An article by Prof. AG Fidalgo CSsR, published on the blog of the Alfonsiana Academy
If it is true that we live in a world that has formally decided to abolish slavery , this has been the case at least since the historical and juridical process that gave rise to abolitionism began (18th and 19th centuries), and which reached its maximum expression in Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and subsequently in the United Nations resolution declaring slavery the most serious crime against humanity (1956). However, it is a reality of oppression that, painfully and scandalously, continues to be very present in more or less traditional and new generation forms. This is a slap in the face to humanity that seeks to live with dignity.
From an interreligious perspective, one might recall the timely event held with Pope Francis: the Ceremony for the Signing of the Declaration Against Slavery by Religious Leaders (Casina Pio IV, 02.12.2014). In this sense, one might recall when Pope John Paul II, during a visit to Africa (1985), asked forgiveness from Africans for the suffering caused by “men belonging to Christian nations” in the slave trade. Francis has repeatedly denounced the phenomenon of slavery, from child labor to human trafficking and many other situations (cf. EG, nn. 43; 57; LS , n. 154; FT , n. 24). And now the current pope arrives with his key message of “disarming” and “preventing domination” of any kind. In his social encyclical Magnifica humanitas [ MH ], among other significant elements, there is a fact of great historical novelty: he apologizes for the Church’s historical fault in legitimizing slavery and warns about new forms of slavery. According to the Pope, there are new forms of anthropological reductionism that lead inexorably to processes of dehumanization. And the ecclesial community that he represents, even when it must recognize its historical faults out of evangelical honesty, cannot remain silent, as an expert in humanity, when this magnificent humanity is not respected and, indeed, its dignity is diminished. Because, for this Pope: ” Guarding freedom against dependence and commodification ” (cf. MH, nn. 128; 131; 170 ff.), implies “breaking the chains of new forms of slavery ” (cf. MH, nn. 173-181).
Pope Leo recognizes that for centuries ecclesiastical authorities legitimized slavery, and universal condemnation had to be expected until the 19th century (cf. MH, nn. 123; 176). And, at the same time, as has been said, he denounces new forms of slavery, extending the concept to modern social evils, such as the commodification of people, sexual exploitation, forced labor, and the physical harm suffered by those who work in the extraction of materials for the technology and AI industries (cf. MH, nn. 42; 172; 174; 175; 177; 179).
Therefore, it is a matter of recognizing these new forms of slavery, analyzing them, and addressing them responsibly and with prophetic creativity, if we do not want to have to return to asking for forgiveness by omission and/or commission. If we are to safeguard the most precious gift: the duality of dignity and freedom, we cannot ignore this dehumanizing reality. Thus, the text denounces the various forms of subjugation directly linked to the digital economy: invisible labor; the extraction of rare earths in brutal conditions (including of minors); human trafficking facilitated by platforms, messaging systems, anonymous payments, and profiling. Indeed, even if it took nearly eighteen centuries to condemn classical slavery, at the present time we are not permitted such lethargy; this is why historical self-criticism presents itself as the nourishment of an active and proactive vigilance, of high historical-theological density (cf. MH, n. 177; FT, n. 86).
Ultimately, it is a question of caring for and safeguarding humanity as it follows its historical course through continuous transformations, which must always be the object of discernment, so that they give the best of themselves for the common good (cf. MH, chap. IV). It is for all this that the ecclesial community must follow its most authentic evangelizing vocation-mission, being ever more capable of listening to the cry of the poor, of migrants and of the victims of new forms of slavery (cf. MH, n. 42); and from here denounce without hesitation those many marked, mutilated and consumed bodies so that the flow of calculations is not interrupted (cf. MH, n. 173). To the point that the fight against “new forms of slavery” constitutes a decisive test for the ethical discernment of AI and digital transform. (cf. MH, n. 174). At the same time, as a counter-proof, it must be affirmed that failing to react firmly or somehow tolerating such practices would mean, to a certain extent, becoming complicit today in the sins committed yesterday (cf. MH, n. 175). Even more dangerous would be if our digital age were not only not post-colonial, but a version of another type of colonialism (cf. MH, n. 178).
This message is expected to reach everyone, but especially those individuals and institutions that have not only greater social weight but also greater ethical and systemic responsibilities to undertake and implement real processes of transformation. Otherwise, it would be just another beautiful message that is applauded and left in the repository of doctrines, as if nothing had been said, claimed, or denounced. Therefore, among other things, it is expected that:
- It is assumed that “certain logics of structural indebtedness, which keep entire peoples in conditions of dependence, reveal the same mentality which accepts, in new forms, relationships of subordination close to slavery” ( MH , n. 172).
- We urgently need to launch “a broad movement of reflection and action that places at its centre the inalienable dignity of every human being and the common good, as the ends of society and as the criteria for every personal, social and political choice” ( MH , n. 174).
- It should be understood that “higher-level institutions must recognize, protect and promote the freedom and creativity of lower levels, coordinating their contributions so that they cooperate effectively for the common good” ( MH , n. 68).
- Let us choose “justice, which demands that we prevent the emergence of new forms of exclusion and deprivation of freedom” ( MH , n. 80).
- Let us welcome the call “for a moral and social discernment that safeguards the primacy of the person, so that it is always human intelligence, with its conscience and its freedom, that guides technical innovations and responsibly establishes their use and limits” ( MH , n. 97).
- We must commit ourselves to “promoting a use of technologies that strengthens interior freedom: education in digital sobriety, protection of minors and opposition to models that thrive on vulnerability” ( MH , n. 170).
- Let us accept and assume that “the new forms of slavery are fuelled by economic chains and digital infrastructures” and therefore “we need to work in multiple directions:
- First and foremost, to increase transparency in the supply chains that support the technology industry and the digital economy, so that no competitive advantage is built on invisible exploitation.
- Secondly, it is necessary for companies and investors to adopt clear criteria for preventive ethical verification ( due diligence ), including among the priorities the protection of workers, the fight against forced labor and the social impact of data-driven business models.
- Furthermore, digital platforms must be called upon to cooperate responsibly with authorities and civil society to prevent communication, payment, and profiling tools from becoming channels for recruiting and monitoring victims.
«When these choices converge, the digital environment can be transformed from a space of predation to a space of protection, prevention and promotion of dignity» (MH, n. 179).
Without forgetting, indeed placing at the center of the moral approach, the believing conviction that: “the mystery of the Son of God who enters our condition tells of an opposite movement: the living God descends into our history to free us from every form of slavery, takes upon himself our weakness and transforms it into a place of salvation” ( MH , n. 232). From these convictions it is a question of disarming every enslaving logic, every system of slavery, every colonialist mentality and dedicating ourselves to building a humanity that knows how to “raise what has collapsed and protect what is exposed” ( MH , n. 241), because “God accompanies the freedom of human beings in the making of history” (MH , n. 21).
