Magnifica Humanitas

Introduction

1Humanity, 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."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.

2Founded 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 Church's vocation because, constituted in Christ as "a sacrament… of communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race,"3 she recognizes history as the place where the Gospel challenges and directs human experience.

3In this spirit, Pope Leo XIII published his Encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891, the 135th 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." 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 humanity's 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 8:22-31).

The res novae of our time

4While Leo XIII spoke in his time of "new things" (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."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."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.

5It 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."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 "private" aspect, which makes it even more challenging to discern, govern and direct such power toward the common good.

6For 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," 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

7In 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 11:1-9) and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (cf. Neh 2–6). The story of Babel appears in the Book of Genesis, at the origins of humanity, immediately after the genealogies of Noah's 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 heavens" (Gen 11:4). Fearing being scattered across the earth, they sought to guarantee stability and power for themselves, and above all to "make a name" 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 self-sufficiency, 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 God's blessing.

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

9In 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 25:14-30). 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 humanity's 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 "yes" or "no" 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.

10We must, then, avoid the "Babel syndrome," 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," 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, a bright possibility emerges: 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 God" (Rev 21:2) 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 today's "cities."

Building for the common good

11Building a city founded on the common good implies, first and foremost, building on a firm relationship with God. It means recognizing that the truth of his love calls us to life "in all its fullness" (Jn 10:10) and communion with him. Like Saint Augustine, we too can say, "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you."8 Indeed, God has inscribed in our hearts a desire for happiness that embraces all the dimensions of life. The Church, in dialogue with the men and women of our time, recognizes the urgent need to safeguard and guide this aspiration toward its deepest truth.

12Secondly, 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," in forms of progress that exacerbate inequalities, and in immediate solutions incapable of healing people's 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.

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

14Finally, 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

15In 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.

16I 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 site" 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 stones" — 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 85:10). 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

17In 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.

18This overview, however, would not be very comprehensible if, before reflecting on the contribution of individual popes and their most relevant documents, we do not first clarify some fundamental principles concerning the way in which the Church exists in history and relates to the world. Failing to do so would expose Social Doctrine to the risk of being perceived as an undue interference in "worldly" matters or as an external code of ethics imposed from above. In reality, it stems from a Church that walks alongside humanity, recognizing the autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction between ecclesial and political communities. Indeed, it is for this very reason that she strives to serve the common good.

A Church journeying through human history

19The Church is present in the world as a sign of unity for the entire human family. She recognizes today's 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 people's 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 Church's 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."9

20The Church's 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 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."10 This affirmation shows that creation bears the imprint of an original goodness that our human outlook must preserve, cultivate and bring to fulfilment. 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.

21Recognizing 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 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. 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.

22Starting 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 God's word, in order that the revealed Truth may be more deeply penetrated, better understood and more suitably presented."11 Listening to the "many voices" is no mere sociological exercise, but instead requires spiritual discernment. 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

23The Church regards all who sincerely seek "truth, goodness and beauty" as companions on the journey, and considers them as "precious allies"12 in defending the dignity of every person and in caring for creation. Adopting the pastoral approach of the Second Vatican Council, which invites us to listen, discern and interpret the signs of the times, the Church is not afraid to encounter human knowledge. When it comes to applying the standards of the Gospel to the complex situations of our time, the contributions of philosophy and of the human and social sciences are essential. 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."13 Following this perspective, Pope Francis emphasized that when dealing with many specific questions, the Church does not claim to offer "a definitive opinion,"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.

24Nourished 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. 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.

Social Doctrine as a shared discernment

25Understanding 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."16 In this same vein, I too have reaffirmed that the Church "does not claim to possess a monopoly on truth,"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."18 What matters most is not occupying positions of power or defending cultural strongholds, but initiating good processes and enabling them to mature. 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.

26This attitude of openness to truth, which is at the same time both one and diverse, profoundly expresses the catholicity of the Church. 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."20 From this perspective, Saint Paul VI acknowledged that, given the great variety of historical situations, it is unrealistic to think that the Church's Social Doctrine can propose a single response that is valid in all contexts.21 The fruitful tension between the universality of the Church's mission and her local roots is an intrinsic aspect of her life.

27In light of what has been said so far, the Church's 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. 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.

The development of Social Doctrine from Leo XIII to the present

28Having outlined the way in which the Church is present in history, 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. Nevertheless, I will emphasize some essential points in order to show how the present text stands in continuity with that tradition, beginning with the period inaugurated by the Encyclical Rerum Novarum.

The first stages of the Church's Social Doctrine

29What we now call the "Social Doctrine of the Church" 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 Church" was coined by Pius XII in 1950,23 its content began to take shape as an organic corpus with Leo XIII's Encyclical Rerum Novarum. Confronted with the "new things" of his time — the conflict between capital and labor — Leo XIII exposed them to rigorous discernment 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 paradigm"24 of Social Doctrine.

30Leo XIII's Encyclical Rerum Novarum constitutes a milestone. The document places the dignity of work and of workers at the forefront; affirms the right to a fair wage; recognizes that persons have a fundamental value that takes precedence over capital and profit; defends private property along with its indispensable societal role; esteems workers' associations; and proposes forms of cooperation between the different components of society as an alternative to class struggle. It is not surprising that Pius XI defined it as the "Magna Carta"25 of Christian social action. At least two insights remain highly relevant: the primacy of human labor over any mindset focused solely on finance or productivity, and the inseparable link between proclaiming the Gospel and pursuing a more just social order.

31Pius XI's Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno was published in 1931 at the height of a major global economic crisis. It denounces the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few; criticizes both unlimited competition and collectivist projects; strongly affirms the workers' right to association; and reiterates 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. In further interventions — from Non Abbiamo Bisogno and Mit Brennender Sorge to Divini Redemptoris — he denounced forms of totalitarianism that demean the dignity of the person and discriminate according to race. Three insights remain relevant: that injustice concerns not only individual behavior but also economic and institutional structures; the importance of subsidiarity; and the link between the dignity of work, fair remuneration and the genuine possibility for families to lead a dignified life.

32In the tragic context of the Second World War, the teachings of Pius XII made a significant contribution, particularly in his Christmas radio messages, in which he outlined an international order based on justice, peace and the recognition of human dignity. He appealed to natural law as a set of objective principles that precede the interests of individuals and States. 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.26 Three guidelines remain significant: 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.

The years of the Second Vatican Council

33A new phase began with Saint John XXIII, who placed greater emphasis on the global dimension of social issues. In Mater et Magistra, he recalled that while the Church's primary mission is the sanctification and proclamation of eternal goods, she does not neglect the concrete needs of daily life.27 In Pacem in Terris, John XXIII addressed for the first time not only the faithful, but all people of good will, organically linking the dignity of the person to the recognition of fundamental rights and duties.28 Significant for our day: the universal perspective of his appeal; his reference to human rights as a shared framework; and his conviction that lasting peace requires institutions inspired by the dignity of every person.

34The Second Vatican Council marked a turning point in the Church's understanding of herself in the contemporary world. In Gaudium et Spes, the Council presented the image of a Church that is close to humanity, engaged with the world. It insists that economic and institutional structures are just only to the extent that they serve the integral development of the person.29 The Declaration Dignitatis Humanae recognized that religious freedom is a fundamental right grounded in human dignity that must be guaranteed by law.30 This principle continues to provide decisive criteria for protecting individuals and building pluralistic and peaceful societies.

