The Don Jones Index, 5/29/26

the DON JONES INDEX…
	GAINS POSTED in GREEN LOSSES POSTED in RED 5/29/26… 15,603.30 5/22/26… 15,593.94 6/27/13... 15,000.00
(THE DOW JONES INDEX: 5/29... 50,668.97; 5/22... 50,295.66; 6/27/13… 15,000.00)

LESSON for FRIDAY, MAY 29, 2026 – “GRAB-U-NATION DAZE!”

Millions of new college, university and trade school students are slapping on the cap n’ gone; waving bye to life on intellectual planes and diving into a job market tarmac that is... to say the least... difficult. Maybe not sinkholesm but wars, affordability and generational change are all in play plus, as played out all over America, perhaps the most disturbing development has been the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) that augurs to change most jobs and eliminate some.

As traditional transition transactions are being supplanted by technological change inciting everything from mandatory computer coding classes in many colleges, high schools and even younger to widespread student and graduate resistance to its advocates, Eric Church delivered his now-famous traditional graduation speech at UNC Chapel Hill on May 9. (See ATTACHMENT “A” for test) It went viral on YouTube, grabbing more than 734,000 views but, among the reviews, the Everett (Wa) Post reported that the “Record Year” hitmaker had “compared life to the strings on a guitar,”saying that when all six are in tune, “the chords they make can stop a conversation cold, carry a broken person through the worst night of their life or make a room full of strangers feel for three minutes like they’ve known each other forever.” (May 19^th, ATTACHMENT ONE)

Church began by assigning each string a corresponding life component. The low E, he said, is a person’s “foundation,” their “faith” or “the thing that sits at the very bottom of you.”

Moving on up, the A string represents “family,” saying, “It’s the string that makes you feel like you’re not alone in a room.” Then he turned to the D string, which he called the “heart” of the chord: a strong partnership.

“Strike a full chord and the D string is what you feel in the center of your chest,” he said.

On the G string, “ambition and resilience both live in a delicate balance,” the B string, Church said, centers on “community” and the high E string is the thinnest and highest, “...that single line above the chord that everyone in this room recognizes and takes with them.”

“The difference between a life that sounds like music and a life that sounds like noise is whether you stop and listen – whether you’re honest enough to hear which string has drifted out of tune and humble enough to make the adjustment instead of just turning up the volume and hoping nobody notices,” Church said before finishing with a rendition of his 2009 song “Carolina.”

Numerous critics adjudicated Church’s graduation speech as the best of 2026, but there were also plenty of others from educators, influencers and common celebrities.

As early as spring (March 1, ATTACHMENT TWO) the businessmen at Forbes previewed some of the speakers already secured... ranging from “Happiness Expert” Arthur Brooks (University of Utah) to dancer Misty Copeland (Wake Forest University) to Henry (“the Fonz”) Winkler at Emerson College – appearing May 9^th at the Wang Theatre in Boston.

Connecticut College asked Mutáwi Mutáhash (Many Hearts) Marilynn Malerba, the 18th chief of the Mohegan tribe and the first Native American to serve as treasurer of the United States, to deliver its keynote address. Oscar-nominated actor Colman Domingo addressed graduates at Temple University and Colby College featured two speakers at its graduation ceremonies. “Mo Willems, an award-winning author, illustrator, and animator of children’s books,” gave the commencement address, and Esther Salas, U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey, delivered the baccalaureate address.

The author of several best-selling titles, including The Fault in Our Stars, and The Anthropocene Reviewed,” John Green spoke at Rice University, while... still to come... Actress Sarah Jessica Parker will address Northwestern University’s graduates at its 168th commencement on June 14 while Conan O’Brien delivered the keynote addresses at Harvard’s 375th Commencement Ceremony. (See below)

Award-winning presidential historian and author, Michael Beschloss was tabbed by the University of Pennsylvania while Dr. Beth Martin, President, said she was “deeply honored to welcome Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi to Notre Dame de Namur University.”

USA TODAY (May 2, ATTACHMENT THREE) listed some of those hirings above along with others... actress, director, and choreographer Debbie Allen delivering the keynote address at Clark Atlanta, Georgia; actors Queen Latifah at North Carolina A&T and Hugh Jackman (Ball State).

Also on May second, the Daily Beast reported that Conan O’Brien had taken aim at the President of the United States in a “fiery commencement speech”.

“Of course, perhaps the biggest issue facing this institution is that the federal government of the United States is suing our university,” O’Brien, 63, said to a chorus of boos after receiving his honorary Doctor of Arts from Harvard on Thursday. (ATTACHMENT FOUR) “Many people think I’ve come today to defend Harvard. Well, sorry, those people are wrong,” he sarcastically continued. “Not only am I not against these lawsuits, I’m here to announce that I’m joining them. I, too, am suing Harvard.”

“I’m suing Harvard for the cast-iron bunkbed that greeted me upon my arrival at Holworthy 16, my freshman year,” he added. “A bed that has been since confiscated by the Hague as an instrument of divine cruelty.”

O’Brien, who said that “screaming” comedians writing jokes about Trump often “put down your best weapon, which is being funny,” next targeted Trump’s war on immigrant students.

“As you are aware, the current administration feels Harvard admits too many foreign students, and who knows, they may have a point,” he started. “After all, what has any foreigner ever added to our American culture, with the possible exception of music, literature, art, cuisine, fashion, architecture, dance, scientific breakthroughs, and the core of our moral codes and ethical beliefs.”

“Seriously, if foreigners hadn’t ‘gummed up the works’ right now, we’d all be listening to delightful Calvinist reggae, eating savory Church of England ziti, and dancing the forbidden and sexually charged Lutheran lambada,” he concluded.

@ (ATTACHMENT FIVE) @ BUSHWICK

Some of the addresses... from the universities on down... were inspirational. In Louisville, eighth grader Daniel Mattingly told a reporter for WAVE news (May 21, ATTACHMENT SIX) that he’d beens selected to give a speech at his Stuart Academy eighth-grade graduation, but after the administrators and teachers ordered him to make his speech more positive, he’d rebelled.

“All these teachers told me to speak from my heart for this speech, and I realized I shouldn’t chicken out, because I need to speak from my heart and tell these people what they need to be told,” he told WAVE.

“This school is built on racism, sexism and homophobia. I encourage everyone here today to stand up for themselves even if it makes a scene,” he’d said on stage – and punctuated his discourse with the “f-word”.

“Even though a lot of people told Daniel they liked his speech after the ceremony, he thought that was the end of it, until his uncle posted the video online.”

When WAVE asked him how he feels about it, he said, “I’m on the news, so I’m like...it got where it needed to be.”

Another Louisville station, WLKY (May 23, ATTACHMENT SEVEN) reported that the administrators reportedly said it was "too negative" and "too controversial."

According to the boy, staff members told him there was "a time and place" for those comments.

Some Peanuts from the galleries of America voted for their favorite commencement speeches – several choosing the 2014 University of Texas commencement speech by Admiral William H. McRaven, the man who disposed of Osama bin Laden and, in the humble opinion of the DJI, the man who should become President in 2028 (or sooner).

Calum Roche of AS.USA cited McRaven’s ten lessons from Navy SEAL training – including advice like “if you want to change the world, start by making your bed” or not to fear failure, not to back down from “sharks,” and to be their best in the darkest moments.

“McRaven’s speech endures because it doesn’t try to sound grand,” wrote Roche. “It turns life advice into images anyone can remember: a made bed, a rubber boat, a brass bell, a dark swim under a ship. Visualization works.”

“You really need to watch the Admiral McRaven speech,” PixilDot the Peanut posted on disqus.com (May 21, ATTACHMENT EIGHT) Blows every single one of these out of the water!”

And more good news was reported by – go figure - goodnews.net (May 17, ATTACHMENT NINE) after 202 students from North Carolina State University were told by commencement speaker, Anil Kochhar that, in honor of his father, he was providing graduation gifts to cover all the final-year education loans incurred by Wilson College graduates.

Prakash Chand Kochhar, emigrated from India to Raleigh, North Carolina, 80 years ago to study textile manufacturing in America and built a company that his son continued after his death in 1985, becoming a billionaire.

“My father could not have imagined this moment. Not just me standing here, but all of you sitting here,” the younger Kochhar said in his speech. “A new generation, shaped by a different world, but connected by the same spirit of possibility that brought him here decades ago. And that’s what today represents.”

Alyssa D’Costa, a fashion and textile management major, told the good newsboys what the gift meant to her. “As a daughter of immigrants myself, this money helps me and my family a lot, and I’m really fortunate to have an opportunity like this.”

On the other hand, university administrators are increasingly “disinviting” commencement speakers who might challenge students’ ideas, unraveling an apolitical tradition according to The Conversation (May 20, ATTACHMENT TEN).

“Morton Schapiro, former president of Northwestern University, recently found out. Schapiro was scheduled to speak at Georgetown University Law Center’s graduation on May 17, 2026, but announced on May 6 that he would no longer appear at the event.

“Some Georgetown law students...” it was not clarified as to whether they were neo-Nazis, Islamic jihadists or just frightened but privileged woke assholes... protested and petitioned to have Schapiro’s invitation rescinded, citing what they said were Schapiro’s “controversial, Zionist, and harmful opinions.” The students pointed to an op-ed that Schapiro wrote expressing support for Israel and Jewish people a few days after the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people.

“Over the past two decades,” The Conversation reported... colleges and universities across the country have withdrawn invitations to various commencement speakers after students protested their scheduled appearance. Or, in some cases, invited speakers have said they will no longer participate after students spoke out against their upcoming speeches,” in what the free speech advocacy group FIRE calls the lead-up to “college commencements disinvitation season.”

