 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes , 26,
AAS 58 1966, 10461047.
77 Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church ,
164.
78 Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium
24 November 2013, 235 AAS 105
2013, 1115.
79 Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti 3
October 2020, 105 AAS 112 2020,
1005.
80 Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 30
December 1987, 38 AAS 80 1988,
564.
81 Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium 24
November 2013, 220 AAS 105 2013,
1110.
82 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace,
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church , 169.
83 Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti 3
October 2020, 16 AAS 112 2020,
974.
84
Cf. Saint John Paul II, Address to the 50th General Assembly of the United Nations 5
October 1995, 8 Insegnamenti di
Giovanni Paolo II, vol. XVIII/2, 735.
85 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
171.
86 Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus 1 May 1991, 31 AAS 83 1991, 831.
87 Saint John Paul II, Homily during the Mass celebrated for farmers at Recife 7 July
1980, 4 AAS 72 1980, 926.
88 Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens
14 September 1981, 19 AAS 73
1981, 626.
89
Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ʼ
24 May 2015, 93 AAS 107 2015,
884; cf. Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti 3
October 2020, 120 AAS 112 2020,
1010.
90 Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium 24
November 2013, 189 AAS 105 2013,
1099.
91 Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 187.
92 Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum
15 May 1891, 26 ASS 23
18901891, 656.
93 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus 1 May
1991, 11 AAS 83 1991, 806807.
94 Cf. ibid.
95 Cf. ibid., 48 AAS 83 1991, 852854.
96 Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti
3 October 2020, 169 AAS 112
2020, 1028.
97 Cf. ibid., 168 AAS 112 2020, 10271028.
98 Cf. Saint Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio
26 March 1967, 17 AAS 59 1967,
265266.
99 Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti 3
October 2020, 32 and 54 AAS 112
2020, 980 and 988.
100 Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate 29
June 2009, 58 AAS 101 2009,
693694.
101 Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti
3 October 2020, 116 AAS 112
2020, 1009.
102 Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 30
December 1987, 38 AAS 80 1988,
564.
103 Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti
3 October 2020, 116 AAS 112
2020, 1009.
104 Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate 29
June 2009, 48 AAS 101 2009, 685.
105 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes,
25 AAS 58 1966, 10451046.
106 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 30
December 1987, 42 AAS 80 1988,
572574.
107 Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium 24
November 2013, 53 AAS 105 2013,
1042.
108 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 30
December 1987, 3637 AAS 80 1988,
561564.
109 Cf. Francis, Message for the 110th World Day of Migrants and Refugees 29
September 2024 AAS 116 2024, 735.
110 Saint Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio
26 March 1967, 14 AAS 59 1967,
264.
111
Cf. ibid., 17 AAS 59 1967,
265266; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti 3
October 2020, 125127 AAS 112
2020, 1012 1013.
112 Cf. Saint Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio
26 March 1967, 14 AAS 59 1967,
264; Benedict XVI, Address to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See 8
January 2007 AAS 99 2007, 73;
Francis, Address to Participants of the 3rd Global Meeting of the Indigenous Peoplesʼ Forum of the International Fund for Agricultural Development 15
February 2017 AAS 109 2017,
244245.
113 Final Document of the Second Session of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops 26
October 2024, 17.
114 Cf. ibid. , 11.
115 Cf. ibid. , 103108.
116 Cf. ibid., 100101.
117 Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti
3 October 2020, 94 AAS 112 2020,
1001.
118 Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
53.
119 Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ʼ,
24 May 2015, 106109 AAS 107
2015, 889891.
120 R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 1951, 89.
121 Saint Paul VI, Address on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the FAO
16 November 1970 AAS 62 1970,
833.
122
Cf. Francis, Address to the Council for an Inclusive Capitalism 11
November 2019 LʼOsservatore Romano,
1112 November 2019, 8.
123 Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the
Faith – Dicastery for Culture and Education, Note Antiqua et Nova 14
January 2025
AAS
117 2025, 159210; Francis, Message for the 57th World Day of Peace
8 December 2023 AAS 116 2024,
5464; Francis,
Message for the 58th World Day of Social Communications 24
January 2024 AAS 116 2024,
261266; Francis, Address to the
G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence: “An exciting and fearsome toolˮ 14
June 2024 AAS 116 2024, 866875;
International Theological Commission, Quo vadis, humanitas? Thinking about Christian anthropology in the face of some scenarios on the future of humanity 9
February 2026; Message for the 60th World Day of Social Communications 24
January 2026 LʼOsservatore Romano,
24 January 2026, 23.
124
Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith – Dicastery for Culture and
Education, Note Antiqua et Nova 14
January 2025, 96 AAS 117 2025,
201.
