In his column two weeks ago, Tom Venzor addressed the central question at the heart of Magnifica Humanitas: “What is man, that God is mindful of him?” (Psalm 8.) And the answer: “God said, let us make man in our own image, after our likeness, and let him have dominion. … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him.” (Genesis 1:26-27.)
And further: “It is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.” (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 1, citing Gaudium et Spes, no. 22.) Christ “reveals man to man himself” and restores “the divine likeness which had been disfigured [by sin],” making it possible for us to call out as true “sons in the Son” to our Father, in whose image we were made and in whom we find our identity and our rest.
Pope Leo makes this theme central to Magnifica Humanitas. Unless we understand who we are and what we are for, we cannot judge rightly whether and how we are to create and use tools as powerful as “artificial intelligence.” A.I. will either: (a) Serve human persons in accord with our nature, which is rational but also relational; or (b) It will alienate us from ourselves, from other persons, from our work, from creation, and from our Creator. Leo points out that getting this wrong means human beings being molded to fit the goals of those who design the tools rather than the tools being molded to promote the flourishing of human beings.
We are therefore continuously encountering successive forks in the road where we must decide whether and how to create and/or use proposed and emerging technologies. For those of us who are using technologies that promise to make our life more efficient, convenient, or comfortable, we are challenged to ask ourselves: What is my relationship to this thing? How is it affecting me? How is it affecting my family?
Pope Leo invites us to consider two images from Scripture: the tower of Babel, representing arrogance, self-worship, and lust for power and control (which results in confusion, misery, and ruin); and its opposite, Nehemiah’s Jerusalem, where we join the work of defending the city and rebuilding its walls. The rebuilding of Jerusalem represents solidarity and working “together in the presence of God” to build—even to build with great personal and civilizational ambition—faithfully in accord with God’s will and for the purpose of furthering the common good.
Contemplating these two opposing images is good for all of us—what kind of household are we building (or letting grow around us in our apathy)—Babel or Jerusalem? The image of these two cities is for us, but I think it is also directed in an especially urgent way to the developers of new technologies and the investors who make that development possible. It is secondarily (but also importantly) directed at makers of law and public policy. What are we encouraging, incentivizing, and investing in—personally, communally, and civilizationally—Babel or Jerusalem?
These two images are the interpretive key to the whole encyclical. Understanding the difference between them helps us understand how we ought to think about artificial intelligence and other technologies that are at least theoretically meant to increase human flourishing.
The Nebraska Catholic Conference will have more to report on this subject in coming months, as it has increasingly become an urgent issue for federal and state policymakers. In the meantime, however, let us take Pope Leo’s invitation and challenge seriously—whatever happens in the legal, political, and regulatory worlds, let us be good stewards today of our own souls and households. Remember who you are and where you are going!
