Through this article, divided into two parts, we want to address in a necessarily synthetic way the most recent contributions that the Social Doctrine of the Church (SDC) proposes to Catholics and all men and women of good will, whatever their religious or spiritual tradition or secular convictions, in the face of the exponential biotechnological revolution we are experiencing, as well as the irruption of artificial intelligence in all aspects of our lives, which represents a profound disruptive change in the history of humanity and in its biological, cultural and technological evolution as a species.

 

We wanted to title the first part of the article:   Quo vadis, humanitas?

“ Quo vadis, humanitas ? – Where are you going, humanity?” is the title of the document from the International Theological Commission (ITC), approved by Leo XIV on February 9, 2026, which perfectly summarizes the fundamental reasons for its publication and its ultimate goal: today, faced with unprecedented technological acceleration, theology seeks to offer “a theological and pastoral proposal” that understands human life as an “integral vocation” and “co-responsibility toward others and toward God,” in the light of the Gospel. The reference to the conciliar Constitution  Gaudium et spes,  published almost 61 years ago, is fundamental: the ITC document borrows both the “open” dialogue between the Church and the contemporary world and the concept of the “integral” human being, “in the unity of body and soul, heart and conscience, intellect and will.”

The second part of the article is titled:  Magnifica Humanitas .

That is also the title of Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, in which he addresses one of the most pressing issues of our time: the destiny of humankind in the age of artificial intelligence. In continuity with the living tradition of the Church’s Social Doctrine and with his predecessors in the papacy, the Pope offers a profound reflection on the spiritual, social, and cultural challenges posed by the technological revolution of our day. In this way, Leo XIV invites us to discern the future of humanity in the light of the Gospel. “Technology is a profoundly human phenomenon. It can heal, connect, educate, and care for our common home; but it can also divide, discard, and generate new injustices.” Faced with the risk that humanity may lose its face and that human beings may be valued solely for their productivity, it is our task as the human family to place technology at the service of human dignity, the common good, justice, and solidarity, and to work responsibly for a more humane future.

The  index  that we will develop in this first part of the article is the following:

1. THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. A line of continuity from Leo XIII to Leo XIV.
2. A CHANGING ERA AND REVOLUTIONS UNDERWAY. Proposals for a biotechnological society.
3. THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM. The common good in the digital age.
4. ETHICS IN THE ERA OF DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES. An operational roadmap.
5. THE FIRST LAW ON AI. Decree N.DCCII, “Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence”.
6. ANTIQUA ET NOVA. On the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence.
7. QUO VADIS HUMANITAS? Thinking about Christian anthropology in the face of some future scenarios for humanity.
8. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Some dangers to avoid in relation to AI according to Leo XIV.

 

I. THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. A line of continuity from Leo XIII to Leo XIV.

It is a relevant fact that Robert Francis Prevost, upon being elected Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, chose the papal name of Leo XIV, precisely to signify a strong commitment to social justice and the challenges of the digital age, emulating Leo XIII, author of the social encyclical  Rerum Novarum .

Indeed,  Rerum Novarum  (“Of New Things” – 1891) is the foundational document of the Church’s Social Doctrine. This encyclical was a direct response to the social and economic problems generated by the first Industrial Revolution of the 19th century and the conflict between capital and labor.

Leo XIV pointed out at the beginning of his pontificate that, just as in the 19th century, today we are living through a new “industrial revolution” marked by artificial intelligence and digitalization, which requires an updated response from the Catholic Church based on faith.

Popes after Leo XIII have continued to develop the Social Doctrine of the Church.

Following the Second Vatican Council, the following Popes made fundamental contributions:

 

Paul VI

Pope Paul VI’s encyclical  Populorum Progressio  (“On the Development of Peoples,” 1967) defined progress not only as economic growth, but as the integral development of every human being (material, cultural, and spiritual). Considered a key document of the Church’s Social Doctrine, it affirms that development is the new name for peace and denounces the gap between rich and poor nations, advocating for international solidarity and justice.

 

John Paul II

The Pope who succeeded John Paul I, whose pontificate was very brief, consolidated the Social Doctrine of the Church by placing the human person and their dignity at the center of the social order, highlighting work as key to the social question. Through encyclicals such as  Laborem Exercens  (“Working,” 1981),  Sollicitudo Rei Socialis  (“Concern for the Social Question,” 1987), and  Centesimus Annus  (“Centenary,” 1991), he promoted solidarity, subsidiarity, and the defense of human rights.

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, promoted by Pope Saint John Paul II, was published in 2004 and is based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is an excellent document for understanding and studying the topics covered by Catholic Social Teaching.