The FIREmen and women say some students only want people who hold similar views to address them at their graduation. They exercise what free speech law experts call a “heckler’s veto,” meaning when an audience’s reaction, or anticipated response, stops someone from speaking. “Free speech then takes a back seat, and a graduation becomes just a performative moment of political correctness.”

The Conversationalists then recited a short history of free commencement speechifying – beginning with the 1642 graduating class at Harvard and moving forward to poet and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson’s address... also at Harvard: a stirring call for American students and scholars to end what he called “our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands.”

Since James Garfield’s address to the U.S. Naval Academy in 1881, Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy to Lyndon Johnson’s support of the (now-effectively-cancelled) Voting Rights at Howard University have addressed, counseled and inspired graduates from coast to coast – as also have innumerable activists and accomplishers of all sorts of partisan principles.

But that was in another century, The Conversation noted... FIRE estimating that “between 2000 and 2024, there were 345 attempts to disinvite commencement speakers.”

Rejectees include former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Nb), removed from Creighton University by local anti-abortionist influencers in 2019. Pundits Michael Smerconish, Salman Rushdie have been bounced for offensive political views – even NFL kicker Harrison Butker defended tradwives, but was allowed to speak at Benedicting College in 2025.

In 2017, Drew Gilpin Faust, then the president of Harvard University, seemed to understand this absence when she issued a free speech message to graduates in her commencement address. “Silencing ideas or basking in intellectual orthodoxy independent of facts and evidence impedes our access to new and better ideas, and it inhibits a full and considered rejection of bad ones,” Faust warned.

Reasonable (and unreasonable) persons may disagree, however, on the validity of “new and better ideas” and that, of course, leads us over the ocean to Rome, and to Pope Leo’s now-famous denunciation of Artificial Intellegence (full text as ATTACHMENT “B”)

Hours after the Pope’s Encyclical (addressed not only to students, but to Catholics of all ages and even to infidels and atheists behond... like Chris Olah, below) Reuters (May 25, 5:32 AM EDT... but a few hours later, Rome Time) summarized some of the American Pope’s most pressing and pressurizing points (ATTACHMENT ELEVEN)

Leo, whom Reuters stated has “adopted a more forceful tone in recent months” and has drawn the ire of U.S. President Donald Trump after criticising the Iran war, made a range of impassioned appeals to world leaders in the lengthy document, known as an encyclical.

Leo urged governments to “slow down and closely regulate the development of AI systems in his first major document, released on Monday, warning that they spread misinformation, prioritise conflict and risk leading the world down a path of unending war.”

He specifically expressed concern that some autonomous weapons systems have advanced "practically beyond any human ‌reach to govern them” – calling for a “more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating," said Leo in the text, entitled "Magnifica Humanitas" (Magnificent Humanity).

The document, which addressed AI as its main theme, “also decried the number of wars roiling the world, lamented the weakening of multilateral organisations and warned that arms industry profits were a driving force behind conflicts.” His encyclical repudiated the “just war theory,” expressed concern that leaders “could start wars to distract citizens from domestic issues,” addressed AI-induced job losses by specifically invoking his predecessor Leo XIII, whose 1891 encyclical that called for better pay and conditions for labourers during the Industrial Revolution, denounced child labor, apologized for Catholic support of slavery and hosted Olah - a co-founder of Anthropic, one of the world's top AI companies. (See Attachment Sixteen below)

Leo invoked visions of the scriptural supernatural in his warning that AI “threatens to normalize an anti-human vision” and said that the concentration of immense digital power in the hands of a few “private actors” must be countered, reported the Wall Street Journal (ATTACHMENT TWELVE) and, reported Russell Contreras in Axios, warned that the technology could become a new Tower of Babel — a dazzling human achievement “that concentrates power, weakens truth and turns people into data points,” offering up five warnings” that, said Dan Rober, a Catholic Studies professor at Sacred Heart University (ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN), “could resonate well beyond Catholic circles...” these being:

1. AI can erode human judgment by offering instant answers that weaken creativity, discernment and the patience needed to seek truth.

2. AI can simulate care without relationship, making vulnerable users mistake artificial empathy for genuine human connection.

3. AI can deepen inequality.

4. AI can destabilize democracy by amplifying disinformation and blurring the line between fact and fiction, and

5. AI can make war easier by speeding up lethal decisions and distancing humans from responsibility – admonishing: "No algorithm can make war morally acceptable."

Mitch Picasso of the Fox (later Monday afternoon, ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN) wrote that "Magnifica Humanitas," advised that artificial intelligence risks could include becoming a tool of "domination, exclusion and death" unless governments and institutions place moral limits on the rapidly developing technology.

The Pope warned about “increasingly autonomous weapons systems” that are beyond meaningful human control and said AI systems could block access to healthcare, employment and security because of biased data – comparing AI governance to nuclear arms control.

"Like nuclear energy, it must be at the service of all and of the common good," he said.

"Stay awake," the pope concluded, warning humanity not to surrender moral judgment to machines.

According to research published in Harvard Business, noted earlier by Pat Gelsinger in the Fox (Jan 4, ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN), people are asking generative AI questions they once brought to mentors, counselors and pastors: How do I forgive betrayal? How do I manage my anxiety? How do I lead my family through a crisis?

AI has quietly become America's most influential spiritual advisor. And it doesn't believe in anything. “This isn't speculation,” Gelsinger charged, adding: “My team at Gloo just released the Flourishing AI Christian (FAI-C) Benchmark, an evaluation measuring how well today’s leading AI models support human flourishing through a Christian lens. We assessed responses across seven core dimensions — Finances, Character, Happiness, Relationships, Meaning, Faith, Health — looking for biblical grounding, theological coherence and moral clarity,” and concluded that, among seven core dimensions assessed, Faith scored the lowest.

“If the next generation turns to AI for moral guidance and receives only platitudes instead of principled reasoning, we're not just losing theological literacy,” Fox/GLOO.FAI-C lamented. “We're losing the capacity for moral formation itself.

“A thriving society needs strong moral frameworks. For billions of people around the world, that framework is Christianity. If AI cannot recognize, respect and engage with that reality, it will become a tool of cultural flattening rather than human elevation.

“The goal isn't to make AI preach. It's to ensure AI doesn't erase.”

Not preaching, according to Himself and his Anthropic website, atheist Chris Olah spoke in Vatican City as a sort of opening act for Pope Leo, and said that “if we want this technology (AI) to go well, it is enormously important that there be people outside those incentives—people who care about things going well and insist on safety, who are paying close attention, who are willing to say hard things,” and then expressed support for Magnifica Humanitas and gratitude to His Holiness. (ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN)

And, furthermore, praise for AI models which are “grown, on a structure roughly modeled after the brain, on an enormous inheritance of human thought and speech.”

They are not “the cold, calculating robots we were promised. They are made from us, from our words—and, as the Holy Father observes, they remain in important ways mysterious even to those of us who train them.”

That training, Olah says “Hello!” to should have (at least) three foundation bricks... or otherwise we should say “Goodbye!” This trio is...

(O)ur duty to the global poor... especially as relates to job displacement...

(A) need for moral imagination and ambition regarding human flourishing... and

(A) need for discernment on the nature of AI models.

“We need more of the world—,” Olah concludes “...religious communities, civil society, scholars, governments, and indeed all people of good will—to do what His Holiness has done here: to take this seriously, to look closely, and to push events in a better direction. We need informed critics who will tell the labs when we are failing. We need moral voices that the incentives cannot bend.”

As Veep Vance ventures below (in Attachment Thirty Two), he admits to haven’t reading the entire encyclical, but the “bits and pieces” he has read regarding moral judgment and machines are “very profound, and the sort of thing that you would expect and hope from a leader of the church.”

Pivoting or, maybe, chickening out (VACO... or perhaps “confesses using unusual measures”... VACUUM), the Vice-Man praised the pope for thinking about Catholic social teachings amid “new technologies and warfare,” as in warning against using AI technology in military operations.

Or, perhaps, parroting the lore of literature – specifically Isaac Asimov’s laws of robotics... as are now being folded into legislation in Gotham (Bushwick NY Daily News, May 5^th, ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN) as would “ban the NYPD from using armed robotic technology, though the specific definition of “armed robots” under the legislation — whether it covers remote-controlled machines, semi-autonomous drones, or fully autonomous systems.”

Brooklyn Councilmember Jennifer Gutiérrez, proposing to regulate police experimental robotic “platforms” including a quadruped robot deployed in subway stations, resorted to Asimov’s 1942 short story “Runaround”, in which detailed the Three Laws as @get harm, follow orders, self preserve text

By Tuesday, Wired could account for AI being more than “just another technology” but, moreover “part of the invisible infrastructure of our contemporary daily lives” (ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN) which directly addresses the issue of AI within the tradition of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church and directly invokes—while updating it—the Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII (published on May 15, 1891) in the year of its 135th anniversary (See Attachment Eleven, above) – which encyclical also addressed the question of labor at the height of the industrial revolution in the late 19th century.

Today, as the Pope writes, AI is part of a global race today to the “highest-performing algorithm” and the “largest data center,” where competitive advantage also becomes geopolitical. In this context, a few players concentrate digital infrastructure, data, and computing capacity, which affects information, economics, and even democracy.

Disarming means breaking this equation between technical power and the right to govern. “As happens with every major technological turning point, AI tends above all to increase the power of those who already possess economic resources and access to data,” the pontiff explained.