35During 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 integral human development. In Populorum Progressio, he described development as a transition from less humane to more humane living conditions, concerning "each person and the whole person."31 For this reason, Paul VI could affirm that development understood in this way is "the new name for peace."32

36In Octogesima Adveniens, Paul VI applied this perspective to postindustrial society. He believed that although the Gospel was lived out in a very different context, its message was not "outdated,"33 for it provides the criteria for recognizing what humanizes or dehumanizes. His most demanding legacy is this: as long as people are excluded from the development befitting human dignity, the Christian community cannot be content with a theoretical proclamation of peace, but must allow the Gospel to pass judgment on economic and political structures which can become veritable "structures of sin."34

The recent Magisterium

37The rich social teaching of Saint John Paul II lies at the crossroads of the crisis of the great ideological systems and the onset of globalization. His Encyclical Laborem Exercens opened a new avenue for reflection on work, presenting fair wages as the concrete means of verifying the justness of the entire socioeconomic system.35 Work is not simply a problem or a means of generating income, but a fundamental good for the person and the key to the entire societal question.36 Job insecurity, fragmented careers and automation must be evaluated not solely in terms of efficiency, but in relation to the dignity of the worker.

38With Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, John Paul II reexamined underdevelopment, noting the persistent and widening gap between North and South.37 He denounced the economic, financial and commercial mechanisms that structurally favor the strongest economies,38 and understood solidarity as a concrete, shared responsibility oriented toward the "civilization of love."39

39On the centenary of Rerum Novarum, Centesimus Annus reflected on the collapse of the Soviet system and the rise of democracy and the market economy. John Paul II reiterated that the Church values democracy insofar as it guarantees the effective participation of citizens and prevents power from being monopolized by elite groups,40 and recognizes the market only if it remains subordinate to the moral law and guided by solidarity.41

40In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI expanded the concept of development in light of globalization, insisting it should translate into "real growth, of benefit to everyone and genuinely sustainable."42 He observed that new kinds of poverty were emerging in wealthy countries,43 and that the new global financial system had reduced the political power of States.44 Economic activity, he reiterated, must be ordered toward the common good.45

41Benedict XVI placed charity at the center of his analysis, stating that it "is at the heart of the Church's Social Doctrine,"46 provided it is always united with truth. 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.

42Pope Francis' social teaching develops along the lines of Gaudium et Spes. This emerges 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, and for a synodal Church that "walks together."47

43In Laudato Si', Francis provided the first significant systematic treatment of the environmental crisis in a social Encyclical, demonstrating that "the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor"48 cannot be separated. His proposal for an integral ecology combined care for our common home with the preferential option for the poor, and critiqued a technocratic paradigm that reduces everything to an object to be dominated.

44Faced with a "world war being fought piecemeal" and the impact of the pandemic, Francis, in Fratelli Tutti, sought to revive the dream of a humanity that opts for social friendship and universal fraternity, proposing a "better politics" and a world that ensures "land, housing and work for all."49 Finally, in Dilexit Nos, he showed that these endeavors cannot be separated from a personal relationship with Christ, affirming that "there is no greater way for us to return love for love."50

Interpreting history in the light of faith

45Considering this historical overview, it is clear that the Church's 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 things" of each era, 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. It is to the great principles of Social Doctrine that I now wish to turn our attention.

Chapter Two

46The 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. In this second chapter, I would like to focus on some of the foundations and principles that will help us interpret the "new things" of our time, particularly in view of the inherent dignity of the human person. In order to protect the human person in the age of artificial intelligence, I believe that today we must once again reflect on the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. 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.

47In offering these reflections, my hope is, first and foremost, to help the lay faithful and people of goodwill rediscover their duty of implementing these principles in their daily lives, family relationships, work and involvement in society. 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.

The foundations of Social Doctrine

The human person: image of the Triune God

48The Church's 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.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."52 Their deepest vocation is to enter into the Trinitarian dynamic of love received and shared.

49If 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. In him, "the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear"53 because his humanity is completely free, open to others and committed to the total gift of self. In this way, both the proclamation of the Gospel and Christian life tend to bring about social consequences in the world.54

50At 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 1:26-27) of the Triune God. Human dignity does not depend on a person's 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 Church"55 and the heart of every authentic path of integral human development.56

The equal dignity of all human beings

51Saint John Paul II stated that "this heightened sense of the dignity of the human person… certainly represents one of the positive achievements of modern culture."57 This follows the line laid out by the Second Vatican Council.58 It is important to ensure that this growth in appreciation of human dignity is not obscured by new ideologies or powerful interests. 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. The value of persons 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

52When we speak of dignity, we do not always use the word in the same way. Sometimes we refer to moral dignity — how a person directs his or her choices. At other times, social dignity — a person's living conditions and the respect received from society. In other cases, existential dignity — the way a person perceives his or her own worth. These can be enhanced or diminished. Beyond them lies the more profound level of ontological dignity: 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 it.61

53The fundamental dignity of each person, therefore, is neither acquired nor earned, nor does it need to be justified. The Declaration Dignitas Infinita summarizes this: "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 encounter"62 — always and without exception. This dignity can be described as infinite63 because the love of God who calls us to friendship with him is infinite and absolutely unconditional.

The supreme value of human rights

54The 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."64 Saint John Paul II called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time,65 "a milestone on the long and difficult path of the human race."66 Human rights are not an external addition to the person, but an expression of intrinsic human dignity.

55Human rights are inviolable, since they are "inherent in the human person and in human dignity."67 Consequently, they are universal and inalienable.68 "It would be vain to proclaim human rights if, at the same time, everything were not done to ensure the duty of respecting them."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 induced abortion, killing of the innocent and euthanasia — we are faced with choices that the Church considers gravely wrong.71

56The protection of human rights has been exposed to two 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, 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."72 If this inquiry were abandoned, rights considered untouchable today might, in the future, be questioned or denied by those in power, perhaps after obtaining only an apparent consensus from populations that are frightened or manipulated.73

57Recognition of minority rights has grown, yet there is still a long way to go to ensure that the rights of women are genuinely guaranteed throughout the world. "Doubly poor are those women who endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment and violence, since they are frequently less able to defend their rights."74 It is not enough to state that men and women have equal dignity; this must be reflected in concrete decisions — in laws, access to employment, education, and the way society listens to and values women's contributions.

58It is individuals that matter, each and every person, together with their families. Social movements and grand political proclamations are worthless unless they lead to the flourishing of persons 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 live without decent work, protections or access to basic necessities.

The principles of Social Doctrine

The principle of the common good

59Recognizing that every man and woman possesses an inalienable dignity requires us to shape the way we live together. From this arises the first major principle: the common good — the social expression of the dignity recognized in every person. When Benedict XVI referred to the non-negotiable values the Church must defend, he included "the promotion of the common good."75

60The 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."76 It is not the sum total of individual benefits, nor the intersection of particular interests; it is a greater good that belongs to everyone, achieved only by collective effort.77

61In this sense, the whole is "greater than the sum of its parts,"78 and "the mere sum of individual interests is not capable of generating a better world for the whole human family."79 The common good is a "plus," the result of an "interdependence"80 that creates a network of social good. If we were to add up individual goods, we could not explain the existence of this "plus" that transcends and enriches them.

62It is the pursuit of the common good that gives life to a people — not a mere collection of individuals, but a living reality in which people recognize that they are interconnected and jointly responsible for the res publica, through "a slow and arduous effort calling for a desire for integration… through the growth of a peaceful and multifaceted culture of encounter."81

63It is the State's responsibility to ensure cohesion so that the common good can be pursued with everyone's contribution. Public authorities have the delicate duty to "harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice,"82 without leaving behind the most vulnerable. When politics reduces itself to short-term calculations or sterile polarizations, the language of the common good loses credibility.

64This also applies to international politics. As the divide between nations widens, speaking of a shared journey toward more just development "sounds like madness."83 Yet we must not lose hope. I invite everyone to conceive of more effective international institutions, capable of safeguarding the global common good without compromising the legitimate diversity of peoples and nations.84 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."85 The earth's goods are given by God to the entire human family. 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,"86 so "it is not in accordance with God's plan to use this gift in such a way that its benefits accrue solely to a select few."87 Today, this universal destination applies not only to material goods, but also to immaterial and cultural goods.

66There is a right to private property, yet it is always subordinate to the universal destination of goods. According to John Paul II, this subordination is the "first principle of the whole ethical and social order."88 Since "the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable,"89 its social function is a doctrine of the Church. For this reason, Pope Francis reminded us that solidarity also means "to restore to the poor what belongs to them."90

67Today, among the goods universally intended for everyone, we must include new forms of property: patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data. 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, widening the gap between those who can participate in the digital revolution and those who remain on the margins.