 

Benedict XVI

This outstanding theologian, intellectual, and Pope strengthened the Church’s Social Doctrine by centering his teaching on  Caritas in Veritate  (“Charity in Truth,” 2009), inseparably linking justice and charity. In his magisterial texts, he proposed integral human development, an ethical economy, the defense of life, and care for the environment based on truth.

 

Francis

In the encyclical  Laudato Si’  (“Praise be to you,” 2015), Pope Francis clearly defined the technocratic paradigm as a distorted vision that interprets life, the economy, and the environment exclusively through the lens of technology and profit maximization. Following this line of thought, we must also consider the encyclical  Fratelli Tutti  (“All Brothers,” 2020) and the apostolic exhortation  Laudate Deum   (“Let us praise God,” 2023).

 

Leo XIV

The current Pope has published several highly significant documents since his election in May 2025. Regarding the Church’s Social Doctrine, the apostolic exhortation  Dilexi te  (“I have loved you,” 2025) stands out. However, it is in his first encyclical  , Magnifica humanitas  (“On the protection of the human person in the age of artificial intelligence,” 2026), that he invites us to discern the future of humanity in the light of the Gospel.

Leo XIV has prioritized AI as the “new social question”, calling for an ethical response that integrates the Catholic faith with technological innovation.

Already in his first speech to the cardinals, Leo XIV declared: “Advances in artificial intelligence pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and work,” underlining the need for a moral guide that puts the human being at the center.

In his message to participants at the Second Annual AI Conference on June 17, 2025, the Pope expanded on this vision: “Your presence testifies to the urgent need for serious reflection and ongoing dialogue on the inherent ethical dimension of AI, as well as its implications for the future of humanity.” Here, Leo XIV emphasized that AI must be governed ethically, promoting inclusive development that respects the dignity of every person. Furthermore, in a message to corporate leaders in AI on June 20, 2025, he stated: “Intelligence does not consist in accumulating data, but in seeking the true meaning of life, not in having piles of information.” This statement underscores his concern that a technocratic approach that neglects the spiritual dimension should prevail.

Thus, Leo XIV not only warns about risks, but also proposes an ethic that integrates Christian values ​​from the design of AI.

II. A CHANGE OF ERA AND REVOLUTIONS IN PROGRESS. Proposals for a biotechnological society.

We often wonder if we are living in an era of change or a change of era. Undoubtedly, we can affirm that we are in the era of exponential technology, and that this entails a change of epoch in the course of human evolution.

Various authors have called this new era the Fourth Industrial Revolution, characterized by digital transformation and the irruption of artificial intelligence in all areas of our lives.

However, the epochal shift we are experiencing goes beyond the so-called 4th Industrial Revolution. In reality, we can observe a convergence of three revolutions occurring simultaneously in the scientific and technological fields:

• The digital revolution, which pits human intelligence against artificial intelligence
• The biological revolution, which aims to redesign human beings.
• The space revolution, which aspires to break free from our planetary confinement.

In turn, three other revolutions of an ecological, humanist, and spiritual nature converge with the previous revolutions.

• The ecological revolution, which promotes the conservation and protection of the common home for the human family.
• The humanist revolution that promotes integral human development and advanced humanism.
• The spiritual revolution, which envisions an increase in awareness and the generous action of the Holy Spirit.

In the face of these six simultaneous revolutions, at least the following worldviews are proposed for navigating the current biotechnological society:

• A silicon Calvinism, proposed as a model by companies in Silicon Valley (USA).
• A nihilistic Confucianism, which would be an alternative model from Shenzhen (China).
• A human-centric technical regulation would be the proposal of the institutions in Brussels (Europe).
• The Social Doctrine of the Church, presented as an integral worldview offered by the Holy See of Rome (Universal).

The first three models have been analyzed by Prof. José Maria Lasalle, author of “Cyberleviathan. The collapse of liberal democracy in the face of the digital revolution” (Arpa, 2019) and “Artificial civilization. Wisdom or substitution: the human dilemma in the face of AI” (Arpa, 2024).

Regarding the model that Lasalle calls “Silicon Calvinism” developed in Silicon Valley (USA), we can list these three characteristics:

• It demands technological control and determinism similar to Calvinist predestination. Freedom and “salvation” through efficiency and success.
• It focuses on the power of AI based on massive data processing.
• It proposes a new form of modern “providence” where decisions are made by machines.

