When Technology Meets Theology

In a world where artificial intelligence is advancing by leaps and bounds, few voices have the ability to stop the noise and generate deep reflection. One of them, perhaps the most unexpected, is that of Pope Leo XIV, who on May 25 published Magnifica Humanitas: On the Custody of the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence, the first encyclical of his pontificate dedicated entirely to AI. This document is not a simple statement of principles; it is a systematic analysis of how AI is reshaping society, economy, and politics, and a warning about the risks of leaving its development in the hands of a few.

AI as a New Industrial Revolution

Leo XIV places AI on the same level as the industrial revolution of the 19th century, comparing it to the changes that led to the publication of Rerum Novarum by Leo XIII in 1891. But while that encyclical addressed workers' conditions, this new one focuses on the very essence of what it means to be human. The Pope argues that AI is not neutral: it depends on who creates it, for what purposes, and under what values. And he warns that without proper regulation, it could become an instrument of control, inequality, and war.

The encyclical has sparked a global debate that transcends the religious sphere. In the United States, radio programs and newspaper editorials discuss whether AI needs to be regulated. Governments around the world have taken note, and big tech companies are analyzing every word. As Alberto Pascual, president of the ASLAN Association and CEO of Ingram Micro Spain, points out, “Technology has always been an amplifier of what lies in the human heart. If there is a spiritual crisis, a crisis of values, AI will reflect it magnified.”

The Myth of Technological Neutrality

One of the most discussed points of the encyclical is the denial of AI neutrality. Mario Escobar, writer and expert on the figure of the Pope, explains: “AI is created by large corporations. They are not individual intellectuals, but large technology companies that have owners, and the companies themselves have an ideology. That ideology is reflected in AI, because AI, even if it sometimes doesn't seem to reason, only repeats what it has been allowed to repeat.”

Escobar compares this situation to Orwell's novel 1984, where ministries rewrite the truth. “Instead of seeking the truth, that invisible algorithm gives us an alternative truth,” he warns. This lack of neutrality is especially dangerous when AI is used to make decisions about credit, justice, or health, where biases can perpetuate inequalities.

The Risk of a New Technological Babel

Leo XIV warns of the danger of a “new Babel” of technology, where algorithmic uniformity sacrifices cultural diversity and human dignity. Alberto Pascual believes that “the algorithmic uniformity resulting from the strong concentration occurring among AI developers flattens the differences that have always enriched humanity, which represents a regression.”

To avoid this, he proposes “protecting the unique dignity of the human being by avoiding the reduction of the person to an optimizable data point. The implementation of any logic that prioritizes our valuation by performance or utility must be monitored.” This requires algorithmic transparency and independent audits, something also addressed in our article on vendor neutrality in OpenTelemetry.

AI for the Common Good

The encyclical insists that technology can both build and divide. To ensure that AI serves the common good, Pascual advocates for “revisiting the current concept of the common good: what are the shared goals, reclaiming intergenerational solidarity, remembering the universal destination of goods, the social mortgage that should weigh on private property.”

Mario Escobar goes further and points out that the Pope speaks of “techno-fascism,” a strong term that describes how AI can dissolve people into a mass guided by an impersonal logic. “AI has elements of fascism: populism, order over chaos, sense of belonging. It dissolves into a mass guided by an impersonal logic that not only informs but creates opinion and ideology,” he explains.

Power in the Hands of a Few

Another critical aspect is the concentration of technological power in large transnational companies, with resources surpassing many states. Pascual calls it “digital colonialism” and recommends “strong international regulations, requiring transparency, accountability, and participation of civil society.” Self-regulation, he says, has proven insufficient.

This concern connects with European digital sovereignty, where countries like the Netherlands block acquisitions that risk national security. The encyclical proposes a balance between innovation and control, fostering responsible cooperation among companies, states, academia, and the Church.

Remaining Profoundly Human

One of the most powerful phrases in the encyclical is the need to “remain profoundly human.” Mario Escobar explains it this way: “AI can imitate the human, but it is not human. It lacks emotion, consciousness, moral discernment, the capacity to love or suffer. Human beings have intelligence, but also an emotional and spiritual dimension. AI does not. That is why it is relentless: it can execute orders without questioning them.”

Alberto Pascual adds that remaining human means “custodying human greatness by preserving freedom, fragility, the capacity for relationship, empathy, critical thinking, and openness to transcendence.” And he warns against transhumanist temptations that promise to overcome limits through technological optimization but reduce man to a useful machine.

At a time when AI agents can already spend money autonomously, and business digital transformation advances without pause, Leo XIV's encyclical arrives as a reminder that technology must be at the service of the person, not the other way around. As Pascual concludes: “We must recover as a compass those cardinal virtues—prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance—that guided us toward happiness and that it is so hard to believe a bodiless machine could emulate.”

Original source: ComputerWorld. Analysis and adaptation by ForgeNEX.