There seems to be a unanimous perception that the interventions of Pope Leo XIV during his recent trip to Spain, and especially the one we address in this report, have a significance that transcends the religious, the political, or the social, offering a profound discernment on the current situation of our civilization, and the urgency of reclaiming the true meaning of human activity, the principles that should underpin it, and the risks that must be warned against.

The foundation of human dignity 

The Holy Father has stated unequivocally that “every truly just society is built upon the recognition of the inviolable dignity of the human person” ( ^{1)  ( 2) .} In the need to guard against all relativism, he affirmed that this dignity is not a legal concession, but precedes any legal order, since it belongs to every individual by the mere fact of existing. Thus, it is necessary to clarify that the person possesses an “ontological dignity” that is independent of circumstances, health, or productivity, grounded in the fact of “having been willed, created, and loved by God.” When this truth is kept alive, the law becomes a real guarantee against the “imposition of particular interests and agendas” ( ¹⁾  . 

As I will emphasize at the end of this writing, it is the search for truth that should animate law and legislation, insisting that this truth implies the achievement of good and respect for human dignity and nature.  

The culture of life versus the throwaway paradigm 

One of the most pressing bioethical risks, as Pope Francis has already predicted, is the spread of the “throwaway culture,” which tends to value human life solely in terms of its efficiency. For this utilitarian mindset, the level of autonomy, understood as the opposite of dependence, and the capacity for self-determination are the indicators of the level of dignity that should be recognized for every human being. 

In contrast to this mentality, Leo XIV insisted that the Church maintains that the protection of life is not merely a confessional interest, but a “goal of civilization”. ( ^{2 )}  

He emphasized this point, stressing the imperative that “all human life be recognized and protected from conception to natural death, in every circumstance of its existence.” Without the recognition of the right to life, the exercise of any other right is impossible. For this reason, practices such as  induced abortion  , which involves the killing of innocents, and  euthanasia , the killing of those who suffer, are judged as “gravely unlawful” ( 1) .  

The Pope stated that the true greatness of a nation is measured by its ability to protect the most vulnerable, for they are the “first victims” when the law loses its profound sense of service ( ²⁾  . 

There were many allusions to the problem of immigration, because immigrants are also vulnerable people, whose unquestionable dignity also requires protection, above economic or ideological interests. 

Family and education: schools of humanity 

He defined the common good as “the social form of human dignity,” and then insisted that this principle is rooted in the family, considered the “first school of humanity” and the “fundamental and irreplaceable cell of all community organization.” It is in the family environment that one learns the basic grammar of living together: “receiving life, caring for others, forgiving, serving, and belonging” ( ²⁾  . 

This statement also reveals a profound bioethical background, as many interventions on the transmission of life, such as contraception and abortion, and others that propose altering the family model with proposals that exclude fertility or complementary difference, pose a threat to the construction of the environment where life is received and protected as a school of humanity. 

Among the essential responsibilities assigned to the family unit, the Pope emphasized the need to defend the “primary and inalienable right of parents to choose the type of education and formation their children receive,” so that it is consistent with their own convictions. He defined school as a space to “seek and love the truth” and to “question the meaning of life and the dignity of each person,” ensuring that access to quality education does not depend solely on economic means. Ideological pressures can also become obstacles to the free exercise of this responsibility.  

Bioethics, Artificial Intelligence and Transhumanism 

As the Holy Father has previously addressed, both in his recent Encyclical “Magnifica Humanitas” and in his earlier “Message of the Holy Father Leo XIV for the 60th World Day of Social Communications” ( ³⁾ ,  he insisted that technological progress, especially in the field of artificial intelligence, offers admirable possibilities, but cautioned that technology “is not neutral, because it takes on the face of those who conceive it, finance it, regulate it, and use it.” The danger arises when the “technocratic paradigm” attempts to determine which lives matter and which can be discarded based on efficiency. 

Thus, it is necessary to monitor the narratives of ” transhumanism and posthumanism ,” which imagine an “enhanced humanity” or a “hybridized man” with the machine ( ^{1) .}  In this sense, if the human being is treated as mere “matter to be perfected or surpassed,” there is a risk of accepting the sacrifices of the most vulnerable in the name of a supposed optimization of the species.  

It must therefore be emphasized that technical progress must always be accompanied by ethical maturation; otherwise, it turns against man, which would necessarily imply that it would cease to be such progress. 

In his speech, he emphasized that one of the most serious issues in this area is the application of these technologies in the military sphere. Ethics demands that “decisions about life and death should never be delegated to automated systems nor removed from the moral responsibility of the human person.” It is not permissible to entrust irreversible lethal decisions to artificial systems, since moral judgment requires a conscience and a recognition of the other that no machine possesses. 

Freedom, law, and responsibility 

Regarding the concept of freedom, the Holy Father clarified that it does not consist solely in the absence of coercion or in mere choice, but rather “means being able to recognize the good and adhere to it responsibly.” A free society requires a limitation of public power so that the freedom of individuals and communities is not unduly restricted. 

In the field of bioethics, this need to accompany free choice with the possibility of identifying the good and adhering to it—which is what makes it truly free—also requires access to complete, truthful, and rigorous information about the nature of the options available. Access to the truth is essential for the exercise of freedom. 

Finally, and reiterating a point already made, he states unequivocally that the legitimacy of a law does not reside solely in its formal approval. A law achieves its “true greatness” only when it “can stand before the dignity of the person and emerge from that examination without shame.” 

The tragic confusion of attributing ethical legitimacy to what becomes legal simply because a majority decides so can lead to the tragedy of attacks against human life and dignity, as shown by numerous examples of unjust laws that, both historically and in the present day, have cut short lives, subjugated and enslaved people, discriminated against the weak, or persecuted dissidents, always in the name of current legality.  

Once again, ethical reflection is the antidote to these excesses. Likewise, training in solid ethical principles can prevent the confusion of what is ethically permissible with what is legal from leading more and more people to adopt positions of uncritical acceptance of what the majority legalizes, even if it constitutes an attack on human life, dignity, or freedom.  

Conclusion 

Bioethical discernment in the age of  artificial intelligence  must focus on “remaining profoundly human,” safeguarding that humanity that no machine can replace. Only a development that questions whether it makes life “more human” and “more dignified” can build a true civilization of love. 

Julio Tudela. Bioethics Observatory. Catholic University of Valencia