The principle of subsidiarity

68The principle of subsidiarity stems from the same understanding of the human person. 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

69Starting with Leo XIII, the Church has insisted that neither the individual nor the family should be subsumed by the State.92 Saint John Paul II developed this, noting that the State must protect the common good, intervening when necessary, but without permanently supplanting intermediary organizations.93 Subsidiarity does not justify the State's disengagement, but guides its action: public intervention is necessary precisely to enable all social actors to fulfill their mission without being stifled.94

70This principle moves us beyond paternalistic or welfare-based management toward a culture of shared responsibility. In accordance with subsidiarity, decisions are made at the closest level possible to the persons involved. When families, associations, local communities and the "third sector" are recognized and supported, social life becomes more accessible, services more attuned to real needs, and solutions more respectful of the dignity of each person.95

71The 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 — monopolizing 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 be directed toward the common good with transparency, accountability and meaningful participation, including independent checks, transparency regarding algorithms, equitable access to data and avenues for recourse.96

72In this context, States and transnational institutions are called to ensure fair rules and effective safeguards, so that local communities, intermediary organizations, schools, universities and associations have a voice in the choices that affect daily life — employment, access to services, data management and digital environments. 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.97

The principle of solidarity

73Solidarity emerges from a vision of the human person generated by faith: every human being is created in the image of God and is part of a network of relationships. Saint Paul VI observed that the obligations of solidarity are rooted in the human and supernatural fraternal bonds that unite individuals and peoples.98 Solidarity is the concrete recognition that the future of each individual is connected to the future of all; indeed, "no one is saved alone."99 When subsidiarity is not linked to solidarity, it becomes 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

74In many areas we already experience a kind of "de facto solidarity," for our lives are intertwined; digital networks connect people in real time. This network only constitutes solidarity in the fullest sense when it becomes a conscious choice. We are not merely neighbors to one another, but entrusted to each other, called to transform unavoidable bonds — economic, cultural and technological — into paths of sharing and mutual care, "thinking and acting in terms of community."101

75Solidarity is both a principle and a virtue. As a principle, it expresses the objective order of relationships. As a virtue, it requires a "firm and persevering determination"102 to strive for the common good. Pope Francis noted that solidarity is "a way of making history"103 that creates communities and not just masses of individuals — requiring the willingness to challenge habits and privileges, including those related to digital consumption, when they prevent others from living with dignity.

76Solidarity also takes on a global dimension. Benedict XVI emphasized that authentic development requires solidarity and inter-generational justice.104 Today, this extends to digital and information infrastructure. Like the natural environment, the "digital ecosystem" can be preserved or exploited, shared or monopolized. Solidarity demands that decisions regarding data, algorithms, platforms and AI take into account not only the immediate benefit for a few, but the impact on all peoples and future generations.

The principle of social justice

77For the Christian community, social justice is a concrete way of following Jesus. In the New Testament, Jesus proclaims the "good news to the poor" (Lk 4:18) and identifies himself with the lowly, the sick, the imprisoned and strangers (cf. Mt 25:31-46). Justice concerns not only the behavior of individuals, but the way the structures of society are organized; every institution is called to serve the human person and his or her dignity.105 Social justice is characterized by the capacity of an order to allow everyone — particularly the weakest — to live a truly dignified life.

78Social justice begins with the least among us. Saint John Paul II spoke of a preferential option for the poor106 that must guide both personal and societal choices, while Pope Francis denounced a "'throw away' culture"107 that generates ever new forms of exclusion: the poor, migrants, refugees, the displaced, victims of violence and those in urban or existential peripheries.

79"Social justice" helps us recognize that injustices arise not only from individual choices, but from structures and systems that produce inequality almost automatically. Saint John Paul II spoke of structures of sin108 that require personal and social conversion. Justice thus assumes a restorative dimension: mending broken bonds, reintegrating the excluded, healing collective memory, opposing discriminatory laws, and supporting those who still bear the consequences of past wrongs.

80Social justice must also grapple with the environment shaped by digital technologies. Justice demands that we prevent new forms of exclusion: individuals denied access to basic technologies, communities exposed to invasive surveillance, and groups penalized by opaque algorithms that perpetuate prejudice. A just digital order guarantees everyone equal access to opportunities, protects the youngest and weakest, 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.

81A litmus test for social justice today is the treatment of migrants, refugees and those forced to move by poverty, violence and climate change. The way a society treats them reveals whether its sense of justice is driven by fear or by fraternity. Pope Francis urged us to see migrants as a living image of the People of God on the move.109 This entails two complementary commitments: protecting the hopes of those forced to leave through safe and legal routes and genuine integration, and promoting the right to remain in one's homeland by addressing the root causes of migration.

Integral human development

82In Populorum Progressio, Paul VI affirmed that development is authentic only if it is "integral," fostering "the development of each man and of the whole man."110 By "integral human development" we mean a process in which the growth of individuals and peoples encompasses all dimensions of existence and opens the future to subsequent generations.

83For individuals and nations alike, development is both a duty and a right. Development is truly human when it places people at the center instead of the accumulation of wealth. It is not truly human if it increases consumption for some while shifting costs onto others, or relegates entire regions to subordinate roles.111 Development is integral when it promotes quality of life in its spiritual, cultural, moral and relational dimensions, while respecting our common home and the diversity of peoples.112

84Today, integral human development is a benchmark for integral ecology. The quality of development is measured by the ability to integrate justice toward people and the care of our common home. True progress is not what increases the wellbeing of some by degrading ecosystems or shifting costs onto the most disadvantaged.

85Integral human development is the framework through which we can interpret the changes of our time, including the digital revolution. Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral: they can foster participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control and exclusion. 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?

An examen for the Church

86Social Doctrine is not merely a message addressed to society; it is also an examination of conscience for the Church, called to ensure that these principles are applied especially within its own structures. In the ecclesial context, the common good takes the form of a synodal approach for mission. Indeed, the Church is the "communitarian and historical subject of synodality and mission."113 The Synod's Final Document identifies a culture of transparency, accountability and evaluation as key practices for missionary transformation.114

87Subsidiarity becomes the guiding principle for governance and pastoral life: recognizing and supporting the faithful and intermediary ecclesial organizations, valuing charisms and skills, and avoiding paternalism. The participation of the baptized in decision-making is achieved through genuine, rather than merely nominal, participatory bodies.115

88Solidarity finds its source in the mystery of Christ and is nourished by the Eucharist. Baptism and Confirmation unite us in Christ, so that we may become one Body and one Spirit (cf. Eph 4:4; Acts 4:32). The diverse sensibilities present in the Church are a source of richness if they remain anchored in the certainty that unity is a gift received and a responsibility to be fulfilled.

89Living out justice in the Church means purifying ecclesial relationships from distortions that give rise to inequality and abuse of power. Listening to the victims of spiritual, economic, institutional, sexual and power-based abuse is an integral part of a journey toward justice, including acknowledging the harm done and taking steps to prevent its recurrence. Following the early Church, ecclesial resources need to be shared so that no one may be in need (cf. Acts 4:34).116 Only to the extent that we are open to the action of the Holy Spirit will these principles become incarnate in ecclesial life.117

Chapter Three

90Having 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, the Tower of Babel, where collective effort follows a plan that dominates and dehumanizes (cf. Gen 11:1-9). On the other, the ruins of Jerusalem, rebuilt piece by piece as a project of shared responsibility (cf. Neh 2–6). We are called to ask: What are we building? Artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies are already part of our daily lives.

91The 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.118 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

92In Laudato Si', Pope Francis denounced the growing dominance of a technocratic paradigm119: the tendency to let the logic of efficiency, control and profit alone shape personal, social and economic decisions. 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.

