Father Hugh MacKenzie, a Chaplain at Westminster Cathedral, reviews the Papal Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Magnifica humanitas, a Review by Fr Hugh MacKenzie
In Rerum novarum (‘new things’ or ‘new realities’), Pope Leo XIII confronted the rapid changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution and developed Catholic moral principles concerning social injustices and the dominant ideological responses to them (capitalism and socialism). In Magnifica humanitas Pope Leo XIV attempts to deal with further challenges to human dignity and social justice brought about by the digital and computer revolution. ‘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?’ (§6).
Do we choose to build a Tower of Babel, ‘a project conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenisation over communion’? Or do we follow the 5th century BC re-building of Jerusalem ‘through the shared responsibility of all: […] rebuilding relationships before rebuilding with stones […] recognising that our strength comes from the Lord’ (§7-16, cf. 129, 184)?
Pope Leo argues that western culture seems to be choosing the former, having ‘abandoned the search for the solid foundations sustaining our decisions and our laws’ (§56). He argues powerfully throughout for the latter, Jerusalem, option: ‘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’ (§15). We are ‘created for relationship’ (§50), ‘the richness of our encounters with others; […] “our real personal history is built with the heart”’ (§120, 132 quoting Pope Francis’ Dilexit nos).
In That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis, the final book of his deeply philosophical and theological science fiction trilogy, the technocratic overlords develop a disembodied human brain that learns to speak. Its utterances become their guiding wisdom, but it eventually descends into destructive and manic incoherence. Pope Leo highlights the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) becoming a brain without a soul. He affirms ‘the grandeur of humanity […] which no machine can ever replace’ (§15).
‘The Church reminds us, with a firm yet humble voice, that true fulfilment […] 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’ (§12).
Human persons ‘can fully discover their true selves only in sincere self-giving’ (§48 quoting Vatican II). ‘Moderation and limits; […] and a sense of transcendence and the common good’ are essential (§147). AI does not have such freedom:
‘Nothing in the world of AI is immaterial […]. Every seemingly immediate and flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving vast networks of natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above all, people’ (§173).
On the other hand, humans have a ‘superiority over material things [… with] rights and duties’ (§51, referencing Vatican II). ‘We must lay aside an individualistic and technical view of humanity, as if reality were mere matter’ (§237). The Pope wisely avoids the red herring debate over whether AI might have a basic subjective or instinctual awareness. His emphasis is repeatedly upon human “freedom and responsibility”.
We should not let AI be a guiding voice without either divine wisdom or the spiritual side of humanity. We should ‘ensure that it will always be human intelligence, with its conscience and freedom, that guides technical innovations’ (§97), ‘not rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity’ (§110). Widespread reliance on AI as a source not only of information, data synthesis and powerful pattern recognition is one thing. But as a source of personal and social guidance, even of psychological and spiritual counsel, a friend to the lonely and a solace for the broken in an increasingly secularised world, is really a modern form of idolatry. This is fraught with profound ‘dangers’ (a word used 13 times in the Encyclical) for individuals and for society, some of which have already become tragically evident.
AI is a potentially useful tool, but if we let it become our master, then we are abdicating our very humanity. The current risk is that this tool is being rapidly developed by people with purely monetary motives. AI in many of its current forms is designed not as a truth engine, let alone a true moral guide, but to maximize engagement in order to generate data for commercial manipulation. It is also being used by various states and political powers for social and ideological manipulation, spreading deliberate misinformation (§102, 141, 191). Both of these are clearly against the common good. What is the corrective vision and who is to implement it and reign in rogue actors?
The Holy Father is also concerned that as the global economy is transformed by AI, it is putting countless people out of work (§151-164). The idea of ‘work’ in Catholic anthropology and social ethics goes beyond just economic necessity and earning one’s daily crust. Work is about human creativity, self-development, collaboration and belonging to the shared endeavour. It is about being actors and contributors to the common good, not just passive and dependent receivers of welfare or patronage. This is an essential part of human dignity.
The Pope also discusses the tragic ‘normalisation of war’, which has happened despite the UN being set up to avoid that. He defends the ‘right to self-defence, in the strictest sense’ but argues that, with new types of national and international entities and development of increasingly powerful weapons, avoidance of ‘disastrous consequences for civilian populations’ is almost impossible. ‘Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness’ (§192).
The fate of migrants is close to the Pope’s heart. They should be offered ‘genuine pathways to integration’ (§81). A possible lacuna in the letter concerns its silence on the important historical role of cultures formed under the influence of Christianity.
The Pope’s concerns are also shared by those of different faiths and none, so we can make common cause with people who want to discuss how we control the AI revolution. However, as Catholics we are not simply ‘humanists’ in the modern ‘liberal’ sense. The language and ideas of the ‘magnificence’ or glory of humanity, of human rights and indeed of a rules-based world order, all derive from our fundamental identity in Christ. We are created in his image, chosen in him before the creation of the world, restored to our original dignity through his redeeming sacrifice, called and invited to share in his divine life with the Father and the Holy Spirit. These are the foundations of any authentic humanism.
The questions arising from AI are confronting the whole human community with a fundamental choice concerning what foundations we build our de facto worldwide community upon.
Will future civilisation be built on authentic humanism with God’s revelation in Christ as its cornerstone and guiding light? ‘Only in Christ does “the mystery of humanity truly become clear” because his humanity is completely free, open to others’ (§49, quoting Vatican II). Or will it be on a sophisticated but still purely materialist and mechanist concept of human nature which will make the majority of people effectively slaves of our own created automata and of the super-rich ‘big brother’ oligarchs who program and control them?