125 Francis, Address to Participants at the Meeting of the “Minerva Dialoguesˮ promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education 27
March 2023 AAS 115 2023, 465.
126
Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith – Dicastery for Culture and
Education, Note Antiqua et Nova 14
January 2025, 41 AAS 117 2025,
178.
127 Cf. ibid.,
4445 AAS 117 2025, 179180.
128 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter Centesimus Annus
1 May 1991, 40 AAS 83 1991, 843.
129 Cf. International Theological
Commission, Quo vadis, humanitas? Thinking about Christian anthropology in the face of some scenarios on the future of humanity 9
February 2026, 63.
130 Cf. Saint Paul VI, Discourse on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the FAO 16
November 1970 AAS 62 1970, 833.
131 International Theological Commission, Quo vadis, humanitas? Thinking about Christian anthropology in the face of some scenarios on the future of humanity 9
February 2026, 3.
132
“If we devalue the heart, we also devalue what it means to speak from the
heart, to act with the heart, to cultivate and heal the heart. If we fail to
appreciate the specificity of the heart, we miss the messages that the mind
alone cannot communicate; we miss out on the richness of our encounters with
others; we miss out on poetry. We also lose track of history and our own past,
since our real personal history is built with the heart. At the end of our lives, that alone will
matter.ˮ Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos
24 October 2024, 11 AAS 116
2024, 1372.
133 V. Frankl, Manʼs Search for Meaning. An Introduction to Logotherapy, Boston
1963, 213.
134 Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 112, a. 1,
co; q. 114, a, 5, co.: ed. Leonina, VII, Rome 1892, 323 and 349.
135 Cf. ibid., q. 114, a. 1, co.: ed.
Leonina, VII, 344.
136
Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Super Boetium
de Trinitate, q. 1, a. 2, ad 3: ed. Leonina, L, Rome 1992, 96; Summa Theologiae, I, q. 7, a. 1, ad 3:
ed. Leonina, IV, Rome 1888, 72.
137 Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, 24
November 2013, 8 AAS 105 2013,
1022.
138 Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis 4
March 1979, 15 AAS 71 1979,
286287.
139 Saint Augustine, De civitate Dei, XIV, 28 CCSL
48, Turnhout 1955, 451.
140 Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate 29
June 2009, 34 AAS 101 2009,
668669.
141 Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor 6
August 1993, 32 AAS 85 1993,
1159.
142 Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti 3
October 2020, 207 AAS 112 2020,
1043.
143 H. Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, III , New York 1962, 474 .
144 Address to Representatives of the Media
12 May 2025 AAS 117 2025,
681682.
145 Benedict XVI, Message for the 47th World Day of Social Communications
24 January 2013 AAS 105 2013,
183.
146 Francis, Address on the occasion of the Conferral of the rank of Knight and Dame of the Grand Cross of the Pian Order to Mr Philip Pullella and Ms Valentina Alazraki 13
November 2021 LʼOsservatore Romano,
13 November 2021, 12.
147 Cf. Plato, Letter VII, 344b-c: ed. Souilhé, XIII/1, Paris 1931 ( CUF, Série grecque 63, 54.
148 Cf. Address to the Participants in the Conference “The Dignity of Children and Adolescents in the Age of Artificial Intelligenceˮ 13 November 2025 LʼOsservatore Romano, 13 November 2025, 3.
149 Cf. Address
to the members of the Advisory Board of the RCS Academy 7 November 2025 LʼOsservatore Romano 7 November 2025, 4.
150 Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens
14 September 1981, 3 AAS 73
1981, 584.
151 Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ʼ
24 May 2015, 128 AAS 107 2015,
898.
152
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — Dicastery for Culture and Education,
Note Antiqua et Nova 14
January 2025, 67 AAS 117 2025,
188189.
153 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter Laborem Exercens, 14
September 1981, 18 AAS 73 1981,
622625.
154 Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ʼ
24 May 2015, 109 AAS 107 2015,
891.