93This paradigm has spread rapidly, fueled by the expansion of AI, cognitive science, nanotechnology, robotics and biotechnology. In themselves, these innovations can greatly serve integral human development. Yet precisely because of their power, they can hasten the expansion of the technocratic paradigm. More power does not necessarily imply something better. As Romano Guardini observed: "Contemporary man has not been trained to use power well."120

94The danger of humanity becoming a victim of its own achievements was recognized by Saint Paul VI, who warned that "the most extraordinary scientific progress, the most astounding technical feats and the most amazing economic growth, unless accompanied by authentic moral and social progress, will in the long run go against man."121 If technological development advances without corresponding ethical and social progress, the result may be an increase in means without a growth in humanity: "having more" without "being more."122

95In 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. 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 development that gives rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities.

96Faced with this concentration of power, the criteria for judgment are the 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, protects the vulnerable, ensures fair access and remains directed toward the good of all.

Artificial intelligence

97It is not my intention to offer a comprehensive treatment of artificial intelligence.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.

98Two preliminary considerations. First, any statement regarding AI risks becoming quickly outdated, given the remarkable pace at which these systems develop. Second, all of us, including those who design them, possess only a limited understanding of their actual functioning. Current AI systems are more "cultivated" than "built": developers do not directly design every detail, but create a framework within which the intelligence "grows." Fundamental scientific aspects — such as the internal representations and computational processes of these systems — remain, at present, unknown. There emerges an urgent need for a twofold commitment: a deepening of scientific research, and the exercise of moral and spiritual discernment.

99It is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated is that we must avoid equating this type of "intelligence" with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence, often surpassing it in speed and computational capacity. 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. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy, but they do not understand what they produce. Even when described as capable of "learning," their way of doing so — a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback — does not imply inner growth.

100AI can be a valuable tool and, at the same time, calls for a measured and vigilant approach. In personal use, three aspects deserve careful consideration: the ease with which results are obtained, the impression of objectivity, and the simulation of human communication. The speed with which information and assistance can be accessed makes life easier, yet can encourage excessive reliance and weaken personal creativity and judgment. The apparent objectivity of responses can lead us to overlook the fact that they reflect the cultural assumptions of those who designed and trained them. The artificial imitation of empathy, friendship and even love can be engaging, but for less discerning users it can be misleading, creating the illusion of a relationship with a real personal subject. 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.

101In society, AI is now embedded in decision-making across many sectors. The gains in efficiency are clear, yet rapidly and uncritically adopting them exposes us to risks, including the tendency to overlook environmental impact. Current AI systems require enormous amounts of energy and water, and place heavy demands on natural resources. As complexity increases — especially with large language models — the need for computing power and storage grows, requiring an extensive network of machines, cables, data centers and energy-intensive infrastructure. It is essential to develop more sustainable technological solutions that protect our common home.124

Responsibility, transparency and the governance of AI

102The use of AI is never a purely technical matter: when it enters processes that affect people's lives, it touches on rights, opportunities, status and freedom. Important decisions — employment, credit, access to public services, reputation — risk being delegated to automated systems that do not know "compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change,"125 and can therefore give rise to new forms of exclusion. When AI systems present themselves as neutral and objective, they end up reflecting and reinforcing the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers.

103Entrusting an algorithm with the power to select who is worthy, 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 lost, not just empathy. The exclusion of the vulnerable becomes cloaked in a veneer of neutrality, against which it becomes difficult to raise objections. In this way, injustice goes unnoticed.

104From this follows a compelling consequence: we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral. Every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people. If a system treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes them without appeal, then it is not merely a tool "to be used well," since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the inalienable dignity of the human person. Ethical discernment must therefore examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person is embedded in the data and models that guide it.126

105For AI to respect human dignity, responsibility must be clearly defined at every stage: from those who design these systems to those who use them. In many cases, however, the internal processes leading to a result remain opaque. This is where accountability becomes crucial: the possibility of identifying who must "account" for decisions, justify them, monitor them, and, when necessary, challenge them and remedy any harm caused.127

106Calling for prudence, rigorous evaluation, and even at times a slower pace in adopting AI, does not mean opposing progress; it is an exercise of responsible care for the human family. 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 inevitable.

107We cannot be satisfied with merely calling for the "alignment" 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.

108As with every major technological shift, AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise and access to data. Small but highly influential groups can shape information and consumption patterns, influence democratic processes and steer economic dynamics to their own advantage. 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.128

109The principles of Social Doctrine offer a framework. To speak of the common good means naming the new monopolies of AI. To speak of the universal destination of goods means 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. 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 can train these models and who is merely subjected to them.

110Finally, I would like to employ the expression "to disarm," which is close to my heart. Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of "armed" competition — a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire to secure geopolitical or commercial dominance. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity: freeing it from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion, restoring it to the plurality of human cultures. AI is already an environment in which we are immersed. For this reason, merely regulating it is insufficient; it must be disarmed, welcoming and accessible.

111I 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 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

112Having considered responsibility and governance, we must 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 threatens to normalize an anti-human vision in which 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.

113Elevating any single dimension of human existence to an absolute is always a mistake. 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. Intelligence, when absolutized, overshadows other essential dimensions of life, such as affection, the will, commitment and relationships. Technical power, if left unbalanced, does not make us more capable; it makes us more isolated and more vulnerable to being dominated. When intelligence becomes self-referential, its true purpose of serving life and the human person is lost.

114The 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, learned through lived experience. Reading stories to a child, offering company to an elderly person, arranging a home so that it is welcoming — these simple gestures train us to recognize others as persons worthy of attention. Technology can support this mutual care, without undermining human freedom and judgment.

Underlying narratives: transhumanism and posthumanism

115I would now like to turn to certain currents of thought that interpret progress as surpassing the human condition, 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, fostering enthusiasm for new technologies through a futuristic vision of an "enhanced human being" or "human-machine hybrid."

116These currents can be likened to an archipelago of conceptual "islands," distinct yet connected by a common "sea" of assumptions: the central role of technology and the aspiration to transcend the limits of the human condition. Transhumanism envisions the enhancement of human beings through technologies, with the aim of increasing performance. Posthumanism, 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. Even when speculative, such ideas gain relevance by altering the collective imagination.129

117From the perspective of Social Doctrine, the key issue is not the use of technology as such, but the vision that underlies it. If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy. In the name of progress, "necessary sacrifices" may begin to be justified, placing the burden on the most vulnerable.130 It is one thing to integrate technology within a human-centered, relational vision; it is quite another to be guided by an outlook that devalues human limits and promises a purely technical form of "salvation."

The limit, the heart and the grandeur of the human person

118Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis today. Everything that appears as a "limit" — incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability — tends to be seen as a defect to be corrected, rather than as a reality through which our humanity matures. Yet humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them. While it is right to strive to alleviate suffering, it is also wise to acknowledge our fundamental finitude, living "this ambivalence between human greatness and limitation… in the light of our original and fundamental relationship with God."131

119It is precisely within our limitations that compassion, generosity, spiritual experience and the worship of God find a place. We see this when we face rejection, illness, the loss of a loved one, our own weakness. Mysteriously, it is precisely in such moments that we can discover a new wisdom and encounter the presence of the Lord.

120Even when limitations are experienced as inner suffering, human wisdom teaches us not to deny it, but to integrate it. To eliminate suffering entirely would mean extinguishing love and desire as well. Those who love and desire cannot avoid passing through trial; over the years, we carry within us lessons that leave their mark like scars. It is only thanks to the interplay of these elements that the wonders of the soul occur within us.132 To renounce this adventure, both tragic and splendid, in the name of a presumed transcendence of all limits, would no longer be human.

121Even painful expressions of our limitations leave openings for the good. Even when persons dehumanize themselves, a small light continues to shine within humanity, one that can be rekindled, with God's grace. As Viktor Frankl 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 Lord's Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips."133

122Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognizing the face of God and others. Precisely because we experience limits, we can recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, intuit a fraternity greater than ourselves and perceive injustice as a scandal. Authentic culture and art preserve this spark: Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as a desire for unity; Guernica as a denunciation of dehumanization; Schindler's List as a call not to consign the past to oblivion.