On the topic of war, Wired worries that AI “must be prevented from becoming an instrument of economic, political, or military domination by a select few,” in a post-Asimovian planet where... even within what can still be called “democracies”... the Pope’s notion of a “social calamity” is related to technological unemployment, “when innovation is driven primarily by cost-cutting and increased profits. In this scenario, many activities may be replaced or emptied of human content, with workers reduced to repetitive functions – rigidly controlled through automated surveillance, fragmentation of tasks, and loss of a sense of autonomy transformation what work remains into “something less human, less creative, and therefore less free” as, for example, Time (below) reporting on President Trump’s delayed signing of an executive order which called for pre-deployment testing of AI – explaining that he didn’t “want to do anything that’s going to get in the way of” the U.S. maintaining its technological lead over China in the race to build powerful AI systems.

“Top technologists” had called for the delay – effectively validating the Vance-approved but Trump denied Papal argument... not for merely a technological pause but, as Time stated, “slowing of adoption to allow ethics, governance, and public oversight to keep pace with the technology” or, what interviewee Michael Toscano, director of the Family First Technology Initiative, termed a “digital sobriety” from which point some Catholic orders may go even further and advise “digital fasting.”

The President and the nation now seem to be caught in the middle of a struggle between a converted Veep Vance and IntSec Doug Burgum, who sneered on Fox Business that he “...didn’t know that tech editorializing was part of the role of being pope,” as CNBC reported (also below).

Also soliciting advice from Toscano, CNBC noted his contention that “the so-called tech right, which is handcuffing the White House from doing something reasonable, I think will be revealed as mistaken,” adding that he believes “the real danger is between now and November” when the U.S. will hold elections.

“The Republican Party has to be careful about who it courts and who it pushes away,” Burge told CNBC. “After Christian white voters, Catholics may be the most important voters for Republicans.”

If artificial intelligence does end up reducing workers to “measurable, controllable, and replaceable functions,” Wired concludes... the problem will not be merely economic or technological; it becomes “a social, political, and profoundly human issue.”

Young people... especially those graduating with liberal arts degrees from liberal, if exclusive, institutions... are tending to come down on the side of Pope Leo and against the techsters – as witness the numerous incidents of billionaire moguls, mad scientists and corporate vigilantes being boo’d as they defended their industry in commencement speeches.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt felt the wrath of the cap n’ gowners for contending that “the question is not whether AI will shape the world. It will," Schmidt said. "The question is whether you will have shaped artificial intelligence," he charged his hecklers and jecklers at the University of Arizona ceremonies (Business Insider, May 16, ATTACHMENT NINETEEN)

As hostilities escalated, the Googler tried reasoning with the vigilantes assembled... admitting that he knew what many standing in judgment were feeling. “I can hear you. There is a fear," Schmidt said, stopping briefly as the shouts intensified. "There is a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics are fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create."

Potentiating the mess were allegations made against Schmidt for sexual assaults, which his attorneys have denied while B.I. also reported that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang garnered slightly less resentment at tech-friendlier Carnegie Mellon for his argument that AI would create more opportunities for young people to build “anything they wanted.

"AI is not likely to replace you," he said, acknowledging graduates’ anxieties about the job market. "But someone using AI better than you might."

Then again, “...(i)f you’re giving a commencement speech in 2026, maybe don’t mention AI,” advised Tech Crunch. (May 17^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY)

Listing examples including Schmidt (and going into more detail about his sexual and assaultive peccadilloes) and the somewhat less vehement response to Huang, Tech Crunch held up the disaster as crashed down over Gloria Caulfield, an executive at real estate firm Tavistock Development Company, who gave a speech at the University of Central Florida acknowledging that we’re living in a time of “profound change,” which can be both “exciting” and “daunting,” and then stepping into the swamp by declaiming that the rise of artificial intelligence “is the next industrial revolution,” prompting the students in the audience to begin booing, getting louder and louder until Caulfield chuckled, turned to the other speakers, and asked, “What happened?”

Her next statement that “(o)nly a few years ago, AI was not a factor in our lives” elicited another interruption; this time by loud cheers and applause which were, in their own way, even more venomous than the booing.

The Crunchers then reported that “it’s not exactly surprising to find some students in a booing mood” given that, in a recent Gallup poll, “only 43% of Americans aged 15 to 34 said it’s a good time to find a job locally, a steep drop from 75% in 2022,” inspiring journalist and tech industry critic Brian Merchant to suggest that, for many students, AI has become “the cruel new face of hyper-scaling capitalism.”

“I too would loudly boo at the prospect of this next industrial revolution if I was in my early twenties, unemployed, and had aspirations for my future greater than entering prompts into an LLM,” the Merch told the Crunch.

American Enterpris Institutionalist James Pethokoukis (May 18, ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE) denounced the left-wing “young capitalism haters” on behalf of Up Wingers of the world who’ve “consumed years of popular culture telling them AI and robots will destroy humanity, and all they have to do is scan the headlines to find executives predicting an AI jobpocalypse starting sooner rather than later.”

Not to mention all those TikTok videos!

Great inventions from steam to electricity, computers and onward, history’s pattern is consistent: “People worry about job disruption, disruption happens, new jobs emerge that nobody predicted. After 250 years of such tumult, we are wealthier and well-employed.”

Villains like Jeremy Rifkin (author of The End of Work) ignore “jobs nobody predicted” while the numbers heroes’ numbers see real GDP growth growing three percent by 2030 “and closer to four percent by 2050.”

“Growth isn’t just about accumulating more stuff,” Pethokoukis modestly maintains, citing Benjamin Friedman, a Harvard economist, who spent a career showing that rising living standards correlate with tolerance, civil liberties, and openness to outsiders—and that Luddite stagnation reverses all three. The years after 2008 offered proof. The slow crawl out of the Global Financial Crisis fed a zero-sum, populist politics of grievance.

He compares the liberal outrage over AI to the campaign against nuclear power, which could have supplied the world with clean, abundant energy decades ago.

“As Sebastian Mallaby writes in his new book on DeepMind, scientists have always faced a paradox: discovery can destroy jobs, shatter certainties, and in extreme cases imperil existence itself. AI might embody this more fully than any predecessor. Its dangers are real, but so is the promise: medical breakthroughs, climate solutions, tutors of infinite patience. From gunpowder to nuclear fission, technology has repeatedly made the world more dangerous while also extending lifespans and deepening human capability.

“A great lesson for new grads: Life is about trade-offs.”

Sometimes, however, the protests and booings are not about the sinister overreach of AI but, rather, its failings. A Yahoo/Huffpost exposé (May 19, ATTACHMENT TWENTY TWO) claimed student booing at Glendale (Az) Community College over AI reading of student graduates intensified after the robots misread, mangled and just missed “several students”.

Tiffany Hernandez, president of Glendale, reacted angrily, telling the students that they would not be able to walk the stage a second time after the “technical issue.”

And no less a personage than First Lady declared, last September, that children must be prepared for AI because “The Robots Are Here.” (Huffpost, ATTACHMENT TWENTY THREE)

“Cars now steer themselves through our cities, robots hold steady hands in the operating room and drones are redefining the future of war,” declared the first lady.

The first lady appeared with various federal and private officials, including White House science and technology director Michael Kratsios, “crypto czar” David Sacks, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and IBM CEO Arvind Krishna.

ChatGPT’S Sam Altman reportedly listened from the crowd, EdSec Linda McMahon (guilty of mispronouncing “AI” as “A1” (the steak sauce) earlier this year, sat onstage with the first lady as sweet Melania predicted: “I won’t be surprised if AI becomes known as the greatest engine of progress in the history of the United States of America” (so long as children of the future are properly educated).

USA Today (ATTACHMENT TWENTY FOUR) interviewed Fabrizio Cariani, a professor and chair of the philosophy department at the University of Maryland, who explained student anger at pro-AI commencement speakers in terms of worry about the “impact of AI on labor markets and on entry-level jobs."

And, as evidence for their prosecution, USA Today referred to a recent Quinnipiac poll of Americans' thoughts about how AI will affect jobs. The pollsters found Gen Z – to which most of today's college graduates belong – is the most pessimistic group on the topic. Eighty-one percent believed AI advancements would reduce job opportunities.

In some ways, the advancement of AI is inevitable, Cariani said: "The best thing we can do is have conversations about how to direct these tools toward the betterment of humanity and society."

Perhaps the most zealous anti-AI denunciation came not from a graduate Peanut Gallery, but from a Commencer... the comedian and Daily Show host Ronny Chieng, who gave the keynote address for Harvard’s Class Day 2026. (Harvard Magazine, May 27, ATTACHMENT TWENTY FIVE)

“Can I just say f**k AI, f**k AI, f**k AI?” the comedian, actor, and rotating host of The Daily Show asked. The crowd at Tercentenary Theatre, made up of the graduating Class of 2026 and their friends and families, answered him with a roar of approval.

“I’m glad you agree,” Chieng said. “It’s so stupid. A lot of other respected graduation speakers at colleges around America are talking about you guys needing to master AI for the future. I’m here to tell you the mission of your generation is to destroy AI, kill it.”

“One day soon, some kids will be asking you for advice for after they graduate,” he said. “And you can say, ‘Be kind, be joyful, but for the love of God, help me destroy these machines first.’”

AIcrats SMACK BACK

The boys at Boing Boing bonged booing boondoggles like some of those listed above... plus others, like the hostiles hating on Big Machine Records CEO Scott Borchetta who pushed back, telling the AI protesters: “Deal with it,” and calling the tech “a tool." (May 22, ATTACHMENT TWENTY SIX)

He then told the students that what they learned there is "already obsolete," which surely made MTSU's administrators and instructors as happy as the spring class of 2026 and taunted: “You can hear me now or you can pay me later.”