With regard to the “nihilistic Confucianism” that we can see in Shenzhen (China), the two characteristic elements could well be the following:

• This would be a hybrid concept that seeks to reinterpret the hierarchical and moral structure of Confucianism under the premise of the inherent meaninglessness of life or the devaluation of traditional values.
• It questions the validity, purpose, and significance of traditional norms.

Regarding the choice of human-centric technical regulation by the institutions in Brussels (Europe), we could summarize the model in these three distinctive elements:

• It is based on technical utilitarianism.
• Its principles are those of ethical positivism.
• It regulates the risks of AI but does not define the purposes of such artificial intelligence that contribute to the well-being of people.

For its part, Catholic Christianity, from the Holy See in Rome and with a universal character, offers an alternative worldview and integral model, based on the basic pillars and fundamental values ​​of the Social Doctrine of the Church, given that:

• The Catholic Church sees an urgent need for a change in the way human beings relate to AI.
• He sees a risk that the machine will replace the human being when it thinks and decides.
• There is a warning about the danger of increasing dehumanization caused by cognitive capitalism led by the Chinese and Americans through AI models and the possibility of an algocracy replacing the democracy that a part of the world currently enjoys.

We must bear in mind that the Social Doctrine of the Church does not impose rigid rules, but rather offers universal principles—the dignity of the human person, the common good, solidarity, and subsidiarity—which are the basic pillars of Catholic Social Teaching, and fundamental values—truth, freedom, justice, and love—to guide its responsible use. At a time when AI permeates daily life, from personalized recommendations to medical diagnoses, the Catholic Church invites us to a profound reflection so that these technologies serve humanity and do not enslave it.

III. THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM. The common good in the digital age.

On the day of his presentation of his encyclical  Laudato Si’ , (“Praised be You”. On the care of our common home, 2025), Pope Francis uttered these words: “I invite everyone to receive with open hearts this Document which continues the line of the Social Doctrine of the Church.”

In this encyclical, Pope Francis defines the “technocratic paradigm” as a distorted view that interprets life, the economy, and the environment solely through the lens of technology and profit maximization. This model considers natural resources as infinite, neglecting nature and human dignity, and promoting unlimited growth that leads to an ecological and social crisis.

The meeting entitled “The Common Good in the Digital Age,” organized in 2019 by the Pontifical Council for Culture and the Dicastery for Promoting Human Development, addressed the importance of establishing the foundations of an ethics of the common good for the digital age. Various challenges were outlined for politics, economics, health, ethics, and human relations.

In his opening remarks at the meeting, Cardinal Peter KA Turkson said: “If human dignity is something common to all humanity, then the protection, development, and dignity of all becomes the framework of the common good.”

The participants in the Meeting – which I had the honor of attending – proposed three areas that could be especially affected by the development of digital age technologies:

• The consolidation of peace and war.
• The future of work.
• New horizons for the common good.

Some very interesting questions arose during the sessions of the Meeting:

• Are technologies a source of hope for creating new, decent jobs?
• Can new technologies help us implement a more inclusive and comprehensive concept of work?
• Or are they, on the contrary, a threat to integral human development?
• Is technology accessible to everyone?
• Are we prepared for the responsible use of biotechnologies, or will they instead be used as instruments of domination and abuse of power?

Given the globalized nature of the research and the involvement of actors from very different ethical, cultural and religious traditions, the Catholic Church believes that it is possible to establish levels of consensus and identify some criteria that can guide a shared response to the main ethical and social challenges of the digital age.

At the closing of the Meeting, Pope Francis made a series of reflections that we believe are of great interest to reproduce below, since they reinforce the idea of ​​a Catholic Church committed to the model offered by the Social Doctrine applied, at this moment, to the biotechnological revolution and the exponential irruption of AI.

The Pope reminds us that “the common good is not only the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but must extend to specifically considering the least, the excluded.”

Technological power places humanity at a major crossroads.

“Humanity has entered a new era in which our technical skill has brought us to a crossroads” ( Laudato Si’,  no. 102). On the one hand, “we are beneficiaries of two centuries of enormous changes,” the result of which has unleashed a new digital age that has “countless advantages for humanity.” On the other hand, however, the power of technology is often associated with economic and financial power.

Those who wield this growing and totalizing power over humanity and nature are not necessarily “trained to use power well” ( Laudato Si’,  no. 105).

In general, “the immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility and values, nor by the development of human consciousness regarding freedom and anthropological limits” ( Laudato Si’ , no. 105).

“Humanity has embraced technology and its development according to the undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm” ( Laudato Si’ , no. 106). One paradigm exalts the individual and their freedom disconnected from the social and natural relationships that constitute the subject, and another paradigm responds to the myth of unlimited progress.