123History is also evidence that humanity is capable of creating institutions that protect our shared life: the International Committee of the Red Cross (1863); the abolition of slavery; the United Nations (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); the 1951 Refugee Convention. In each case, the desire for good took concrete shape in laws and institutions capable of limiting the abuse of power. Yet none emerged without resistance. Moral progress almost always unfolds through a long and demanding journey, often marked by setbacks — which highlights how precious the responsibility is of those who initiate and sustain it.

124History can change when individuals take the dignity of everyone seriously: the civil rights movement associated with Martin Luther King Jr., or the end of apartheid following the release of Nelson Mandela and his decision not to surrender the future to hatred. Many courageous women have also stood out — Saint Laura Montoya, Saint Teresa of Calcutta, Dorothy Day, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, Maria Montessori, Elisabeth Elliot, Wangari Maathai, Benazir Bhutto and countless others.

125Alongside these public signs, there is a more hidden story: religious communities serving in dangerous places; the martyrs of fraternity such as Saint Maximilian Mary Kolbe, Saint Oscar Romero and Blessed Enrique Angelelli; witnesses such as Venerable Francis-Xavier Nguyễn Văn Thuận. Above all, the "martyrs of everyday life" — parents, nurses, doctors, volunteers — who care without fanfare. Their testimony demonstrates that goodness does not advance automatically, but requires perseverance, memory and interior conversion.

126It is this intertwining of just institutions, credible witnesses and daily fidelity that sustains hope. For this reason, humanity — in all its grandeur and woundedness — must never be replaced or surpassed. We can embrace technological progress that alleviates suffering, provided 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 human" exists, where is it to be found?

The authentic "more than human": grace and Christian humanism

127The expression "more than human" is not an exclusive domain of technological promise. The Christian tradition has long maintained that human beings are called to self-transcendence — not through an escape from reality, but through their fulfillment in love. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, this elevation "surpasses every capability of created nature,"134 for an infinite disparity separates our finite nature from the life of God.135 The one who makes this passage possible can only be the Eternal One who gives of himself; it is God himself who overcomes the "infinite" disproportion.136 "If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation" (2 Cor 5:17).

128When we embrace the possibility of transcending ourselves through God's grace, we do not become less human. As Pope Francis explained, "We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves."137 Herein lies the radical departure from Promethean dreams: what saves humanity is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a relationship that liberates. For an algorithm, an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, an error can be a catalyst for profound change. A person's future is not calculable, but depends on one's freedom — elevated by grace — and on the relationships cultivated.

Two cities and two loves

129Christian humanism does not reject science or technology, but embraces them with gratitude and realism, grounding them within a higher vocation. The true alternative is not between enthusiasm and fear, but between two paths of development: a progress that serves individuals and peoples, or a progress that subjects them to the mentality of power. Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI "make human life on earth 'more human' in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?"138 If yes, we can recognize it as an opportunity, akin to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. If power grows while the heart withers, then we are faced with a new form of Babel.

130Questioning this alternative is ultimately a matter of examining our own hearts. In the end, it all stems from what we hold most dear. Saint Augustine described human history as a struggle between two loves: "Two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God even to the contempt of self."139 The age of AI is no exception: the construction of Babel or the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins within each one of us.

Chapter Four

131Having outlined the context of technological transformation, we cannot remain at the level of general analysis alone. When languages and tools change, so do everyday actions and social relationships. In light of the principles of 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

132Digital platforms and AI systems are driving profound changes in public communication. Tools that could foster dialogue are often used to construct distorted narratives and blur the boundaries between truth and falsehood. Disinformation did not begin with AI, yet today it finds a powerful amplifier in it. The truth of facts has a rational dimension — requiring verification, cross-checking of sources and responsible argumentation — and is also deeply relational, built through bonds of trust. Only the shared pursuit of the veracity of facts, perceived as a common good, can provide a solid foundation for just communication.

133Those who command powerful technological and economic resources possess significant capabilities for influencing cultural change — even concerning the truth about humanity, the world, the meaning of existence, the family and God. This is pure power detached from truth. At its root lies a "sickness": the fact that "modern man is wrongly convinced that he is the sole author of himself, his life and society."140 Saint John Paul II reflected on this "crisis of truth," stating that "once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes."141 This led Pope Francis to ask: "What is law without the conviction… that each human being is sacred and inviolable? … A society is noble and decent, not least for its support of the pursuit of truth and its adherence to the most basic of truths."142

134The search for truth is an essential element of democracy. When questions about what is true lose their appeal, and a pragmatism takes hold content with what appears useful, democratic life is weakened. Indifference to the truth leads, slowly but surely, to a descent into totalitarianism. As Hannah Arendt wrote, the ideal subjects of such regimes are "people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction… and the distinction between true and false… no longer exist."143

Communication and the collective imagination

135Communication "is not only the transmission of information, but it is also the creation of a culture."144 The content circulating within digital environments shapes how people perceive the world. This is "not a parallel or purely virtual world,"145 since what originates online becomes part of people's lives, especially of the youngest.

136Those who control digital platforms have a considerable ability to affect the collective imagination and 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 online does not become an instrument of distraction, homogenization or dominance, but a setting in which inner freedom and critical thought can mature.

Toward an ecology of communication

137Our first task is neither to demonize nor idolize technological tools, but to use them on the basis of a fundamental principle: truth is a common good and not the property of those with power. On the level of public policy, this entails making the decision-making behind content selection more transparent and protecting personal data. Socially, it requires strengthening intermediary organizations, serious journalism and forums for debate. In universities, the challenge lies in the integration of knowledge and the skills necessary to verify facts.

138Christian communities, too, are called to transparency and the honest pursuit of facts. Sadly, this has not always been the case; painful truths concerning members of the Church have emerged. Some journalists, driven by a passion for truth, have played a crucial role in bringing injustices and abuses to light. To them I repeat Pope Francis' words: "I also thank you… for helping us not to sweep it under the carpet, and for the voice you have given to the victims of abuse."146 Vigilance and transparency remain first and foremost a grave responsibility for the Church herself.

An educational alliance for the digital age

139In an era when truth is often distorted, education assumes decisive importance. Yet rapid technological transformations reveal how unprepared we are. The pervasiveness of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper-stimulation, giving rise to fatigue, boredom and apathy concerning the effort required for seeking the truth.

140Education is a long journey requiring patience. Every technology shapes those who use it. Educating people about AI involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used. As Plato wrote, the deepest things are learned only after much time and effort, by engaging in discussion with others, "striking upon" ideas together like flint until the spark of understanding is kindled.147 We must learn to exercise restraint, and protect our young people from the subtle temptation that renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed.

141Psychological literature documents how early and unsupervised exposure to digital devices and social media can negatively impact sleep, attention, emotional control and relationships, at times with tragic consequences. This is aggravated by easy access to violent or degrading content, pornographic material, and proposals that normalize risky behavior. Online phenomena such as grooming, blackmail and the sexual exploitation of minors are made more insidious by fake profiles, algorithms that facilitate dangerous contact, and AI tools capable of manipulating images. Using a personal device at too early an age, without adult supervision, can foster addiction and expose young people to isolation, bullying and pressure to share intimate images.

142It is difficult for parents alone to resist business models that monetize attention. It is essential to form an alliance among policy-makers, educational institutions and families. Far-sighted public policies are needed to oppose the immediate interests of platforms when they conflict with the wellbeing of minors: setting age limits, holding service providers accountable rather than shifting the whole burden onto families, and providing specific protections against all forms of online sexual exploitation.148 At the same time, children and young people must be taught how to recognize manipulation and defend their dignity in digital environments.149

The central role of schools

143School is where new generations learn to seek and love the truth, reflect on the meaning of life and recognize the dignity of every person. Parents have the primary and inalienable right to choose the kind of education for their children, consistent with their moral, cultural and religious convictions.