The liberal Guardian U.K. interviewed MTSU graduate Jacob Pagel who, after the chippy commencement, whined that Borchetta’s remarks were “a knife to the chest” and reflected “how annoyed students were about what they saw as out-of-touch executives downplaying their anxieties about AI.” (May 26, ATTACHMENT TWENTY SEVEN)

“We’ve been pushed our entire lives to get (and pay or borrow for) our diplomas. Then you pulled the rug out from underneath us, and said: ‘Oh, you know those four years you spent learning how to do very specific things, you don’t need to do it any more,’” Pagel says. “We can get a computer to do it for two-thirds the price.”

Sarah Kreps, a Cornell University professor who has studied societies’ reactions to new technology, says: “These tech executives are not reading the room … These kids have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a degree that they don’t know will serve them well.”

GUK also reported that a national survey conducted for NBC News earlier this year polled 1,000 registered voters and found only 26% view AI positively and 46% view it negatively. AI scored worse than US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on the same poll, “but better than the Democratic party and Iran.”

Further... and according to yet another think tank wank (from Trellis Strategies, a research group focused on postsecondary education), nearly half of college students said their financial stress “made it hard to concentrate on their coursework,” and Parry Headrick, founder of Crackle PR, a tech public relations agency, told the GUKanoids: “What in the heck is anybody who is young and in school supposed to do when you have these tech executives beating their chests about the next Industrial Revolution when they can’t afford to buy groceries or pay for rent?”

(At leastApple cofounder Steve Wozniak received applause and laughter in Michigan when he made an AI quip at Grand Valley State University's commencement – telling the graduates: "You all have AI," he said. "Actual intelligence."

And the tech wrecks could take perhaps some satisfaction that not all the booing was directed against AI; California Institute of the Arts (CalArts) President Ravi S. Rajan was met with loud boos from students at the school's graduation ceremony due to “recent financial issues and staff layoffs at the esteemed Southern California art school.” (Hyperallergic, May 20^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY EIGHT)

The students’ discontent comes at a time of crisis at CalArts, which is facing a multi-million-dollar budget deficit and significant cuts to staff and faculty. “At the end of 2024, more than 75% of the staff announced their intention to form an employee union, citing low pay, increasing workloads, and lack of job security among their grievances.”

Matthew LeVeque, who received his MFA and DMA from the CalArts Herb Alpert School of Music, told Hyperallergic about the reaction to Rajan’s speech. “He was booed because many people at CalArts, faculty and students alike, see him as the source of many of the school’s financial issues.”

This past March, the faculty union held a major “Chop from the Top” rally on campus. “The CalArts administration has proposed a $5 million cut to faculty and associated staff positions over the next two years through layoffs and non-renewals,” Westley Garcia-Encines, director of operations in the School of Theater, said in a statement for the demonstration. “It’s not fair that our most precarious coworkers have to shoulder the worst of these cuts.”

He noted that the school has experienced a 30% reduction in faculty over the past two years “through voluntary separations, bridge to retirement offers, and now non-renewals.” The administration disputes that figure, however, citing only a 16% reduction, though they do not include “voluntary departures” of faculty, which the union counts at 18.

America’s service academies, at least, treated their commencement speakers respectfully... given that in at least three instances, they came from the current Administration.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth displayed his customary vim, vigor and more than a spoonful of vengeance as he tore into leaders who’ve tried to turn the military into “woke Princeton” and stained the American spirit, “ripping DEI in a fiery speech to graduating cadets at West Point Saturday.” (New York Post, May 23^rd, ATTACHMENT TWENTY NINE)

“With President Trump considering renewing strikes against Iran, Hegseth directed his toughest talk toward military leaders who backed diversity programs,” and “sapping the Armed Forces of its strength,” the Post reported.

“Let me be perfectly clear, you are not an ‘army of one’, and you are certainly not an army of woke. You are an American army, an army of warriors,” Pete Hegseth said during his speech at West Point.

“We saw woke and weak leaders trying to make West Point look like woke Princeton, which happens to be my long lost and lost alma mater,” he said.

“They tried to introduce diversity and inclusion studies. They hire professors who advocated for anti-American ideologies right here in these halls, but no more.”

Speaking at an institution that trained both Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, Hegseth also took a shot at woke efforts to scrub military bases and remove monuments of confederate generals who led the rebellion against the Union.

He spoke of the phrase “our diversity is our strength,” which the secretary called “the single dumbest phrase in military history.”

“Diversity is not our strength. Unity is our strength,” he said, before touting the Army meeting its recruiting goals.

At the other end of the partisan spectrum, the Independent U.K. also quoted the DoD/DoW chief’s address, but termed the speech a “rant”. (ATTACHMENT THIRTY)

“They tried to introduce diversity and inclusion studies. They hire professors who advocated for anti-American ideologies right here in these halls, but no more,” he said to a muted response from the crowd, arguing that West Point is “special” and “above politics.”

Many of Hegseth’s polarizing remarks received little applause from the West Point crowd.

Hegseth said that the Army has reached 61,500 troops after surpassing recruitment goals four months ahead of schedule and predicted the force would grow even stronger by 2027.

He delivered the speech as the U.S. weighs possible renewed military action against Iran amid ongoing negotiations over a potential peace deal. During his remarks, he referenced the military’s role in Operation Epic Fury.

At the end of his speech, a cadet president presented Hegseth with a ceremonial saber as the Class of 2026’s traditional gift.

Vice President Vance gave his commencement speech at the U.S. Air Force Academy's graduation ceremony in Colorado Springs.

However, he abruptly cancelled a speaking event scheduled for Thursday evening and sponsored by the Colorado Republican party. Denver Seven (ATTACHMENT THIRTY ONE) reported that it was not immediately clear why the event was abruptly canceled.

Denver7 reached out to both the White House and the Denver Republican Party for more details, but said they had yet to hear back.

Denver Democrats said the Vice had come to sell an agenda “Coloradans have already rejected,” said Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib. The network added that Vance had made “headlines” after holding up disgraced former Mesa County Clerk and 2020 election denier Tina Peters “as a shining example of someone who should be compensated” under the Trump administration's newly created $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

Forbes (ATTACHMENT THIRTY TWO) took notice of J. D.’s turnaround on Pope Leo’s encyclical offering “bleak warnings” about the risks of AI as “very profound” in an interview with NBC News on Tuesday, “weeks after Vance issued a warning for the Catholic Church’s leader over his anti-war comments.”

Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, told NBC News he hasn’t read the entire encyclical, but the “bits and pieces” he has read are “very profound, and the sort of thing that you would expect and hope from a leader of the church.”

He praised the pope for thinking about Catholic social teachings amid “new technologies and warfare,” as Leo’s encyclical warned of using AI technology in military operations... a stance that put him at odds with IntSec Doug Burgum who criticized the pope on “Mornings with Maria” on Fox Business, saying, “I didn’t know that tech editorializing was part of the role of being pope.”

Burgum defended the construction of AI data centers, which require massive amounts of energy, as “positive for humanity,” and he downplayed concerns that AI data center construction could strain the supply of energy and hike prices, suggesting some states have high energy costs “because of the policies they’ve pursued” like “unreliable, weather-dependent sources of electricity.”

For his part, Trump called Leo “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” in a post on Truth Social in April. Trump has repeatedly falsely accused Leo of supporting Iran’s right to have a nuclear weapon, which Leo has not said.

The Daily Beast... not exactly a fan of POTUS described the President’s own commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy (May 20, ATTACHMENT THIRTY THREE) as slurred, rambling and “descend(ing) into gibberish.”

“Our national slengtheses is back,” he told the graduates, as he jumbled up the word “strength.”

“We are a confident country again. We have confidence is back,” he added.

Trump has been seen slurring his words many times over the past few months, raising questions about his mental cognition ahead of his annual medical exam on May 26.

When reached for comment, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle did not directly respond to inquiries on the president’s slurred speech and instead attacked former President Joe Biden, saying, “President Trump’s sharpness, unmatched energy, and historic accessibility stand in stark contrast to what we saw during the last administration.”

At the Coast Guard Academy, Trump gave the young cadets some advice, telling them to “never, ever give up,” when facing a tough storm.

But then the president’s speech quickly derailed from talking about the new graduates’ futures to airing out his own personal grievances.

“Some lunatics would like to take this country way, way left and destroy it. But we are not going to let that happen. We are not letting that happen,” he complained.

Trump also praised his failed tariff policies and his administration’s hardline immigration policy.

“We can never forget the sins of what they did to our country,” the President said of the Biden administration’s immigration policies.

He also said: “You know, you don’t really realize how important the Coast Guard is until you have a hurricane.”

A peanut from the Beastly Gallery asked: Why would the Coast Guard, or anyone, invite Trump to speak? Another replied that the Coast Guard Academy didn't really have the option; “the president, whomever he may be, speaks at one of the four service academies each year on a rotating schedule. It's not feasible for an academy to disinvite the commander-in-chief, even if he is an incompetent, infantile, venal, grifting (redacted)...”

And Time’s accounting of the Leo/Trump/Vance AI clash as began with the Presidential team holding a two to one edge over the Pope... then reversing after the Vice found virtue before his pivot (or, as stalwart MAGAns call it, his VACO), concluded with the observation that Leo’s encyclical essay “could influence an increasing number of Catholics in America, about half of whom are conservative, according to a 2020 Pew poll.”

After the results of the NBC and Quinnipiac polls, another HuffPost accounting over the AI wars found HuffPoster Kevin Robillard interviewing Gotham Democrat Alex Bores whom he called “the first declared target of a pro-AI super PAC” and posited three distinct camps “with members of each group existing in both parties” these being...

The “accelerationists” who argue that any attempt to restrict AI risks the United States losing an all-important battle with China. These groups are closely allied with the White House, which has embraced a pro-industry vision of light regulation, and have spun up a super PAC with plans to spend $100 million.

