"We must, then, avoid the 'Babel syndrome,' namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data… pic.twitter.com/vDUlhJx6bJ
— Pope Crave (@ClubConcrave) May 25, 2026
Oh, you bet I had my agentic librarian waiting for this banger to drop. As is my wont1, I asked Brother William to highlight a few things to kick us off:
The biblical dialectic — Babel vs. Jerusalem's walls avoids both utopian technophilia and reactionary rejection. Technology isn't evil; its domination without moral discernment is the disorder.
The private power shift — Where Rerum Novarum addressed labor-vs-capital within state economies, Magnifica humanitas confronts transnational private actors whose resources exceed governments. That's a fundamental update to the tradition's framework.
Anthropological foundation for AI ethics — The encyclical provides what the secular discourse has lacked: a comprehensive account of human dignity rooted in the Incarnation, not reducible to utilitarian calculus or detached rights-talk.
First one seems generally aligned with what I blogged yesterday. Second certainly has been on my mind a lot, with the oligarchs hyping things up with no true concern for human consequences, despite lip service they pay to safety, socio-economic impact, etc. I'll have to dig into the third more deeply, but seems somewhat connected to AI art and the human soul, amongst other things. Anyway, I also found a couple items of note, to wit...
In the beginning:
Technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity. On the contrary, it has formed part of our history since the beginning as “a profoundly human reality, linked to the autonomy and freedom of man.” Over the centuries, technological development has significantly improved the living conditions of humanity. At the same time, each phase of progress has also revealed the ambiguity of tools that can cause harm when not oriented toward the good.
Today, however, we find ourselves facing a new situation. The power and prevalence of emerging technologies are interwoven into the fabric of daily life, shaping decision-making processes and deeply affecting the collective imagination: “Never has humanity had such power over itself.” New technologies open up a horizon extending in directions that are imaginable but not yet fully predictable. This complicates the assessment of their potential impact and the long-term effects they may have on both the dignity of individuals and the common good.
Indeed, we have guided missiles, and misguided man. I think this is the foundational, guiding principle: we are makers of tools, and as moral agents, we decide how to use those tools for good or ill. It has ever been thus.
A shared responsibility:
The various areas just considered — the search for the truth in public life, education in the digital environment, the transformation of work, the fragility of families and new forms of slavery — are not isolated phenomena. Rather, they reflect a common underlying issue, namely that if technology becomes the ultimate criterion, the human person risks being reduced to data, a cog in a machine or a commodity. If, however, technology is integrated with a wise perspective, it can become an instrument of growth, justice and fraternity.
The section header particularly caught my eye because we frequently talk about a shared responsibility model in terms of security. Ostensibly, security is our top priority (that's straight from our messaging), and I've been extending that by observing ethics is the top priority of security, doing the right things for the right reasons, and everything else devolves from that. One cannot provide security if one is not ethical (from where I sit, at any rate), so ethical use of AI or any tech is as much a shared responsibility as security.
From training models to using the tools, we all must interrogate how and why we use AI, who gains and who is harmed, etc. It's something to grapple with as a society as much as the use of nuclear power or motor vehicles or social media.
Toward the end:
Let us invest in education, beginning with ourselves! We all need to learn how to engage with the digital world in a human way, as an integral part of our education in the faith and in a life lived according to the Gospel. Indeed, we must consider the digital world as a new continent to be evangelized, one that requires generous missionaries who are mature in the faith.
In a particular way, we need adults to rediscover their vocation as artisans of education, prepared to work patiently each day, with the support of extensive and shared educational partnerships. Today, accompanying children and young people in using technology for developing responsible relationships, helping them to recognize the risks and choose what fosters inner freedom, is a concrete form of charity and will safeguard their dignity. Teaching new generations that technological evolution does not follow a predetermined path, but can be guided by personal and collective responsibility, constitutes one of the most valuable services to the common good.
I do get off the bus with the evangelizing language in a purely religious sense, especially with the subtext of colonization ("new continent"). That said, I have observed before that I view my work, leaning into the ethical and humane when teaching about AI, as bearing Witness in a Quakerly way, and I do sometimes think of myself as a pilgrim in an unholy land. But it all fits with my philosophical perspective, that there is a prerequisite maturity when debating, building, and using these tools.
It's about teaching from a good ethical foundation. Some might question the inherent ethics of using AI in the first instance, yet it is here, a thing in the world with which we must contend. We will sooner draw all the water from the sea with a spoon than get rid of the technology, so it's up to us to learn and guide others through the shoals.
Selah.
1 - One of my first integrations with Amazon Quick was setting up an MCP server for the tool to communicate directly with The Abbey. Then I built an agentic process to look for research papers and other works regarding AI ethics, security, social impact, etc, for me to review and decide whether to ingest into The Library (a Bedrock knowledge base). For validation, it always queries William about the new content. Yes, it's a bit ironic that I start with the AI's findings here.