144The first challenge is socio-political: significant inequalities persist in access to education. When a substantial portion of education is entrusted to private institutions, access may become overly dependent on families' financial means. It is important to acknowledge the contribution of many private Catholic educational institutions which ensure inclusive access for children of every background.

145The second challenge is pedagogical. The advance of AI is rapidly rendering obsolete curricula designed for a different era. The organization of schools, evaluation methods and the role of teachers must be rethought to promote an authentically integral education. It is necessary to support the ongoing formation of teachers, so they can help students use new technologies responsibly, critically and creatively.

146The third challenge is intellectual. Without careful attention, an educational system lacking in a love for truth may emerge, in which an incessant flow of information replaces research, reflection and discernment. Many educators report signs of dehumanization, where people "know many things" but struggle to find direction. A genuinely healthy attitude requires rhythms that incorporate silence, in-depth study, reading and judicious analysis.

147The Church's Social Doctrine invites families, schools, Christian communities and public institutions to form a renewed educational alliance: teaching a sense of moderation and limits; the rights of others and of future generations; 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 what the digital sphere by itself cannot provide: a shared time for learning and developing trustworthy relationships.

The dignity of work at a time of digital transition

The value of work

148Since Rerum Novarum, the Church has emphasized the protection of workers. The Magisterium recognized in work "the essential key"150 to understanding the entire social question. We can understand the great intuition of Saint Benedict of Nursia, who united prayer and work. Created in the image of the Creator, our own work in some way continues his, for thereby we contribute to the common good, improve and beautify the world, support our families and learn to build together something that no one could achieve alone.

149Work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a normal path toward maturity and personal fulfilment. 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

150Today, the convergence of automation, robotics and AI is rapidly transforming the structure of work. The "new ways" of working are not necessarily better: "while AI promises to boost productivity… it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work… current approaches to technology can paradoxically de-skill workers, subject them to automated surveillance and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks."152 To avoid this drift, we must design systems centered on the human person and not solely on performance.

The problem of unemployment

151Saint John Paul II recognized that unemployment is a grave evil; when massive, it becomes a true social calamity.153 Today, amid the "fourth industrial revolution," this concern is 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 rapid contraction in available jobs, with new forms of insecurity: outsized remuneration for a specialized minority alongside declining wages for a large portion of the workforce.

152It is desirable for technology to relieve humans of arduous tasks. 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.

153Every real transition involves discontinuities; no universal solution exists. Wealthy societies automate rapidly, creating room for unemployment. Vast regions remain trapped in hybrid economies, where underpaid human labor and partial technologies coexist — becoming places of precarious labor and forced migration. Solutions must be sought at national and local levels through intermediary communities, with adaptive tools, local initiatives, progressive redistribution and new rights of access to essential goods.

154Work is a fundamental dimension of human experience — a context for expression, relationships and contributing to the community. A society that guarantees employment to only a small fraction of the population, despite high technical development, risks exposing many to forced inactivity and human impoverishment: a paradox of material progress and anthropological regression. For this reason, access to work for all must be a high priority for public policy, serving as a criterion for evaluating the human quality of any development model.155

155The initiatives that emerged from the tradition after Rerum Novarum — associations, trade unions, cooperatives, welfare organizations — contributed decisively to improving labor legislation.156 Today these instruments are no longer sufficient by themselves. New collaborative efforts are needed among political leaders, labor organizations, the business world and the scientific community to develop adequate shared regulations, including at the international level.157 Labor unions are called to be open to new types of employment. Without bold decisions, the prospect of greater poverty and inequality looms large.

156It is not enough to react only when jobs disappear; we must oversee the transformation in advance. First, establish social criteria for innovation: every introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect employment, retraining and participation. Second, proactive policies that make continuous training accessible to all. Finally, a corporate commitment to include quality and dignity of work among indicators of success. With these conditions, innovation can serve as an ally of safer, more creative and dignified work.

An economy that values dignity

157Economic freedom is not absolute; it must always be measured against the common good and the dignity of every person. Entrepreneurial initiative can be a true vocation, generating wealth and improving lives, when it recognizes that the creation of dignified, valuable jobs is an essential part of its service to society.158

158Pope Francis warned against an economic freedom proclaimed in words alone, while actual conditions prevent many from benefiting.159 A just society requires a vigilant State and civil institutions capable of overcoming the singular mentality of efficiency and ensuring that resources favor the most vulnerable.160 Instead of waiting for the benefits of growth to reach the poor "eventually," decisions must ensure that growth becomes inclusive from the outset. In crises, it is always the poor who pay the highest price.

159It is important to move beyond current metrics tied to Gross Domestic Product, which neglect aspects essential to wellbeing and the environment. Complementary parameters are crucial for assessing how decisions impact the dignity of work, shared prosperity, inequality reduction and environmental protection.

160Finance has increased in importance, driven partly by cryptocurrencies. 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."161 Income from capital risks replacing income from labor. Yet savings transformed into credit for the real economy remain central for development. The social function of credit is irreplaceable.

161While the world's wealth has grown, it is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. "There are a few who have too much, and too many who have little, that is the logic of today."162 Scientific and technological advances are not easily accessible to the majority, as the pandemic dramatically demonstrated. To think that new technologies will automatically benefit everyone is to ignore the evidence. Today, justice requires access to the benefits of innovation, including care, knowledge, tools and opportunities.

162Just laws and methods of redistribution are necessary, including tax systems that ask more from those with greater resources. However, justice should not be considered a separate issue that follows only after the production of wealth. Justice concerns every phase of economic activity, from resource acquisition to consumption; every choice has moral consequences.163

163More than ever, in the age of AI and robotics, it is no longer possible to rely solely on the "invisible hand" of the market.164 Politics has the task of orientating economies and technologies to the common good. Since many economic decisions transcend borders, international cooperation is needed, especially in favor of the most vulnerable. The interdependence between peace and development, as Saint Paul VI prophetically wrote in 1967,165 remains applicable: prosperity reinforces peace only if it is widespread, inclusive and sustainable.

164In practical terms, ensuring that the economy favors human dignity means: transparency and accountability — decisions influenced by data and algorithms must be understandable, contestable and subject to oversight, so individuals are not reduced to mere profiles; inclusion and access — the benefits of innovation paired with investments in skills, infrastructure and essential services; and equity — taxation, social protection and industrial policies that correct the imbalances created by the concentration of wealth. These criteria do not curb innovation; they make it civilized and humane.

Families and young people: the social conditions for hope

165The 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 and learn the earliest forms of truth and goodness.166 As the first natural society, the family is the fundamental and irreplaceable cell of every community.167 When political and economic decisions relegate the family to a marginal role, the authentic growth of the entire social body is compromised.168

166The family is also a fragile social good, immediately affected by economic and technological transformations. It requires cultural, juridical and economic support. The devastating impact of unemployment and job insecurity on family structures is well known. While technological successes are celebrated, the social fabric is progressively eroded, as if by a silent virus.

167For young people, job insecurity is particularly devastating. As the Bishops of the United States recalled, work is a crucial sphere in which identity is formed, relationships are forged and one's vocation is discerned.169 When access to work is hindered, many young people find the path to fulfilment blocked. The need to change jobs several times requires continuous updating and retraining.170

168This gives rise to a specific public responsibility. The State has the duty to support business activity, promote work where it is lacking and defend it in times of crisis.171 We need a political creativity that places the family and coming generations at the center; otherwise economic progress will translate into new forms of insecurity and exclusion.

169Supporting families and young people requires choices that make stability feasible: labor policies that promote continuity and quality of employment; measures ensuring a healthy balance between work, leisure and rest; investment in accessible education and retraining; and support for social ties, so that uncertainty does not give rise to loneliness or addictions. If implemented, these transformations can be navigated without undermining the capacity to build the future.

Protecting freedom against dependencies and commercialization

Dependencies and societal control

170We must now consider the impact of the digital revolution on human freedom. The subtler forms of addiction linked to the "digital attention economy" should not be underestimated, since platforms are often designed to capture users' time and attention, exploiting their vulnerabilities. When business models thrive on human weakness, the person is treated as a means rather than an end; those who design such systems bear a moral responsibility. There is an urgent need to promote technologies that strengthen interior freedom through education in digital sobriety and the protection of minors.