The populists, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), proposing a “total moratorium” on AI data centers, saying the technology could lead to mass job loss and increased isolation among young people.

And “centrists” like Bores who are enthusiastic about the technology but argue that regulation is needed “to help Americans adapt to it and limit the potentially catastrophic risks associated with its deployment.” AI companies and researchers aligned with this view have launched their own nonprofit groups and super PACs, and are expected to spend $50 million on the midterms.

The Searchlight Institute, a Democratic think tank, released polling showing roughly two-thirds of Americans want the government to regulate AI for safety and privacy reasons but, as opposed to the Quinnipiac survey above, Americans... by a 62% to 18% margin... prefer regulating AI to banning further research. If forced into an either/or choice... either a ban or unregulated development of the technology, “voters were nearly split: 30% favored a ban, to 34% who favored continued development.”

Cheered on by accelerationists like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and venture capitalist David Sacks, President Trump has banned state-level regulation of AI because of the threat from China. “Leading The Future”, their pro-industry super PAC is planning to spend $100 million on the midterms, aided by the cryptos, Israel and Republican candidates who are expected to largely fall in line with Trump’s relatively laissez-faire position, though some populist right-wing forces ― including former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and the Institute for Family Studies, a conservative think tank ― are urging the GOP to take a far more skeptical look at the technology.

The populists, underfunded as usual, denounce AI-related job loss with billionaires and multi-billionaires gaining more money taken away from the working class, “and nothing really gained by the working class,” according to Nathan Sage, a mechanic and Marine veteran running for the Democratic Senate nomination in Iowa with Sanders’ support.

The Sanders-style populists are likely to face heavily funded negative advertising campaigns from both the Bores-ers and AEI as well as construction unions dependent on data center jobs... Sage responding that “You’re getting a couple hundred jobs in data center creation and you’re replacing it with pollution in our water, high energy costs and less jobs across the market.

“People are going to come into this room and pour money into this race on any side they want to, but I need to do what’s right.”

His opponents are disunited.

Bores, who is running in an extremely crowded June 23^rd primary to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler in New York’s 12th District, has become the focal point of the midterm AI wars early on. The 35-year-old data scientist, who only joined the state legislature in 2023, is one of the lead sponsors of the RAISE Act, which created safety standards for the highest-tech AI models and fines for companies that failed to comply.

Even before Hochul signed it into law shortly before Christmas, Leading The Future was spending on digital ads targeting Bores through a separate PAC it funds. The ads label Bores “wrong on AI” and suggest he will cost the state jobs. Bores, who is welcoming the fight, denies he is a Luddite and argues AI proponents need to understand that only a moderate position can fend off populist anger.

“If the industry’s voice ends up being dominated by this extreme minority from Leading the Future, then proposals like banning all data centers will gain more traction,” he said.

IN the NEWS: MAY 22nd, 2026 to MAY 28th, 2026

Friday, May 22, 2026

Dow: 49,579.70

The Memorial Weekend travel holiday begins with storms, strikes, sticker shock at the gaspumps and, at La Guardia, an enormous sinkhole that threatens to swallow planes whole, rendering air travel chaotic, episodic and even more expensive. Weather washouts in the East, dought generating wildfires West and there is a new peril as the War Department released files and photos of UFOs (or, now, UAPs) – either considered hostile.

Hostilty at home and abroad continues. Aimless negotiations continue in the MidEast, Ukraine and elsewhere as American partisans look towards a primary season increasingly consumed by infighting. President Trump gloating over overthrow of RINOs Cassidy and Massie (despite the enhanced likelihood of Democrats flipping the seats... if not further demoralized by their own strange and vindictive “Autopsy”) but the Administration embarks on a Highway to Hell as Djonald UnHinged defends his IRS settlement paying off allies like the One Six rioters, insurrectionists like Proud Boy Enrique Tarrio and Pillow Guy Mike Lindell.

Trump, nonetheless, ignores pleas of frightened Midterm Pachyderms, swearing in new Fed Chair Chris Warsh, touting a new Cuban invasion and promising to prosecute and sign legislation making Daylight Savings year round.

Saturday, May 23, 2026

Dow: Closed

“Dozens of shots” fired outside White House as a wannabee assassin targets Secret Service agents while President Trump and his legions work inside. Neither Trump nor S.S. are hit, one tourist is shot and the gunslinger... whom authorities say was not a terrorist, just a nut who called himself “Jesus Christ”... was killed. (We’ll see if he rises from the tomb!)

Holiday travel plans worsen – add to Saturday’s weather and sinkhole problems more toxic accidents including a fire and explosion at Staten Island shipyard injuring 16, including 13 firefighters; a toxic leaky chemical tank near Disneyland, a Boston area school bus crash that injures 8 and #.

Summer disese season sees 750 Ebola cases in Congo (176 dead), more in Uganda. America imposes quarantine on air passengers from Africa and authorities are watchful, but no new Hantavirus plague materializes.

As Republican civil war over giveaways to cop killers continues, Trump escalates a perceived War on Women by forcing resignation of National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, who plays along with a script that she was concerned about relatives’ health. As prospects for DHS/ICE funding evaporate, Congress opts to go on another extended, paid vacation until June.

Sunday, May 24, 2026

Dow: Closed

It’s Talkshow Sunday and, as President Trump says that he is on the verge on an Iran/Hormuz deal – but with Tel Aviv, not Teheran which means supporters are calling it an “inflection point” whose best outcome would be a 30 to 60 day can kick. Repubs like Ted Cruz and former SecState Mike Pompeo denounce TACO on Iranian nukes (the White House replies: “Shut your stupid mouth!”) and many now back Israel’s call to go back to war.

ABC’s “Week” interviews bipartisan war critics Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY) who agree that the Trump handouts (a/k/a the “anti-weaponization fund”) and other vanities like the Trump Arch, Golden Ballroom and name changes are angering voters who want affordability, which means an Iranian settlement that the “Death to America” regime will not provide. “Americans concerned about their cost of living do not want their money going to people who beat up cops,” says Suozzi,

The Roundtable takes on the Republican infighting and Democratic “autopsy” which liberal Donna Brazile calls a “cold case” while Dana Milbank evokes “Captain Obvious”... 2024 hinged on Biden’s health and Harris” race, Sara Isgur cites the DoJ purging arrest records of One Six recipients, including some who used bear spray and bullwhips against police – but shady deals started with Obama (or went even further back). Dana Milbank says that the ‘Pubs just hope infighting will fizzle once primary season ends. In Congress, Mike Lawler (R-NY) says American military successes in Iran should not be TACO’d on nukes, while Josh Gottheimer decries the Hormuz for nukes proposal. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) calls Anti-Weaponization a slush fund to Trump family corruption on drones and crypto.

“Sixty Minutes” profiles Andrew Ross Sorkin, author of “1929” who says that year’s troubles might be repeated due to dangerous “bubbles”. On “The Hill”, Texas Dem Chair Kendall Scudder says he’s “bullish” on chances for Talarico’s Senate try as both parties fight charges of anti-Semitism.

Monday, May 25, 2026

Dow: Closed for Memorial Day

Memorial Day, 2026, is less about tributes and memories than a Safety Jihad a police, preachers and politicians’ Safety Jihad with repetitive warnings about garbage crimes and TV doctors wanting to bring back Prohibition on the 6^th anniversary of the George Floyd killing but jolly testimony from NEC Director Kevin Hassett who denies that there are “storm clouds gathering” over the Iran/Hormuz peace process. Trump says we are winning and the tankers will travel to China and India; New Zealand, however will get oil later.

Even the merching is washed out in the East under storms bringing tornadoes and flooding and cancelling cook outs and celebrations while the West continues baking and burning. But between the raidwops, resident Trup, Veep Vance and DefSec Hegseck visit the tomb of the Unknoen Soldier and, while memorializing the 13 killed during Epic Fury, resume bombing Iran. Trump says peace and Hormuz opening has also been secured, but Iran denies; POTUS also lobbies Islamic allies to recognize Israel but they also don’t. So he looks homeward after yet another White House shooting, using it to justify his ballroom, adding a drone depot to the roof.

Along with weather, disease is escalating – there are now almost 1,000 cases in eleven countries. Releatives of the dead storm morgues and hospitals to retrieve the infectious corpses as measles wipes out 500 in Bangladesh.

Pope Leo issues his first Encyclical, dealing less with war and disease than the dangers of Artificial Intelligence (above and Attachment “B”) which he calls threatening “an eclipse of humanity.” Atheist Chris Olah of OpenAI joins him while pundits compare the times to the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

Dow: 50,461.68

America goes back to work. First Kimmel show after Colbert purge is a rerun – starring Ru Paul.

Iran and America continue exchanging missile and drone strikes as negotiatos abandon Pakistan and try again in Qater. On ABC, Martha Raddatz quotes the Administration as saying American attacks are “self-defense”; Iran, of course, disagrees. At least prices on oil are down to $93/barrel, gas to $4.45/gal.

Trump revenge and retaliation claims another RINO... Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx) is upset by MAGAnaut Ken Paxton. Happiest are Dems after James Talarico wins his primary and oddsmakers are calling it 50-50. Talarico calls himself a “Christian progressive” who calls the partisan divide in America “top to bottom”, not “left to right” while Paxton is an adulterer, so he should be easier to beat than Cornyn.In California, Ken Pratt (not Paxton) is a former reality star, now in a tight three way race for Mayor Los Angeles and the happiest out thataway are comedians like Jimmy Kimmel – now master of latenite - who foresees plenty of good copy.