Magnifica humanitas, a Review by Fr Hugh MacKenzie
In Rerum novarum (‘new things’ or ‘new realities’), Pope Leo XIII confronted the rapid changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution and developed Catholic moral principles concerning social injustices and the dominant ideological responses to them (capitalism and socialism). In Magnifica humanitas Pope Leo XIV attempts to deal with further challenges to human dignity and social justice brought about by the digital and computer revolution. ‘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?’ (§6).
Do we choose to build a Tower of Babel, ‘a project conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenisation over communion’? Or do we follow the 5th century BC re-building of Jerusalem ‘through the shared responsibility of all: […] rebuilding relationships before rebuilding with stones […] recognising that our strength comes from the Lord’ (§7-16, cf. 129, 184)?
Pope Leo argues that western culture seems to be choosing the former, having ‘abandoned the search for the solid foundations sustaining our decisions and our laws’ (§56). He argues powerfully throughout for the latter, Jerusalem, option: ‘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’ (§15). We are ‘created for relationship’ (§50), ‘the richness of our encounters with others; […] “our real personal history is built with the heart”’ (§120, 132 quoting Pope Francis’ Dilexit nos).
In That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis, the final book of his deeply philosophical and theological science fiction trilogy, the technocratic overlords develop a disembodied human brain that learns to speak. Its utterances become their guiding wisdom, but it eventually descends into destructive and manic incoherence. Pope Leo highlights the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) becoming a brain without a soul. He affirms ‘the grandeur of humanity […] which no machine can ever replace’ (§15).
‘The Church reminds us, with a firm yet humble voice, that true fulfilment […] 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’ (§12).
Human persons ‘can fully discover their true selves only in sincere self-giving’ (§48 quoting Vatican II). ‘Moderation and limits; […] and a sense of transcendence and the common good’ are essential (§147). AI does not have such freedom:
‘Nothing in the world of AI is immaterial […]. Every seemingly immediate and flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving vast networks of natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above all, people’ (§173).
On the other hand, humans have a ‘superiority over material things [… with] rights and duties’ (§51, referencing Vatican II). ‘We must lay aside an individualistic and technical view of humanity, as if reality were mere matter’ (§237). The Pope wisely avoids the red herring debate over whether AI might have a basic subjective or instinctual awareness. His emphasis is repeatedly upon human “freedom and responsibility”.
We should not let AI be a guiding voice without either divine wisdom or the spiritual side of humanity. We should ‘ensure that it will always be human intelligence, with its conscience and freedom, that guides technical innovations’ (§97), ‘not rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity’ (§110). Widespread reliance on AI as a source not only of information, data synthesis and powerful pattern recognition is one thing. But as a source of personal and social guidance, even of psychological and spiritual counsel, a friend to the lonely and a solace for the broken in an increasingly secularised world, is really a modern form of idolatry. This is fraught with profound ‘dangers’ (a word used 13 times in the Encyclical) for individuals and for society, some of which have already become tragically evident.
AI is a potentially useful tool, but if we let it become our master, then we are abdicating our very humanity. The current risk is that this tool is being rapidly developed by people with purely monetary motives. AI in many of its current forms is designed not as a truth engine, let alone a true moral guide, but to maximize engagement in order to generate data for commercial manipulation. It is also being used by various states and political powers for social and ideological manipulation, spreading deliberate misinformation (§102, 141, 191). Both of these are clearly against the common good. What is the corrective vision and who is to implement it and reign in rogue actors?
The Holy Father is also concerned that as the global economy is transformed by AI, it is putting countless people out of work (§151-164). The idea of ‘work’ in Catholic anthropology and social ethics goes beyond just economic necessity and earning one’s daily crust. Work is about human creativity, self-development, collaboration and belonging to the shared endeavour. It is about being actors and contributors to the common good, not just passive and dependent receivers of welfare or patronage. This is an essential part of human dignity.
The Pope also discusses the tragic ‘normalisation of war’, which has happened despite the UN being set up to avoid that. He defends the ‘right to self-defence, in the strictest sense’ but argues that, with new types of national and international entities and development of increasingly powerful weapons, avoidance of ‘disastrous consequences for civilian populations’ is almost impossible. ‘Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness’ (§192).
The fate of migrants is close to the Pope’s heart. They should be offered ‘genuine pathways to integration’ (§81). A possible lacuna in the letter concerns its silence on the important historical role of cultures formed under the influence of Christianity.
The Pope’s concerns are also shared by those of different faiths and none, so we can make common cause with people who want to discuss how we control the AI revolution. However, as Catholics we are not simply ‘humanists’ in the modern ‘liberal’ sense. The language and ideas of the ‘magnificence’ or glory of humanity, of human rights and indeed of a rules-based world order, all derive from our fundamental identity in Christ. We are created in his image, chosen in him before the creation of the world, restored to our original dignity through his redeeming sacrifice, called and invited to share in his divine life with the Father and the Holy Spirit. These are the foundations of any authentic humanism.
The questions arising from AI are confronting the whole human community with a fundamental choice concerning what foundations we build our de facto worldwide community upon.
Will future civilisation be built on authentic humanism with God’s revelation in Christ as its cornerstone and guiding light? ‘Only in Christ does “the mystery of humanity truly become clear” because his humanity is completely free, open to others’ (§49, quoting Vatican II). Or will it be on a sophisticated but still purely materialist and mechanist concept of human nature which will make the majority of people effectively slaves of our own created automata and of the super-rich ‘big brother’ oligarchs who program and control them?