171A further risk is that of social control made possible by the massive collection of data. When every action leaves a trace, a new power emerges: the power to profile, predict and influence behavior. If such data is used to make decisions affecting credit, employment or essential services, there is a risk of undermining freedom and discriminating against the vulnerable. Control is exercised not only through prohibitions, but through the architecture of visibility: what is amplified or rendered invisible shapes opinions, fostering conformity and self-censorship. Freedom in the digital age is therefore not merely a matter of interiority but also a public concern, calling for clear rules, transparency, the possibility of recourse, and proportionate limits on intrusive technologies.

172At 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 safeguards against the unchecked pursuit of profit. Some post-humanist currents even envision "second-class" human beings, subordinate to the interests of elites who consider themselves superior. Even certain forms of structural indebtedness, which keep entire peoples in dependence, reflect the same mentality that tolerates relationships akin to slavery.

Breaking the chains of new forms of slavery

173Nothing in the world of AI is immaterial or magical. Every seemingly flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above all, people. A significant part of the digital economy relies on the silent work of millions engaged in data labeling, model training and content moderation — often disturbing material — predominantly young women working for minimal wages. Added to this is the harsher work of extracting the resources required for devices and microprocessors; in some regions children work in dangerous conditions to extract rare earth elements. Furthermore, criminal networks use online platforms and profiling techniques to recruit and transport victims of trafficking — very often minors. This deeply challenges the moral conscience of our time. If technology promises emancipation yet produces new forms of global subordination, it contradicts the fundamental principle of human dignity.

174The fight against new forms of slavery is a decisive test for the ethical discernment of AI. In continuity with Leo XIII, the Church renews her firm condemnation of all forms of slavery, trafficking and the commodification of persons. Without this humanizing reflection, the growing power of digital systems could lead toward new atrocities no less shameful than those of the past, while we present ourselves as "advanced" and "civilized" societies.

175Human 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, is to become complicit in today's sins, akin to those of the past when slavery was concealed and justified.173

176The Church has gradually come to a deeper awareness of the gravity of these issues. We cannot deny the delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce slavery. In antiquity and the Middle Ages many individuals and even ecclesiastical institutions had slaves. In the early modern period, the Apostolic See intervened several times to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation.174 It was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation was clearly articulated, notably under Pope Leo XIII.175 Although there was not always consistency in practice, there has been a continuous affirmation of the dignity of every human being — even if it took eighteen centuries for its full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly recognized. This constitutes a wound in Christian memory.176 For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon.

177This is why the memory of past complicity becomes a call to vigilance. If we want to avoid having to ask pardon again in the future, it falls to us today to denounce, clearly and firmly, trafficking in its many forms, and to support concrete efforts of prevention, protection, liberation and rehabilitation.

178Even today, colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data. Entire regions are subjected to a new mindset of extraction — of health data, epidemiological profiles, genetic maps and demographic information. These have become the new "rare earths" of power: vital data which, once aggregated, can train predictive models and determine who and what is deemed to matter. Those who control the health data of entire peoples possess structural leverage over the future. 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. Otherwise, the digital age will not be post-colonial, but colonial in another form.

179New forms of slavery are fueled by economic chains and digital infrastructures. Action is required on several fronts: the supply chains underpinning the technological industry must become more transparent; companies and investors must adopt clear criteria for preventive ethical verification (due diligence); and digital platforms must cooperate responsibly with authorities to prevent their 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.

A shared responsibility

180The areas just considered — truth in public life, education, the transformation of work, the fragility of families, new forms of slavery — are not isolated phenomena. They reflect a common underlying issue: 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.

181From this perspective, Social Doctrine calls for a shared responsibility: institutions capable of regulating without stifling, and protecting without taking over; businesses that recognize work and dignity as measures of success; intermediary organizations and educational communities that rebuild trust; and citizens who cultivate responsibility, moderation, discernment and a sense of truth. Only in this way can innovation genuinely serve integral human development, and the promise of progress be recognized as authentic — because it is measured against the inviolable dignity of every man and woman.

Chapter Five

182Having 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.

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

184In 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," as in the time of Nehemiah, by safeguarding humanity and the common good.

185If 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 it, resulting in a multiplicity of local conflicts. Moreover, there seems to be no limit to the race — driven by a dehumanizing ambition — to develop ever more 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. 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 responsibility of every community, from families to States. It is this construction site of hope that we call the "civilization of love."

The civilization of love in the digital age

186When Saint Paul VI coined the phrase "the civilization of love,"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 Fratelli Tutti reminded us, only this social love is capable of becoming a culture and a norm, transforming mere armed coexistence into a community with a shared future.178

187This 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.179 The project for a civilization of love, therefore, must undertake the task of transforming this imposed interdependence into a willed and chosen solidarity. It is not enough for artificial intelligence to make us more efficient or connected; it must also serve to build a universal human family, where digital proximity becomes a real opportunity for encounter and mutual care.

The culture of power

188In 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 there is no alternative.

The normalization of war

189In 1965, the words of Saint Paul VI resounded powerfully at the UN General Assembly: "Never again war, never again war!"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. Nevertheless, in public discourse, there was a widespread conviction that war should remain a last resort, subject to strict ethical and legal limits. A turning point occurred after the Second World War: peace was made the focus of the international order, as attested by the United Nations Charter, with the intention to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."181 Even during the Cold War, there remained the awareness that a new world war had to be avoided at all costs.

190Today, 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 re-emerging. Public opinion is gradually being shaped and conditioned by polarizing media narratives, which are often amplified by algorithms that prioritize conflict and confrontation.

191We 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.

192To 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 are weakened, it becomes easier to justify violence as necessary, inevitable or even "sanitized." Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the "just war" theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.182 Humanity possesses far more effective tools for 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

193The growth of the military-industrial complex has become a defining feature of the current political landscape and a key sector in the economy of various countries. The close link between economic interests, the military apparatus and political decisions produces an "armed nation," in which war appears as a natural extension of politics, and the arms market becomes an autonomous driving force behind military decisions. Nor can we ignore the enormous economic interests behind war. The armaments industry, and countries that supply weapons, profit from a market that thrives precisely on conflicts.

194Military 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 their "tactical" use — makes the use of such weapons seem less improbable. In this context, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force in 2021 with the support of over seventy countries, is an important step. However, it risks remaining largely symbolic since the major nuclear powers have not agreed to it. This has led to the widespread yet erroneous belief that nuclear deterrence is an indispensable prerequisite for security, contributing to a new arms race accompanied by the gradual dismantling of nuclear reduction agreements and the development of "miniaturized" weapons that make their use seem more viable.

195The 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.

196The 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 State's monopoly on the use of force. Often these groups intertwine vague ideological motivations with concrete economic interests, transforming war into a "way of life" 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

197The 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 "feasible" 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

198Sometimes there is talk of "artificial moral agents," as if machines were able to distinguish between right and wrong with greater consistency than a human being. Yet moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the recognition of the other as a person. Therefore, it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems. No algorithm can make war morally acceptable. AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; indeed it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence and reducing victims to data. 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, while allowing AI models to establish appropriate boundaries.

199It is not enough to invoke a generic type of ethics. Concrete criteria for discernment must be established. The first concerns personal responsibility: when a decision to strike becomes automated or opaque, the risk of abdicating responsibility increases, so the chain of responsibility must be identifiable and verifiable. The second pertains to the moral timeframe for making judgments: while AI tends to expedite decision-making, speed and efficiency should never be the supreme motivating force for irreversible decisions made in the context of war. The third 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, and target selection must not confuse combatants and non-combatants.

200These 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 is not collapsed into "the machine." 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

201The culture of power also stems from the crisis of the multilateral system. The institutions established to safeguard a common future for all peoples appear to have been weakened — not only by structural limitations, but also by a frequent lack of shared will to support and reform them, or to recognize their moral authority. 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.