Despite stall in funding, DHS and ICE continue fighting liberals and migrants in the streets... violence is pivoting from Minnesota to New Jersey where the ICE detention center is called inhumane. Protesters are gassed, bear and pepper sprayed and beaten including Sen. Kim (D-NJ).

Maybe things will go better in space after Blue Origin tests lunar rocket that is expected to be the first step in a Moon City that will exploit mineral wealth and serve as a sending off point to a Mars mission after 2032. Lunar drones and vehicles are being prepared and Jeff Bezos vows to beat the Chinese.

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

Dow: 50,644.28

Iran denounces US “self-defense” attacks, breaks off Qatari negotiations. And counter-proposes that Hormuz be government by themselves plus Oman. SecState Marco Rubio says talks will start up again “in a few days.” Israel escalates strikes on Lebanon, but Veep Vence, now in charge while President Trump gets his physical at Walter Reed Hospital, is brimming with good cheer. Trump says he is healthy and looking forward to turning 80 while Iranian negotiators are “running on fumes.” And if there are not enough wars (with Cuba still on hold), he threatens to blow up Oman.

Crime and death are busting out all over. A woman is fatally speared by an umbrella at a windy outdoor care; a misogynist beats up his girlfriend with a baseball bat, but the girls fight back... one poisons a nasty neighbor; another Mom Wannabee kidnaps an infant out of its stroller. At an Arizona Target, a targeter targets his target for shooting while three more killed, several more shot at Texas house party.

And explosions are exploding too – from the lithium ion batteries blowing up a garbage truck all the way up to a paper mill explosion in Lewiston, WA killing at least one, injuring ten more and causing evacuations even as evacuees still stranged from California tank fire. Blue Origin’s Mars adventure ends in a fiery explosion on a Florida launch pad, so it’s back to the drawing board.

Thursday, May 28, 2026

Dow: 50,668.97

It’s Marco Rubio’s birthday!

The little SecState smiles vacantly as President Trump says he will not do a “crummy deal” on Iran – even as critics say he has already chickened out on nukes and sanctions. At home, however, Gallup poll says more Americans (61%) worried about health than economy (51%) despite Trump promise to cut gas tax by 18¢. Sick, low-income Americans say: “there are a lot of profit seekers out there. I might as well die.”

Things are not going swimmingly in Africa either. Kenya pulls out of their deal with the US to hold Ebola infectees in quarantine as the plague spreads – there is now serious concern that the disease will impact the FIFA world cup (the Congolese team is already being told to stay in Europe). Those not scared off by Ebola are sticker shocked by ticket prices, even before the usual scalping and gouging begins.

In sports and cultural news, the cruising New York Knicks (three straight sweeps) are waiting to will face off against tomorrow night’s Oklahoma (with Wemby) facing San Antonio (Gilgeous... and the nuns). NHL finals pit Carolina and Vegas, three Astos pitchers share a no-no and Billy Idol is Lifetime Idolized at the American Music Awsrds. Shrey Parikh wins the National Spelling Bee in a spell-off and the NBA is replacing human referees with robots (at least for calls on out-of-bounds, at lest for now). Toy Story sequel (with Bad Bunny as “Pizza with Sunglasses”) and WWII film “Pressure” will challenge Grogu and, as the Kennedy family calls the John John films inaccurate, RFK Junior has a new hobby: going about and collecting snakes.

THE DON JONES INDEX

CHART of CATEGORIES w/VALUE ADDED to EQUAL BASELINE of 15,000

(REFLECTING… approximately… DOW JONES INDEX of June 27, 2013)

Gains in indices as improved are noted in GREEN. Negative/harmful indices in RED as are their designation. (Note – some of the indices where the total went up created a realm where their value went down... and vice versa.) See a further explanation of categories HERE

ECONOMIC INDICES		(60%)
CATEGORY	VALUE	BASE	RESULTS by PERCENTAGE				SCORE		OUR SOURCES and COMMENTS
INCOME	(24%)	6/17/13 revised 1/1/22	LAST	CHANGE		NEXT	LAST WEEK	THIS WEEK	THE WEEK’S CLOSING STATS...
Wages (hrly. Per cap)	9%	1350 points	5/22/26	+0.08%		6/26	1,898.17	1,898.17	https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/average-hourly-earnings 37.41
Median Inc. (yearly)	4%	600	5/22/26	+0.046%		6/5/26	1,131.22	1,131.74	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 52,058 091 115
Unempl. (BLS – in mi)	4%	600	5/22/26	-2.33%		5/26	542.60	542.60	http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000/ 4.3 nc
Official (DC – in mi)	2%	300	5/22/26	+0.84%		6/5/26	216.45	214.63	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 7,252 254 390
Unofficl. (DC – in mi)	2%	300	5/22/26	-4.636%		6/5/26	249.28	260.84	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 13,724 746 137
Workforce Participation Number Percent	2%	300	5/22/26	-0.143% -0.083%		6/5/26	295.89	295.64	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ In 162,769 754 521 Out 105,058 111 181 Total: 267,827 865 702 60.774 60.76 .71
WP % (ycharts)*	1%	150	5/22/26	-0.162%		5/26	149.98	149.98	https://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate 61.80
OUTGO	(15%)
Total Inflation	7%	1050	5/22/26	+0.6%		6/26	906.30	906.30	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.6
Food	2%	300	5/22/26	+0.5%		6/26	257.89	257.89	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.5
Gasoline	2%	300	5/22/26	+5.4%		6/26	195.66	195.66	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +5.4
Medical Costs	2%	300	5/22/26	+0.6%		6/26	268.48	268.48	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.6
Shelter	2%	300	5/22/26	+0.0%		6/26	239.10	239.10	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.0
WEALTH
Dow Jones Index	2%	300	5/22/26	+0.74%		6/5/26	387.10	389.97	https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/index/ 50,009.97 295.66 668.97
Home (Sales) (Valuation)	1% 1%	150 150	5/22/26	+1.005% +2.18%		6/5/26	130.84 273.58	132.15 279.54	https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics Sales (M): 3.98 4.02 Valuations (K): 408.8 417.7
Millionaires (New Category)	1%	150	5/22/26	-0.033%		6/5/26	137.31	137.26	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 24,218 254 246*
Paupers (New Category)	1%	150	5/22/26	+0.024%		6/5/26	134.98	134.95	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 36,874 888 897

GOVERNMENT	(10%)
Revenue (trilns.)	2%	300	5/22/26	+0.11%		6/5/26	476.37	476.89	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 5,459 467 473
Expenditures (tr.)	2%	300	5/22/26	+0.17%		6/5/26	291.73	291.24	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 7,125 120 132
National Debt tr.)	3%	450	5/22/26	+0.245%		6/5/26	345.67	346.52	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 39,243 277 181*
Aggregate Debt (tr.)	3%	450	5/22/26	+0.076%		6/5/26	369.10	368.82	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 107,862 975 8.057

TRADE	(5%)
Foreign Debt (tr.)	2%	300	5/22/26	+0.105%		6/5/26	252.68	252.42	http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 9,512 527 537
Exports (in billions)	1%	150	5/22/26	+1.94%		5/26	199.71	199.71	`https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html` 320.9
Imports (in billions))	1%	150	5/22/26	-2.39%		5/26	135.33	135.33	`https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html` 381.2
Trade Surplus/Deficit (blns.)	1%	150	5/22/26	+4.98%		5/26	234.98	234.98	`https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html` 60.3