Thus, “the technocratic paradigm has become so dominant that it tends to absorb everything, conditioning and shaping our lifestyles” ( Laudato Si’ , no. 108).

However, the Pope reminds us, “humanity’s technological progress must be based on the common good.”

According to Francis, the remarkable advances in the field of technology, “especially in artificial intelligence, are increasingly having significant implications in all areas of human activity. Therefore, I believe that open and concrete debates on this topic are more necessary than ever.”

“The unquestionable benefit that humanity can obtain from technological progress will depend on the extent to which the new possibilities available are used ethically” ( Laudato Si’,  no. 105).

This correlation, according to Francis, requires that, alongside the immense technological progress underway, there be a corresponding development of responsibility and values. Otherwise, the “technocratic paradigm” that promises uncontrolled and unlimited progress will prevail and perhaps even eliminate other factors of development, posing enormous dangers to all humanity.

In other matters, the participants in the Meeting also addressed the repercussions of robotics in the world of work.

One of the conclusions is that we must prevent this purely efficient tool from being used solely to increase profits and economic returns, depriving thousands of people of their jobs and endangering their dignity.

Another example discussed at the meeting was the advantages and risks associated with using AI in debates on major social issues. On the one hand, it can facilitate greater access to reliable information and thus ensure the validity of concrete analyses; on the other hand, it will be possible, as never before, to circulate biased opinions and false data, “poison” public debates, and even manipulate the opinions of millions of people, to the point of jeopardizing the very intentions that guarantee peaceful coexistence.

Therefore, the technological development that we are all witnessing requires that we reclaim ourselves and reinterpret the ethical terms that others have passed on to us.

If technological progress were to cause ever-increasing inequalities, we could not consider it real progress.

If it becomes an enemy of the common good, humanity’s so-called technological progress would lead to an unfortunate regression to a form of barbarity dictated by the law of the strongest.

It is therefore a civilizational effort to reduce economic, educational, technological, social and cultural inequalities and to lay the ethical foundations to guarantee the defense of the dignity of each human person, convinced that the common good cannot be dissociated from the specific good of each individual.

In his concluding remarks, the Pope stated: “As long as a person is a victim of a system, however advanced, that fails to value the intrinsic dignity and contribution of each person, that system is perverse. A better world is possible thanks to technological progress if it is accompanied by an ethic based on a vision of the common good, an ethic of freedom, responsibility, and fraternity, capable of fostering the full development of people in relation to others and to creation.”

IV. ETHICS IN THE ERA OF DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES. An operational roadmap.

The Vatican, joining the efforts of various governments and organizations to regulate and establish best practices around the use of artificial intelligence, published an ethics manual on this technology in 2023.

The document, titled “Ethics in the Age of Disruptive Technologies: An Operational Roadmap,” offered organizations a strategic plan to improve ethical management practices, enabling them to navigate the complex landscape of disruptive technologies such as AI, machine learning, encryption, tracking, and others, while maintaining strong ethical standards.

The guidelines included in the manual are the first tangible project of the organization called the Institute of Technology, Applied Ethics at Santa University. ITEC explains on its website that the institution “brings together leaders from business, civil society, academia, government, and all religious and belief traditions to promote deeper reflection on the impact of technology on humanity.”

These efforts by the Holy See materialized in what we could consider the first regulation on AI published in 2024.

V. THE FIRST LAW ON AI. Decree N.DCCII, “Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence”.

The Vatican City State’s first decree regulating the use of artificial intelligence came into effect on 01.01.25, prohibiting discriminatory uses of AI and establishing a special commission to oversee “experimentation” with the new technology in the Vatican.

The new regulations establish strict prohibitions on the use of artificial intelligence within Vatican state institutions.

Among the prohibited practices are the use of AI systems that compromise the security of Vatican City, the implementation of AI systems that exclude people with disabilities from accessing their functions, and the use of AI to draw anthropological inferences with discriminatory effects on individuals.

The decree also prohibits AI applications that create social inequalities, violate human dignity, or use subliminal manipulation techniques that cause physical or psychological harm to people.

Furthermore, any use of AI that conflicts with the Pope’s mission, the integrity of the Catholic Church, or the institutional activities of the Vatican is prohibited.

The decree also establishes the creation of an “Artificial Intelligence Commission” made up of officials from the legal, IT and security departments of Vatican City.

This commission would be tasked with overseeing AI activities, preparing implementing laws, and issuing semi-annual reports on AI in Vatican City and areas governed by the Lateran Treaty.