155 Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate 29
June 2009, 32 AAS 101 2009, 666.
156 Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
268.
157 Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate
29 June 2009, 64 AAS 101 2009,
698.
158Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ʼ 24
May 2015, 129 AAS 107 2015, 899.
159 Cf. ibid.
160 Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti 3
October 2020, 108 AAS 112 2020,
1006.
161 Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the
Faith — Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development, Oeconomicae et Pecuniariae Quaestiones. Considerations for an Ethical Discernment Regarding some Aspects of the Present Economic-Financial System
6 January 2018, 6 AAS 110 2018,
772.
162
Francis, Greeting to the staff of the International Fund for Agricultural Development IFAD 14
February 2019 AAS 111 2019, 309.
Cfr. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate
29 June 2009, 22 AAS 101 2009,
657.
163 Cf .
ibid., 36 AAS 101 2009, 671672.
164 Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium 24
November 2013, 204 AAS 105 2013,
11051106.
165 Cf. Saint Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio
26 March 1967, 87 AAS 59 1967,
299.
166 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter Centesimus Annus
1 May 1991, 39 AAS 83 1991, 841.
167 Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 211.
168 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Letter to
Families Gratissimam Sane 2
February 1994, 17 AAS 86 1994,
903906.
169
Cf. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Sons and Daughters of the Light: A Pastoral
Plan for Ministry with Young Adults 12 November 1996, Washington D.C.,
1996, I, 3.
170 Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 290.
171 Cf. ibid., 214.
172 Cf. Francis, Message for the Celebration of the 48th World Day of Youth for Peace
8 December 2014, 4 AAS 107 2015,
7071.
173
Cf. International Theological Commission, Memory and Reconciliation the Church and the Faults of the Past ,
Vatican City 2000, 5.3.
174
As in the Papal Bulls Sicut Dudum 13
January 1435) and Etsi Suscepti 9
January 1442) of Eugenius IV, and in the Papal Bulls Dum Diversas 18 June 1452) and Romanus
Pontifex 8 January 1455) of Nicholas V. Political and, at times, even
economic needs overcame the demands of the Gospel. The need for evangelization
was frequently compromised or at least misunderstood with regard to the needs
of worldly powers, thus relativizing the problematic incompatibility of slavery
with the Christian conscience.
175
Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter In Plurimis
5 May 1888, Acta Leonis XIII, VIII,
Rome, 1889, 169192. Consider that, as late as 1866, the Holy Office
distinguished between the immoral and moral aspects of slavery, without fully
condemning it: Instruction of the Holy
Office on various doubts of Monsignor Massaia, Vicar Apostolic in the country
of the Galla, April 1866, response to question no. 15.
176 Cf. Saint John Paul II, Bull Incarnationis Mysterium 29
November 1998, 11 AAS 91 1999,
139141.
177 Cf. Saint Paul VI, Regina Caeli 17 May 1970 Insegnamenti
di Paolo VI, vol. VIII, 506.
178 Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti 3
October 2020, 183 AAS 112 2020,
10331034.
179 Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes,
26 AAS 58 1966, 10461047.
180 Saint Paul VI, Address to the 20th General Assembly of the United Nations 4
October 1965 AAS 57 1965, 881.
181 United Nations, United Nations Charter, San Francisco 26 June 1945, Preamble.
182
Cf. Francis , Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti 3
October 2020, 258 AAS 112 2020,
1061 “In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly ‘justified.ʼ The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks
of the possibility of legitimate defense by means of military force, which
involves demonstrating that certain ‘rigorous conditions of moral legitimacyʼ
have been met. Yet it is easy to fall
into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify
even ‘preventiveʼ attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing ‘evils
and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.ʼˮ
183
Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — Dicastery for Culture and
Education, Note Antiqua et Nova 14
January 2025, 99 AAS 117 2025,
202203.
184 Cf.
ibid., 103 AAS
117 2025, 204.
185 Cf. Address to the Participants in the Plenary Session of the “Reunion of Aid Agencies for the Oriental Churches ROACOˮ 26 June 2025 AAS 117 2025, 847849.
186 Cf. Francis, Message for the 53rd World Day of Peace
8 December 2019 AAS 112 2020,
5461.
187 J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings. The Return of the King, Part III, Book Five,
Chapter IX, New York 1965, 190.