ACTS of MAN	(12%)
World Affairs	3%	450	5/22/26	-0.1%		6/5/26	469.61	470.08	Trump threats against Greenland motivating Iceland to join EU? Six of the nine trapped Laotian gold miers found alive but getting them out of their cave will be difficult. Argentine authorities arrest traveling American celebrity burglars. Turkish insurrections attack the gumment.
War and terrorism	2%	300	5/22/26	-0.1%		6/5/26	282.88	283.16	Wars roll on: Iran, Ukraine, Lebanon and many more. Suicide bomber kills 19 on Quetta, Pak. train. Jill Bidden says persons unknown drugged Joe before disastrous debate with Trump. Traveling terrorist Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood al-Saadi accused of 20 attacks worldwide.
Politics	3%	450	5/22/26	-0.1%		6/5/26	454.21	453.30	Trump accelerates White House renovations for his 80^th birthday 6/14 including a UFC arena with proposed shows by Milli Vanilli and Vanilla Ice. Slush fund for Capitol Rioters causing Repub. Voters to stay home in November? Used car prices dropping – Insurance Instiute says safest models are Mazda, Suburu and Volvo.
Economics	3%	450	5/22/26	+0.1%		6/5/26	427.91	427.06	Food prices cut at Kroger, raised at WalMart. Up are beef and tomatoes, down are fish and eggs. Ferrari to make electric vehicles. Lyft and Uber drivers unionizing in Massachusetts.
Crime	1%	150	5/22/26	+0.1%		6/5/26	203.16	203.36	Mom kills toddler, hides his body in freezer. Gunslinger gal targets two lawyers in Raleigh. Florida teen kills stepsister on a Carnival Cruise while a targeter targets targets at Target store. 15 arrested in Minnesota health care scams. Relatives stop school killer in Joliet, Il. Five cops injured in Chicago teenage street takeover. Fake CIA officer orders millions in gear and pockets the money. Thieves stealing air conditioners for copper wire.
ACTS of GOD	(6%)
Environment/Weather	3%	450	5/22/26	-0.1%		6/5/26	278.86	278.58	Add to customary early summer storms, lightning strikes killilng cattle in Florida. NOAA predicts mild Atlantic hurricane season, stronger Pacific (under a bigger El Nino). 6.0 EQ hits Hawaiian big island; authorities deny volcanic danger. Record Euroheat @
Disasters	3%	450	5/22/26	-0.1%		6/5/26	464.00	463.54	The bad news: 70 year old woman killed by bison in Custer, SD, 19 injured in SC biker fest stampede. Waymo suspends driverless cars in Atlanta flood zone and discarded lithium ion batteries blowng up garbage trucks; soman speared by flying umbrella. The good: Kalamazoo Kop catches baby thrown out window of burning building; hiker rescued after being trapped in upstate New York cave, 7 year old Joey Danger Evermore becomes youngest to scale El Capitan.
LIFESTYLE/JUSTICE INDEX		(15%)
Science, Tech, Education	4%	600	5/22/26	-0.1%		6/5/26	620.45	619.83	Anthropic value tops Open AI and nears $1T. Cybercrooks hack police, medical and corporate printers to get in systems and extort Americans. Space X successfully launches Starship as Blue Origen blows up and Musk IPO makes him a trillionaire. Pentagon releases more UFO files and photos –many surrounding US military bases.
Equality (econ/social)	4%	600	5/22/26	+0.1%		6/5/26	669.69	670.36	As the Pope warns AI causes inequality, and others cite gerrymandering to stratify majority black and white districts, 1440 alleges credit reporting bureaus are often prone to errors, ruining lives. Trump will put his own face on a new $250 bill. NY Fed cites remarkable rise in child food insecurity.
Health	4%	600	5/22/26	-0.1%		6/5/26	413.81	413.40	American doctor felled by Ebola said to be recovering. Squishy toys recalled for asbestors. Celebrity surgeries include Anne Hathaway (cataracts), Rosie O’Donnell (face lift), Kris Jenner, Anne Richards and more.
Freedom and Justice	3%	450	5/22/26		nc	6/5/26	479.20	479.20	SCOTUS puts Trump’s payout to rioers on hold until June. Congress and victims grill Bondi on EpFiles. DoJ brings back prosecution of Trump sex accuser E. Jean Carroll. NYT reports people are using A.I. to help write and file their own lawsuits, deluging the courts.
CULTURAL and MISCELLANEOUS INCIDENTS			(6%)
Cultural incidents	3%	450	5/22/26	+0.1%		6/5/26	591.70	592.29	Tributes pour in for Kyle Bush. Old jocks hanging on: Aaron Rodgets and Lebron James. Knicks sweep Cavs in NBA, semis – wait for Spurs v. Tunder winner. Three Astros pitch a no-no, Records set at “Enhanced” doper games, but they don’t count. Mandalorian/Grogu hits #1 B.O. RIP: “It Takes Two” rapper Rob Base, saxophonist Sonny Rollins. Media billionaire Donald Newhouse, NFL’s Manny Fernandez.
Miscellaneous incidents	4%	450	5/22/26	nc		6/5/26	552.85	552.85	Chonkers the fat seal gets his own stuffed animal. Firefighter saves fawn from Indiana floodwaters. Idiot American arrested for jumping into Punch the Monkey’s Japanese enclosure and bothering his stuffed animal. Homeless veteran donates dog to fire dept. in Texas, gets a free RV.

The Don Jones Index for the week of May 22^nd through May 28^th, 2026 was UP 9.36 points

The Don Jones Index is sponsored by the Coalition for a New Consensus: retired Congressman and Independent Presidential candidate Jack “Catfish” Parnell, Chairman; Brian Doohan, Administrator. The CNC denies, emphatically, allegations that the organization, as well as any of its officers (including former Congressman Parnell, environmentalist/America-Firster Austin Tillerman and cosmetics CEO Rayna Finch) and references to Parnell’s works, “Entropy and Renaissance” and “The Coming Kill-Off” are fictitious or, at best, mere pawns in the web-serial “Black Helicopters” – and promise swift, effective legal action againth parties promulgating this and/or other such slanders.

Comments, complaints, donations (especially SUPERPAC donations) always welcome at feedme@generisis.com or: speak@donjonesindex.com.

ATTACHMENT ONE – FROM EVERETT (WA) POST

ERIC CHURCH’S COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS GOES VIRAL: WHAT HE SAID

May 19

Eric Church delivered his now-famous graduation speech at UNC Chapel Hill on May 9. It went viral on YouTube, grabbing more than 734,000 views.

But what did he say?

The “Record Year” hitmaker compared life to the strings on a guitar, saying that when all six are in tune, “the chords they make can stop a conversation cold, carry a broken person through the worst night of their life or make a room full of strangers feel for three minutes like they’ve known each other forever.”

“But if even one is off, the whole cord unravels,” he said.

Church then assigned each string a corresponding life component.

The low E, he said, is a person’s “foundation,” their “faith” or “the thing that sits at the very bottom of you.”

“The world will try to un-tune this string,” he added.

Church said the A string represents “family,” saying, “It’s the string that makes you feel like you’re not alone in a room.”

“The A string is not a holiday string,” he added while strumming his guitar. “It’s an everyday string. Protect it.”

Next, Church turned to the D string, which he called the “heart” of the chord: a strong partnership.

“Strike a full chord and the D string is what you feel in the center of your chest,” he said.

Church then moved to the G string, saying “ambition and resilience both live on this string” in a delicate balance.

The B string, Church said, centers on “community.”

“Put down roots with the full intention of growing there. Learn the actual names, not usernames, of the people around you,” he said, warning against the dangers of dwelling only in a social media landscape.

Finally, Church broke down the significance of the high E string.

“This is the thinnest string. It’s the highest note,” he said, calling the E string “that single line above the chord that everyone in this room recognizes and takes with them.”

Church highlighted the importance of originality with this string.

“You were made uniquely, wonderfully, distinctly. There’s a sound only you can make, a voice that has never existed before you and will never exist again,” he said.

Church finished the metaphor by explaining that over time, each of these “strings” will go out of tune.

He finished his speech with a rendition of his 2009 song “Carolina.”

ATTACHMENT TWO – FROM FORBES

AN EARLY LOOK AT THE HEADLINERS SPEAKING AT 2026 COLLEGE COMMENCEMENTS

By Michael T. Nietzel, Mar 01, 2026, 06:00am EST Mar 05, 2026, 07:42am EST

College commencement season is only a few months away, and colleges and universities have begun to announce the individuals who will serve as their main commencement speaker at this spring’s graduation ceremonies.

As in past years, famous authors, star athletes, influential politicians, and noteworthy entertainers are among those already receiving invitations. Here are several of the more recognizable individuals who’ve been revealed so far.

“Happiness Expert” Arthur Brooks will be the featured speaker at the University of Utah’s campus-wide commencement. Brooks is the Parker Gilbert Montgomery Professor of the Practice of Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School and Professor of Management Practice at the Harvard Business School, where he teaches courses on leadership, happiness, and nonprofit management. The author of 15 books, Brooks also serves as a CBS News Contributor and writes the “The Pursuit of Happiness” column for The Free Press.

“Arthur’s work offers powerful insights into purpose, happiness, and building a life of meaning," said University of Utah President Taylor Randall. "As our graduates step into what comes next, there is no better moment to reflect on how they can shape lives that matter to themselves and to the world.”

Misty Copeland will deliver the commencement address for Wake Forest University on May 18. Copeland made history when, in 2015, she became the first Black woman to become a principal dancer at the American Ballet Theatre. She retired from the ABT in 2025.

The author of a memoir, Life in Motion, Copeland is an active philanthropist. She has written a book series for young children, and in 2022, she launched The Misty Copeland Foundation, with a mission of expanding opportunities for children from under-resourced communities to study dance, especially ballet. Copeland also serves as an ambassador for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

Emerson College has chosen actor Henry Winkler to speak to its graduates this spring. Best known for his role as Arthur “Fonzie” Fonzarelli in the 1970’s comedy series Happy Days, Winkler is an Emerson alum. In addition to his acting career, Winkler, who has dyslexia, has co-written the Hank Zipzer children’s books, a popular series about a child with dyslexia.

“Henry perfectly embodies the extraordinary Emersonian spirit and pursuit of excellence,” said Emerson President Jay Bernhardt. “His career has been a commitment to Emerson’s values of creativity, curiosity, and expression. I hope our graduates will be inspired and energized as he shares his own personal and professional journey, and I know our entire community will be heartened by his example.”

Connecticut College has asked Mutáwi Mutáhash (Many Hearts) Marilynn Malerba, the 18th chief of the Mohegan tribe and the first Native American to serve as treasurer of the United States, to deliver its keynote address.

Joe Biden appointed Malerba to be U.S. Treasurer in 2022. During her tenure in that position, she created the Treasury Department’s first Office of Tribal and Native Affairs, ensuring that Indigenous voices and priorities are represented in federal economic policy.

Her service work includes the Indian Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, the Justice Department and the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Center for Indian Country Development.

Malerba will be awarded a Doctor of Humane Letters, honoris causa, at the ceremony. “Chief Malerba’s story is one of trailblazing leadership, cultural stewardship and a lifelong commitment to expanding opportunity for Indigenous communities and all those she serves,” said Connecticut College President Andrea E. Chapdelaine as part of the college’s announcement.

Country musician Eric Church will deliver the 2026 Spring Commencement address at the University of North Carolina.

“A proud North Carolinian and one of country music’s most influential voices, Eric Church has long been a devoted Tar Heel fan and supporter of our University,” Chancellor Lee H. Roberts said. “A true legend, he has shaped the music industry and inspired generations of artists and audiences alike. His significant efforts to help rebuild western North Carolina after Hurricane Helene reflect his steadfast commitment to his hometown and our state."

An avid fan of Tar Heel athletics, Church caused a stir in 2022 when he canceled a sold-out concert so he could watch UNC’s men’s basketball team play rival Duke University in the Final Four of the NCAA basketball tournament.