The commission will also have to evaluate proposals for experimentation with artificial intelligence to ensure their compliance with the ethical framework of the decree.

It should be noted that the Vatican’s guidelines are inspired by the European Union’s AI Regulation, which came into force on August 1, 2024, with its progressive application beginning on February 2, 2025. This regulation emphasizes a risk-based approach to AI applications.

In addition to outlining general principles, the aforementioned decree establishes specific guidelines for sectors such as health care, cultural heritage, judicial activity, and administrative procedures.

Despite the prohibitions, the guidelines state that “science and technology are products of human creativity understood as a gift from God and have remedied countless evils that afflicted and limited human beings.”

On the other hand, Pope Leo XIV, in a rescript published on May 16, 2026, approved the creation of the interdicasterial commission dedicated to the challenges of artificial intelligence.

According to the Holy See’s statement, this commission was created to respond to three main criteria: the development, in recent decades, of the phenomenon of artificial intelligence and the recent acceleration of its widespread use; its possible effects on human beings and on humanity as a whole; and the Church’s concern for the dignity of every human person, especially with regard to their integral development.

VI. ANTIQUA ET NOVA. On the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence.

On January 28, 2025, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, together with the Dicastery for Culture and Education, issued a note that is fundamental to understanding the Catholic Church’s position on the relationship between human intelligence and artificial intelligence. The document is structured around the following points:

• Introduction.
• What is Artificial Intelligence?
• Intelligence in the philosophical and theological tradition.
• The role of ethics in guiding the development and use of AI.
• Specific issues.
• Final reflection: true wisdom.

The note begins its text with the following statement: “With ancient and new wisdom we are called to consider the daily challenges and opportunities proposed by scientific and technological knowledge, in particular those of the recent development of artificial intelligence.”

The Catholic Church promotes progress in science, technology, the arts, and all human endeavors, seeing them as part of “man and woman’s collaboration with God in perfecting visible creation.”

When we ask ourselves what it means to “be human”, we cannot exclude the consideration of our scientific and technological capabilities.

The Note addresses in detail the anthropological and ethical questions raised by AI, questions that are particularly relevant since one of the goals of this technology is to imitate the human intelligence that designed it.

For example, unlike many other human creations, AI can be trained on human-made products and thus generate new “artifacts” with a level of speed and skill that often equals or surpasses human capabilities, such as generating texts or images that are indistinguishable from human compositions, thus raising concerns about its possible influence on the growing crisis of truth in public debate.

Furthermore, because this technology is designed to learn and make certain decisions autonomously, adapting to new situations and providing solutions not foreseen by its programmers, substantial ethical and security responsibility issues arise, with broader repercussions for society as a whole. This new situation leads humanity to question its identity and its role in the world.

The Note primarily seeks to distinguish the concept of “intelligence” in reference to AI and to human beings. First, it considers the Christian perspective on human intelligence, offering a general framework for reflection grounded in the philosophical and theological tradition of the Catholic Church. Then, it proposes several courses of action aimed at ensuring that the development and use of AI respect human dignity and promote the integral development of the individual and society.

What is Artificial Intelligence?

The Note elaborates on the concept of artificial intelligence and its characteristics, concluding that we are witnessing the development of complex systems capable of performing highly sophisticated tasks.

“Its advanced features give AI sophisticated capabilities for performing tasks, but not the ability to think. This distinction is crucial, because how “intelligence” is defined will inevitably determine our understanding of the relationship between human thought and this technology. To grasp this, we must remember that the richness of the philosophical tradition and Christian theology offers a deeper and more complete vision of intelligence, which is central to the Church’s teaching on the nature, dignity, and vocation of the human person.”

That is why, in the following section, the Note provides a magnificent overview of the concept of “intelligence” in the philosophical and theological tradition from the following points of view:

• Rationality.
• The Incarnation.
• Relationality.
• The relationship with Truth.
• The guardianship of the world.
• A comprehensive understanding of human intelligence.
• The limits of AI.

As stated in the Note, “although AI processes and simulates certain expressions of intelligence, it remains fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical domain, which imposes certain inherent limitations. Whereas human intelligence continuously develops organically throughout a person’s physical and psychological growth and is shaped by a myriad of lived experiences, AI lacks the capacity to evolve in this way.”

The Note goes on to say that “although advanced systems can “learn” through processes such as machine learning, this type of training is essentially different from the growth development of human intelligence, as it is shaped by bodily experiences: sensory stimuli, emotional responses, social interactions and the unique context that characterizes each moment.”