202What 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," "friend or foe," "us or them" — 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." Consequently, tribunals that are competent for settling disputes between States or dealing with war crimes are often weakened or bypassed.185

203In 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

204We 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 creation" 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. Escalating conflicts lead to asymmetric and "hybrid" wars, fought not only on the battleground but also on the economic, financial and cyber fronts. In many countries, including those in the Global South, increased military spending is presented as the only response to an uncertain future. Meanwhile, the real cost falls on the poorest, who see resources for healthcare, education and social services being reduced.

205At 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, and that it will always be so! As a result, the concern is no longer the search for peace, but rather how and when to take military action. This same argument maintains that it would be irresponsible not to prepare for conflict. I would argue, however, that what is truly irresponsible is Realpolitik, the form of political "realism" that sows in consciences an attitude of resignation to the inevitability of war, and dismisses peace and dialogue as utopian. 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.

206In 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, 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 and a fear of those who are different, creating an environment in which new conflicts can develop almost imperceptibly.186

207This, 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. 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.

208In 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.

209A particular responsibility rests on the shoulders of those who work in the field of research. All the key players — 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

210The 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, yet I consider it necessary. 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 earth" (Mt 28:18). 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 (cf. Mk 4:26-32). 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?" (Is 43:19).

211A 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 and the oft-forgotten peacemakers shows us that grace does not magically eliminate conflict, but instead 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 1:5).

We can all do our part

212At this point, however, a subtle temptation may emerge, namely the thought that the problems are too big and we are too small. This is a polite form of resignation, often disguised as realism. Certainly, not everyone has the same power to make a difference. 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).

213The twentieth-century Catholic author J.R.R. Tolkien, in the words of a protagonist in one of his novels, described our responsibility in this way: "It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till."187 The civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization. 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

214The 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."188 Words have enormous power, something we experience in our daily interactions. "Peace begins with each one of us: in the way we look at others, listen to others and speak about others. In this sense, the way we communicate is of fundamental importance: we must say 'no' to the war of words and images, we must reject the paradigm of war."189 We must all, therefore, examine our conscience regarding the words we use 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

215All of us 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 the true peace born of justice. "There exists a very close connection between the justice of the individual and the peace of everyone."190 Commenting on the psalm verse "justice and peace have embraced" (Ps 84:11), Saint Augustine urged his hearers to perform the works of justice, keeping in mind that justice and peace are not at odds with one another, and concluded: if you wish to attain peace, then practice justice.191 Let us never grow weary of seeking justice!

Adopting the perspective of victims

216There 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. Pope Francis encouraged us to "touch the wounded flesh"193 of those who suffer, look at their faces, listen to their stories and acknowledge their wounds.

217Giving 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. It helps us to reject the normalization of conflict 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 not a prelude to new conflicts.195

Cultivating a healthy realism

218We 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. 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. 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

219In 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

220Indeed, 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.

221At the political level, there is an urgent need to shift from the "culture of power" to a genuine "culture of negotiation," 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!"197 The awareness that all peoples share a common future demands that the "culture of negotiation" become an increasingly shared commitment, capable of gradually leading humanity away from the cycle of violence.

222To 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. 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."198

223In 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," 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 spiritual traditions, where there is no room for "sanctified hatred."

The necessity of diplomacy and multilateralism

224In 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 'convenient' or not considered legitimized to negotiate."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.

225Cyberspace 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 from "invisible" yet real forms of violence.

226International 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. 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 concerns the ethical foundations of nations makes it more difficult to direct multilateralism toward the true common good.202

227In the international context, the Holy See's diplomacy adopts the Gospel's 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, 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

228These 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."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."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 build" (1 Cor 3:10). With these words, Saint Paul encouraged the Christians of Corinth to preserve unity. Dear brothers and sisters, we have reflected on the world we are building, and we asked ourselves what it means to safeguard the human person in the era of artificial intelligence. At the end of this reflection, I would like to propose a sober yet demanding program of Christian life with which we can navigate this epochal change in the light of the Gospel. This avenue emerges through contemplating God's plan, living ecclesial unity by partaking of the Eucharist, building a world centered on the common good and praying in union with the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Word became flesh

230Our world is filled with attempts to seize control of markets and spheres of influence, often shrouded in reassuring rhetoric and seductive ideologies. Yet our hearts yearn for an approach that is wise and benevolent, akin to that which Mary praises in her Magnificat, when she proclaims that God's mercy extends in every generation to those who fear him.205 This plan of mercy continues to unfold throughout history today, even amid the rapid and unsettling changes brought by algorithms and global networks, and it becomes a compass in the digital era for living our lives according to the Gospel.

231At the heart of everything is the mystery of the Incarnation, the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us. The flesh of the Son, poor and vulnerable, evokes the flesh of so many brothers and sisters stripped of their dignity and reduced to silence.206 Through the Lord's closeness, the gift of peace enters into the world in a paradoxical way. It does so through the power to become children of God, and is awakened when we allow ourselves to be moved by the tears of the little ones, the fragility of the elderly, the silence of victims and the struggle of those who fight against the evil they do not wish to commit.207 In this wounded yet beloved flesh, the Father shows us the true humanity of a life fulfilled through openness and communion.208

232In 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 human situation that is not worthy of God. "According to the teaching of our faith, we have and adore, in our mysteries, a God who is born in a manger, a God who lives and travels in Judea, a God who dies on the cross, a dead God who lies in the tomb."210 What saves humanity is the divine love that descends into the most fragile point of our history and renews it from within.211

233For 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. It is the mystery of "recapitulation": the certainty that the Father has decreed to bring all things, those in heaven and those on earth, back to Christ, the one Head (cf. Eph 1:10). In this plan, nothing will be lost that is authentically human.

One body in Christ

234The 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."213 As Saint Augustine explained to the newly baptized, the bread and wine on the altar are the sacrament of the unity of the faithful in Christ: if you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your own mystery that is placed on the table of the Lord; you respond "Amen" to "the Body of Christ," and by responding you assent to what you are. Be then a member of the Body of Christ, that your Amen may be true.214

235The "Amen" 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."215 In it we find a visible manifestation of the reality that, though many and diverse, we are one in Christ: In Illo uno unum.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 people's dignity.

The construction site of our time

236The spirituality I wish to commend is that of the "wise architect" who, driven by hope for the Kingdom of God, is committed to building the world for the common good (cf. 1 Cor 3:10). 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. 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 2:4-6). In this task, we are called to assume an active role. We must be faithful to the truth, invest in education, cultivate relationships and love justice and peace.

237Let 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 and pursue wisdom rather than immediate results. We must lay aside an individualistic and technical view of humanity, as if reality were mere matter to be shaped according to selfish interests.219 Instead, let us cultivate what Pope Francis called a "situated anthropocentrism,"220 which recognizes the human being as a creature embedded in a network of relationships with other living beings and with all of creation.

238Let 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. 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. 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. 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.

239Let 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, 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 person's body is a dwelling place of God and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

240Let 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. We proclaim a hope rooted in the One who came down from heaven to "create a new story here below." 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

241As 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.

242The 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 God's people, "prepared as a bride adorned for her husband" (Rev 21:2). 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. 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 nations" (Rev 22:2). 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

243After having considered faith, which contemplates the Father's 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. Mary's song accompanies our commitment. Before Elizabeth, Mary bursts into a hymn of praise and joy. Her soul magnifies the Lord, 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. Yet, everything has changed within her. 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. 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 rich' triumph. Yet his secret strength is destined in the end to be revealed."222

244The Blessed Virgin Mary not only teaches us to recognize God's 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," 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; to interpret the events of history from the viewpoint of the widow, the orphan, the stranger, the wounded child, the exile and the fugitive."223 The Blessed Virgin thus becomes "poet and prophetess of Redemption," because on her lips is proclaimed "the strongest and most innovative hymn ever articulated, the Magnificat."224

245With the same faith as Mary, let us become "weavers of hope" 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.