188 Address to Representatives of the Media,
12 May 2025 AAS 117 2025, 682.
189 Ibid.
190 Saint John Paul II, Message for the 31st World Day of Peace, 1
January 1998, 1 AAS 90 1988, 147.
191 Saint Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, 84, 12 CCSL 39, Turnhout 1956, 11721173.
192 Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos 24
October 2024, 22 AAS 116 2024,
13751376.
193 Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti
3 October 2020, 115 AAS 112
2020, 10081009.
194 Cf. ibid., 261 AAS 112 2020, 1062.
195 Cf. Saint Paul VI, Address to the 20th General Assembly of the United Nations 4
October 1965 AAS 57 1965,
878879. 196 Cf.
Pius XII, Radio Message A Grave Hour 24
August 1939 AAS 31 1939, 334.
197
Giorgio La Pira, Riflessioni sul
Concilio. Address of Professor
Giorgio La Pira, Mayor of Florence, to the “Guides
de FranceˮRome, 4 September 1962, Florence 1962, 6.
198 Address to Participants in the Jubilee of Oriental Churches 14
May 2025 AAS 117 2025, 686.
199 Cf.
Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti
3 October 2020, 271 AAS 112
2020, 1066.
200 Cf. Francis, Appeal for Peace at Assisi for the World Day of Prayer for Peace “Thirst for Peace: Faiths and Cultures in Dialogueˮ 20
September 2016 AAS 108 2016,
1124.
201 Francis, Address to Members of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See
9 January 2025 AAS 117 2025,
110.
202 Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the 38th Conference of the FAO
20 June 2013 AAS 105 2013,
616617.
203 First “Urbi et Orbiˮ Blessing
8 May 2025 AAS 117 2025,
660.
204 Ibid.
205 Cf. Homily at First Vespers on the Solemnity of Mary the Most Holy Mother of God
31 December 2025 LʼOsservatore Romano,
2 January 2026, 12.
206 Cf. Homily of the Mass during the Day 25
December 2025 LʼOsservatore Romano,
27 December 2025, 3.
207 Cf. ibid.
208 Cf. Angelus on the Solemnity of the Epiphany 6
January 2026 LʼOsservatore Romano,
7 January 2026, 3.
209 Cf. Homily of the Mass during the Night 24
December 2025 LʼOsservatore Romano,
27 December 2025, 2.
210 P. de Bérulle, Discours de lʼétat et des grandeurs de Jésus, Discours IV, Unité de
Dieu en lʼincarnation: Œuvres complètes, Paris 1856, col. 218.
211 Ibid .
212 Cf. Address to the Conference “Artificial Intelligence and Care of Our Common Homeˮ 5 December 2025 LʼOsservatore Romano, 5 December 2025, 2.
213 Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est
25 December 2005, 14 AAS 98
2006, 228.
214 Saint Augustine, Sermons, 272 In die
Pentecostes ad infantes de sacramento: PL
38, Paris 1865, col. 1247.
215 Benedict XVI, Homily at the Mass of the Lordʼs Supper 21
April 2011 AAS 103 2011, 321.
216 Address to the Roma Curia for the Exchange of Christmas Greetings 22 December 2025 LʼOsservatore Romano, 22 December 2025, 67.
217 Cf. above, nos. 1114.
218 Cf. Address to the Conference “The Dignity of Children and Adolescents in the Age of Artificial Intelligenceˮ 13 November 2025 LʼOsservatore Romano, 13 November 2025, 3.
219 Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate
29 June 2009, 34 AAS 101 2009,
668670.
220 Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum
4 October 2023, 67 AAS 115 2023,
1059.
221 Cf. Angelus on the Solemnity of the Epiphany
6 January 2026 LʼOsservatore Romano,
7 January 2026, 3.
222 Benedict XVI, General Audience 15
February 2006 LʼOsservatore Romano,
16 February 2006, 4.
223 Meditation on the occasion of the Prayer Vigil and Rosary for Peace 11 October 2025 LʼOsservatore Romano, 13 October 2025, 2.
224 Saint Paul VI, Homily at the Marian Shrine of Our Lady of Bonaria, 24 April
1970 AAS 62 1970, 301.
Copyright © Dicastery for
Communication – Libreria Editrice Vaticana
FAQ LEGAL NOTES COOKIE POLICY PRIVACY POLICY