The very use of the word “intelligence” in reference to AI is misleading and risks overlooking what is most valuable about the human person. From this perspective, AI should not be seen as an artificial form of intelligence, but as one of its products.

On the other hand, the Note places special emphasis on the fundamental role of ethics in guiding the development and use of AI.

Artificial intelligence should essentially be an aid to human freedom and decision-making.

We must always bear in mind that technical-scientific activity is not neutral, being a human endeavor  that calls into question the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human ingenuity.

Thus, “like any product of human ingenuity, AI can also be directed toward positive or negative ends. When used in a way that respects human dignity and promotes the well-being of individuals and communities, it can contribute favorably to the human vocation. However, as in all spheres where human beings are called to make decisions, the shadow of evil also looms here. Where human freedom allows the possibility of choosing what is wrong, the moral evaluation of this technology will depend on how it is directed and employed.”

Within this general perspective, the Note seeks to provide guidance in specific situations, in accordance with the “wisdom of the heart.” While not exhaustive, this proposal is offered to contribute to a dialogue that aims to identify the ways in which AI can defend human dignity and promote the common good. In this regard, the Note details practical and concrete aspects in the following areas:

 

• Specific issues.
• Society.
• Human relations.
• The economy and work.
• Healthcare.
• Education.
• Disinformation, deepfakes, and abuses.
• Privacy and control.
• The protection of our common home.
• The war.
• Humanity’s relationship with God.

As a final reflection, the Note raises the question of what true human wisdom really is.

“The essential and fundamental question always remains whether man, as man, in the context of this progress, truly becomes better, that is, more spiritually mature, more aware of the dignity of his humanity, more responsible, more open to others, particularly the most needy and the weakest, more available to give and lend help to all.”

“Today, the vast expanse of knowledge is accessible in ways that would have amazed past generations; however, to prevent the advances of science from remaining humanly and spiritually sterile, we must go beyond the mere accumulation of data and aspire to true wisdom.”

This wisdom is the gift that humanity most needs to address the profound questions and ethical challenges posed by AI: “Only by giving ourselves a spiritual perspective, only by recovering a wisdom of the heart, will we be able to read and interpret the novelty of our time.”

This “wisdom of the heart” is “that virtue which allows us to intertwine the whole and the parts, decisions and their consequences.” Humanity cannot “expect this wisdom from machines,” since it “allows itself to be found by those who seek it and to be seen by those who love it; it anticipates those who desire it and goes in search of those who are worthy of it.”

The Note concludes with the following statement: “In a world marked by AI, we need the grace of the Holy Spirit, which allows us to see things with the eyes of God, understand the links, the situations, the events and discover their meaning.”

VII. QUO VADIS HUMANITAS? Thinking about Christian anthropology in the face of some future scenarios for humanity.

Following the line of thought we have been discussing in the previous sections, the Vatican – through the International Theological Commission – has recently put forward a major framework for reflection with the publication of the document  Quo vadis, humanitas?   which aims to consider Christian anthropology in light of some of the scenarios concerning the future of humanity.

The document turns out to be a profound reading of the human condition in a time of epochal change like the one we are living through.

The starting point is an initial observation: technoscientific progress renews our awe of human capabilities, but it does not eliminate fragility. Death, disease, war, and inequality continue to exist.

However, the document advocates a Christian anthropology that upholds both greatness and limitations, and places human dignity at the center as a pre-existing gift, not as an acquired construct.

Thus, it is asserted that the issue of technology is, above all, an anthropological one. For the dignity of the person cannot be reduced to their cognitive abilities or to the performance that technology promises to enhance.

The text of the International Theological Commission proposes using the Christian category of vocation, where man is not simply a project to be optimized or technologically redesigned, but a reality received as a gift and called to develop in relationship with God, with others and with the world.

It is worth noting that the document  Quo Vadis humanitas?  is aptly linked to the 60th anniversary of  Gaudium et spes  (“on the Church in the modern world”, 1965) one of the four constitutions of the Church resulting from the Second Vatican Council.

Quo Vadis Humanitas?  proposes a method of discernment to address the enormous challenges posed by the biotechnological revolution and the rise of artificial intelligence. This method is as follows: to compare new cultural and technological horizons with the enduring demands of the human condition, distinguishing contributions compatible with the Gospel from those that contradict it.

