An article by Professor Andrea Pizzichini, published on the Alfonsiana Academy blog
It is certainly difficult, in the narrow space afforded by a blog post, to offer an exhaustive summary of an encyclical that is divided into 245 paragraphs divided into five chapters, plus an introduction and a conclusion – not to mention that, by now, tools (AI, precisely!) are widely available that can provide us with precise accounts of the document in a few seconds, and it would seem that, given the flood of comments that have invaded the web, they have been made extensively ( it is a sin to think badly, however… ).
What AI (perhaps) cannot provide us for now, beyond more or less well-crafted summaries, is a guideline for theological reflection, which is what can be of most interest to readers of an academic blog. And this is what Magnifica Humanitas [= MH ] itself indicates in no. 47: “At the same time, I would like to encourage academies and universities to revitalize these principles [of the Social Doctrine of the Church, (= SDC)], rethinking them in a way that is relevant to today and effective in addressing the digital revolution. In this way, theological and philosophical research will be able to deepen and support the pastoral path of the Church, contributing to the Magisterium’s task of enlightening the consciences of believers and guiding their commitment to making the life of our societies more just and fraternal.
This is a true mandate for Catholic universities with reference to the principles of the SDC ( here ), a detailed analysis of which is entrusted to the entire second chapter of MH – and which, coincidentally, is the most overlooked in journalistic commentary – making it extremely reductive to define the document simply as “the encyclical on AI” ( here, but the examples could easily be multiplied). Certainly, AI is, in some ways, emblematic of the challenges humanity faces today – the encyclical’s subtitle: “On the Safeguarding of the Human Person in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” seems to indicate precisely this; however, perhaps the underlying message is that, beyond the phantasmagorical advances of technology, what we must not lose sight of is what is truly at stake: the good of the person and the common good of the human family, which only partially coincides with economic well-being. AI will pass; perhaps it will succeed in keeping some of its “promises” of prosperity; but the human person, in need of “safeguarding,” will not pass.
A first warning for theology, therefore, is not to be dazzled by the wonders of new technologies, as the risk of a new idolatry spawned by the allure of machines that “speak” (cf. Antiqua et Nova, n. 105, here ). To do this, however, theology must return to thinking, not only about the relationship between humanity and technology (obviously necessary), but about history in its entirety, in a strong sense. Moreover, MH itself offers what is effectively a hermeneutic criterion for the theology of history: “Thus understood, the Social Doctrine becomes a theology of communion in history” (MH, n. 27). But what does this mean?
The author is somewhat skeptical about the possibilities of a so-called proactive ethics, that is, an ethics capable not only of judging processes like the current AI race, but also of directing them. I think we’ve all heard or read (or even said) that philosophy and, especially, theology are lagging behind today’s technological developments. Now, if we’re referring to the fact that the increased power afforded by technological development occurs at a pace that outstrips human capacity to fully understand its implications, without the time to adequately reflect on it and use it wisely, we can only agree. However, if we instead believe that ethics should take the reins of unruly events and guide them back on track, I personally have some doubts, at least if this means that, by confusing ethics and law, establishing a few rules is enough to solve the problem.
It’s true that MH also says that it’s necessary to “manage the transformation in advance” (MH, n. 156), specifically referring to the problem of work and unemployment, which, it is feared, will spread with the ever-increasing use of AI at the professional level. This means, in reality, that each of us must not resign ourselves to being passive spectators of these processes, since, as members of a social body and not simply individuals, our actions or our inactions can have consequences beyond our daily experience. It’s no coincidence that MH’s perspective embraces the whole of society from the perspective of subsidiarity.
Specifically, what can theology do in these cases? Now, it is not its task to anticipate history – because it simply cannot: one interprets reality, one does not consult a crystal ball. The task of theological thought, as mentioned above, is to offer a strong reading of history and society that is first and foremost a meaningful reading, a strong interpretation of current events. We are speaking, obviously, of the well-known signs of the times (cf. GS, n. 4, here ), regarding which the Latin text of the Conciliar Constitution says: ” perscrutandi et sub Evangelii luce interpretandi.” That is, it is not just a matter of staying up-to-date with the latest technological advances, without offering something more that can only come from an appropriate amount of time for listening and reflecting ; this presupposes a history that is meditated and thought out in the light of the Gospel, and therefore considered in the light of the great fresco offered to us by the revealed Word and which the Church, at the level of the magisterium and theological tradition, has never failed to deepen, building a deposit that can truly be considered the treasure from which to extract “things new and things old” ( Mt 13:52; cf. Antiqua et nova, n. 1).
This is a task for which, I believe, it’s worth staying a little “late.” This is the contribution that theology (and, specifically, social moral theology) can make not only to the faithful, but also to the entire human family, which today more than ever seems united in its lack of a compass to show it the right path to follow. And it also seems to be the task that MH entrusts to it.
We conclude by noting that, in fact, this post doesn’t offer a great summary of MH: precisely for this reason, it’s an invitation to read it! And, why not, perhaps under a beach umbrella, so you can look like an intellectual…