The International Theological Commission thus organizes its analysis around four categories:

1. Development. It turns out to be a key issue in the debate about the future, causing tension between improving the lives of people and the individual and the temptation to replace the human being.
2. Vocation. It emphasizes the importance of seeing life in its relational aspects and from a place of responsibility.
3. Identity. This is a particularly sensitive dimension in our times due to the possibility of technically intervening in human nature. In this respect, we must pay special attention to bio-ideologies such as transhumanism and posthumanism.
4. Dramatic condition. It implies the free and risk-prone historical character of the path by which each person “becomes who they are”.

One of the most explicit focuses of the document  Quo Vadis humanitas?   is the critical dialogue with transhumanism and posthumanism, currents that radically rethink the relationship between body, technology and human destiny.

Transhumanism is based on a project that aims to overcome the biological limits of human beings (disability, aging and even death) through science and technology, with an anthropocentric and unlimited optimism in relation to progress.

Posthumanism, in its strict sense, questions the existence of a “human form” worthy of being protected and blurs the boundary between human and machine.

In both cases, the document of the International Theological Commission maintains that the solution to the human tension between finitude and infinity cannot come from the suppression or substitution of the human, but from its integration and fullness.

Quo Vadis humanitas?  also addresses the relationship between ethics and technological development, highlighting the anthropological implications of recent technological development, especially in digital communication, data, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and robotics.

The document notes that technology operates not only as a technology, but also as an “environment” that reshapes social life and self-understanding. Therefore, it is necessary to identify and mitigate the most significant risks posed by these technologies, which, without being exhaustive, include the following:

• The opacity of automated decisions in sensitive areas such as health, justice, or security.
• The polarization and “tribalization” of public debate fueled by social media.
• The particular vulnerability of children and young people to dynamics of isolation, manipulation, and violence.
• The tendency to reduce the body to material available to be modified in the pursuit of performance, youth, or the elimination of pain.

As a consequence of this “technological development”, the document situates these transformations in four fundamental relationships of the person:

• In relation to the environment.
• In relation to the others.
• In relation to herself.
• In relation to God.

On the ecological front, the document warns against a technocratic logic that relativizes the limits of nature and exacerbates inequalities, especially in the most vulnerable regions of the planet.

In the social sphere, the impact of hyperconnectivity and information anxiety demands vigilance against data manipulation and the concentration of power.

On a personal level, he warns of the weakening of critical thinking and the temptation to conceive of consciousness as transferable information.

Finally, on the religious level, he recognizes opportunities for mission, but warns of the risk of a digital spiritual “market” without community, and even of technological substitutes for ultimate meaning.

Quo Vadis Humanitas?  is a document that proposes alternatives to the technocratic paradigm. The solution lies in recovering the dimensions it considers threatened by a reductive idea of ​​progress:

• History: memory, sense of time, and hope.
• Space: home, city, town and world versus the depersonalization of non-places.
• Intersubjectivity: family, cultural belonging, and fraternity.

Life is proposed as a vocation. Human beings are not fully understood as a self-founded project, but as someone called to receive life as a gift, to shape their identity with responsible freedom, and to become a gift for others.

In conclusion, the International Theological Commission document emphasizes that humanity does not need an “evolutionary leap” that surpasses its condition, but a relationship that saves it, makes it habitable, and elevates it.

In contrast to transhumanist and posthumanist utopias of unlimited perfection or narratives of human replacement, the Commission proposes an “integral” synthesis that preserves the constitutive tensions of experience – body and spirit, man and woman, individual and community, finitude and infinity – without denying them, and directs them towards a fullness that, in a Christian key, is realized in Christ.

In a world where technological power tends to be concentrated, the text warns that the most serious consequences will fall first on the most vulnerable, the impoverished, and therefore calls for any development to be directed towards the dignity of all, justice and the common good.

The document proposes to delve deeper into the relationship between anthropology, theological reflection, and the understanding of the advances produced by emerging technologies, seeking to understand more precisely the real dynamics that are transforming our way of knowing, deciding, and relating to one another.

The issue is not only about what machines can do, but also about what we are willing to delegate to them from our cognitive processes.

The Commission concludes by stating that only in this way will it be possible to offer clues of discernment capable of truly accompanying human beings in the era of the biotechnological revolution and the irruption of artificial intelligence.

VIII. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Some dangers to avoid in relation to AI according to Leo XIV.

The message delivered on January 24, 2026 for the 60th World Day of Social Communications, Pope Leo XIV wanted to dedicate to the theme of “safeguarding human voices and faces”, in this age of artificial intelligence.

In his address to media professionals, the Pope warned about some risks and dangers that we must avoid in this stage of the digital revolution, and established some guidelines for discernment applicable to the use of artificial intelligence.

One of the dangers that Pope Leo XIV warns us about is the substitution of the human face and voice, an effect that can lead to serious depersonalization.

“The face and voice are unique, distinctive features of each person; they manifest their own unrepeatable identity and are the constitutive element of every encounter,” the Pope said. “The face and voice are sacred. They have been given to us by God, who created us in his image and likeness, calling us to life through the Word that he himself has addressed to us.”

“We are not a species made up of predefined biochemical algorithms,” the Pope said. “Each of us has an irreplaceable and inimitable vocation that arises from life and is manifested precisely in communication with others.”

Digital technology, Leo XIV continues in his message, “when neglected, risks radically altering some of the pillars of human civilization, which we sometimes take for granted. Simulating human voices and faces, wisdom and knowledge, conscience and responsibility, empathy and friendship, the systems known as artificial intelligence not only interfere with information ecosystems, but also invade the deepest level of communication: the relationship between people.”

Thus, the challenge the Pope identifies is not technological but anthropological. The person is a bodily and spiritual unity. The soul or spirit reveals itself in the face and voice. The face and voice are the thresholds of the person. Safeguarding faces and voices ultimately means protecting ourselves from the risk of the face and voice being replaced.

Embracing the opportunities offered by digital technology and artificial intelligence with courage, determination, and discernment does not mean hiding from ourselves the critical points, opacities, and risks.

A second danger that Pope Leo XIV warns us about focuses on the temptation to renounce critical thinking in the face of manipulative algorithms.

There has long been ample evidence that algorithms designed to maximize engagement on social media reward fleeting emotions while penalizing human expressions that require time, such as the effort to understand and reflect. By trapping groups of people in bubbles of easy consensus and easy outrage, these algorithms weaken the capacity for listening and critical thinking, and increase social polarization.

A third danger is the uncritical and naive trust in artificial intelligence as an omniscient “friend,” dispenser of all information, repository of all memory, and “oracle” of all advice. All of this can further erode our capacity for analytical and creative thinking, for understanding meanings, and for distinguishing between syntax and semantics.

The question that matters to us, the Pope said in his speech, is not what the machine can or will be able to do, but what we can or will be able to do, growing in humanity and knowledge, with a wise use of such powerful instruments at our service.

A fourth danger relates to the spread of  digital influencers  . As we navigate our information feeds, it becomes increasingly difficult to discern whether we are interacting with other human beings or with bots or virtual influencers. The opaque interventions of these automated agents influence public debates and people’s decisions.

Technologies that exploit our need to connect can not only have painful consequences for people’s lives, but can also damage the social, cultural, and political fabric of societies.

Another challenge posed by these emerging systems is the bias that leads to acquiring and transmitting a distorted perception of reality. AI models are shaped by the worldview of those who build them, and in turn, they can impose ways of thinking that replicate the stereotypes and prejudices present in the data they draw upon. The lack of transparency in algorithm design, coupled with the inadequate social representation of data, tends to keep us trapped in networks that manipulate our thoughts and perpetuate and deepen existing inequalities and social injustices.

The sixth danger the Pope denounces in his message for the 60th World Communications Day is the lack of precision. Systems that pass off statistical probability as knowledge actually offer us, at best, approximations of the truth, which are sometimes veritable “hallucinations.” The lack of verification of sources can create even more fertile ground for disinformation, provoking a growing sense of distrust, bewilderment, and insecurity.

The fact is that new technologies are a good servant but a very bad master.

Faced with all these risks, the Pope proposes learning to “navigate well” and establishing an alliance between all parties involved based on three pillars:

• Responsibility, which translates into honesty, transparency, courage, vision, the duty to share knowledge, the right to be informed, etc. No one can evade their responsibility for the future we are building.
• Cooperation, extending to all sectors involved, is essential since none of them can face the challenge of guiding digital innovation and governing AI alone. Protective mechanisms must be created.
• Education, to build and make effective a conscious and responsible digital citizenry. Education must contribute to this: increasing our personal capacities for critical reflection, evaluating the credibility of sources and the potential interests behind the selection of information we receive; understanding the psychological mechanisms activated in response; and enabling families, communities, and associations to develop practical criteria for a culture of healthy and responsible communication.

Leo XIV concludes his message with a call for the face and voice to once again express the person. The Pope’s voice invites us to safeguard the human person in times of the biodigital revolution and the development of artificial intelligence. For this reason, the Pope dedicated his first encyclical,  Magnificat Humanitas, to this topic   , which we will address in the second part of this article.

Barcelona, ​​May 25, 2026

“DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR OWN THOUGHTS” (Pope Leo XIV).