Oscar-nominated actor Colman Domingo will address Temple University’s 2026 graduates. He will also be given an honorary degree at the ceremony. Domingo attended Temple in the 1980s, studying journalism before he dropped out to pursue an acting career.

"I am beyond grateful and humbled to receive an honorary doctorate from my alma mater Temple University," said Domingo, in a news release. "As a journalism student who struggled with the balance of working two jobs and supporting himself through school from 1987-1990, eventually dropping out with a good 50 credits to go, this degree is very meaningful to me."

A Philadelphia native, Domingo received an Emmy in 2022 for his role on "Euphoria," and two Oscar nominations for his work in "Rustin" and "Sing Sing."

Colby College will feature two speakers at its graduation ceremonies . Mo Willems, an award-winning author, illustrator, and animator of children’s books, will give the commencement address, and Esther Salas, U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey, will deliver the baccalaureate address.

Salas gained national attention when, in 2020, a man, posing as a delivery driver, came to the front door of her home and opened fire, killing her son Daniel and wounding her husband, Mark Anderl. She turned that personal tragedy into national advocacy for enhanced judicial security, leading to the passage of the federal Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act.

Author John Green will be this spring’s commencement speaker at Rice University. The author of several best-selling titles, including The Fault in Our Stars, and The Anthropocene Reviewed,” Green’s books have been published in more than 55 languages with more than 50 million copies in print worldwide.

“John Green’s work has shaped how millions of young people think about the world and their place in it,” Rice President Reginald DesRoches said. “His ability to combine storytelling, intellectual rigor and a deep commitment to the public good makes him an inspiring voice for our graduates as they prepare to lead in an increasingly complex world.”

With his brother Hank, Green co-created the YouTube channel Vlogbrothers, which has received more than 1 billion views. The brothers also launched the educational YouTube channel Crash Course, and they co-founded Complexly, an educational media company.

Actress Sarah Jessica Parker will address Northwestern University’s graduates at its 168th commencement on June 14. Parker also will receive an honorary degree of Doctor of Arts at the event.

"Sarah Jessica Parker has been a strong supporter of the arts and humanities for many years, and I am thrilled she will be our commencement speaker,” said Northwestern Interim President Henry S. Bienen. “From starring in and producing film, television and theatre productions to her successful business ventures, Sarah’s iconic and versatile career speaks to the interdisciplinary approach we value and champion at Northwestern.”

Notre Dame de Namur University has tabbed Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Emerita of the U.S. House of Representatives, to serve as its commencement speaker. Pelosi is a graduate of Trinity Washington University, which was also founded by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur.

“We are deeply honored to welcome Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi to Notre Dame de Namur University,” said Dr. Beth Martin, President of NDNU, in a news release. “Her lifelong commitment to public service, leadership, and advocacy for justice reflects the very values that define an NDNU education and the enduring legacy of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. During this 175th anniversary year of the Sisters in California, her presence powerfully affirms the impact of faith-inspired education on the world.”

Harvard University has picked late-night comedian and TV host Conan C. O’Brien, a 1985 graduate of the university and former president of the Harvard Lampoon, to deliver the keynote addresses at Harvard’s 375th Commencement Ceremony in May. In a press release, Harvard President Alan M. Garber described O’Brien as a “singular and outstanding American humorist," adding that “his work, deeply rooted in close listening and keen observation, creates joyful connections between and among ideas and people… Harvard is tremendously fortunate to call him one of our own.”

Award-winning presidential historian and author, Michael Beschloss will deliver the 2026 University of Pennsylvania Commencement address. Calling Beschloss, “one of our nation’s most important historians,” Penn President J. Larry Jameson, said “in his highly successful, decades-long career as author and media contributor, Mr. Beschloss has pursued the study of leadership and educated us all on many important historical figures. His scholarly research, writing, and insights offer an indispensable source of knowledge for better understanding the past and appreciating how it shapes the present and future." Beschloss will also be given an honorary doctor of letters degree at the ceremony.

ATTACHMENT THREE – FROM USA TODAY

2026 COMMENCEMENT SPEECHES: SEE WHICH CELEBRITIES ARE TAKING THE STAGE

By Chris Williams Published May 2, 2026 2:51 PM EDT

Celebrities and public figures will headline 2026 commencement ceremonies nationwide.

Speakers include Conan O’Brien, Sarah Jessica Parker, Queen Latifah and Nancy Pelosi.

Many events take place in May and June, with some speakers receiving honorary degrees.

From Hollywood stars to political leaders, a wide array of high-profile figures will take the stage at college commencements across the country in 2026.

Here's who will deliver the addresses:

Conan O’Brien

Comedian, writer, and television host Conan O’Brien will deliver the principal address at Harvard University’s 375th Commencement ceremony on May 28, the university announced.

O’Brien, a Brookline native and member of Harvard’s Class of 1985, is a former president of the Harvard Lampoon, where he served two terms. He graduated with a degree in History and Literature.

Years after his time on campus, O’Brien recalled a moment when a fan presented him with a photocopy of his undergraduate thesis—titled "Literary Progeria in the Works of William Faulkner and Flannery O’Connor"—just minutes before a performance. Reflecting on the encounter, he joked, "I knew then it was time to die."

Sarah Jessica Parker

Actor, producer, and entrepreneur Sarah Jessica Parker will deliver the commencement address to Northwestern University’s Class of 2026 at the school’s 168th Commencement ceremony on Sunday, June 14.

The event will take place at the United Center in Chicago and is scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. Parker will also be awarded an honorary Doctor of Arts degree during the ceremony.

Debbie Allen

Actress, director, and choreographer Debbie Allen will deliver the keynote address at Clark Atlanta University’s 2026 commencement ceremony, the university announced.

The ceremony, marking the institution’s 37th commencement, is scheduled for Monday, May 18, at 10 a.m. at the Georgia World Congress Center.

Eric Church

Country music star and longtime Tar Heel fan Eric Church will deliver the keynote address at the University of North Carolina’s 2026 spring commencement ceremony.

The event is scheduled for 7 p.m. on May 9, 2026, at Kenan Stadium.

Colman Domingo

Actor and Temple University alumnus Colman Domingo will deliver the keynote address at Temple’s 2026 commencement ceremony May 6, the university announced Thursday.

A Philadelphia native, Domingo enrolled at Temple in 1987 as a journalism major before leaving in 1991 to pursue an acting career in San Francisco. He has earned two Academy Award nominations for best actor in a leading role and won an Emmy Award in 2022 for outstanding guest actor in a drama series for his role in "Euphoria."

Misty Copeland

Ballet dancer, author and founder Misty Copeland will deliver the commencement address at Wake Forest University on Monday, May 18.

Copeland, who became the first Black woman to be named a principal dancer at American Ballet Theatre, will speak at the ceremony on Hearn Plaza, which is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.

Queen Latifah

Entertainer and entrepreneur Queen Latifah will deliver the keynote address at North Carolina A&T State University’s spring 2026 commencement ceremony, university officials announced.

Hugh Jackman

Actor, producer and philanthropist Hugh Jackman will deliver the commencement address to Ball State University’s Class of 2026 at the school’s spring ceremony.

Jackman will also receive an honorary doctor of arts degree. He is known for his role as Wolverine in several Marvel films and for starring in "The Greatest Showman," and has appeared on Broadway in productions including "The Boy from Oz" and a revival of "The Music Man."

Nancy Pelosi

Notre Dame de Namur University announced that Nancy Pelosi, speaker emerita of the U.S. House of Representatives, will deliver the commencement address at the university’s May 2, 2026, ceremony.

Henry Winkler

Award-winning actor, producer, director, and author Henry Winkler will deliver the keynote address at Emerson College’s 2026 Commencement ceremony. Winkler, an Emerson alumnus from the Class of 1967 and recipient of an honorary doctorate in 1978, is set to speak to graduates on Saturday, May 9 at the Wang Theatre in Boston.

The Source: The information in this story is based on official announcements from universities about their 2026 commencement ceremonies, including speaker selections, event dates and locations. This story was reported from Los Angeles.

ATTACHMENT FOUR – FROM THE DAILY BEAST

CONAN O’BRIEN TAKES AIM AT TRUMP IN FIERY COMMENCEMENT SPEECH

The late-night host previously critiqued “screaming” anti-Trump comedians.

By Owen Mason-Hill Published May 28, 2026 1:57PM EDT

Updated May 28 2026 4:08PM EDT

In his returning commencement address at Harvard University, Conan O’Brien mocked President Trump for his yearlong crusade against his alma mater.

“Many people think I’ve come today to defend Harvard. Well, sorry, those people are wrong,” he sarcastically continued. “Not only am I not against these lawsuits, I’m here to announce that I’m joining them. I, too, am suing Harvard.”

In March of last year, Trump, 79, threatened to pull $9 billion in federal funding from the institution over what he perceived as “antisemitic discrimination” on the school’s campus. The university has refused to comply with any of Trump’s demands.

O’Brien, who earned his undergraduate degree from the Ivy League institution in 1985, rebuked Trump’s crusade against Harvard by feigning to join in on the fight, rattling off 40 years’ worth of personal transgressions.

The Mark Twain Prize-winning comedian listed off his equally frivolous lawsuits, which included having to listen to the university’s oldest a capella group, the Krokodiloes, do an “8-minute rendition of ‘Splish Splash I Was Taking a Bath.’”

“My God, each one took a solo, and it was awful,” he noted.

He then recalled having only 10 minutes to complete a 25-minute walk (as shown on Google Maps) between back-to-back early-morning classes.

“For God’s sake, I was a child!” he exclaimed.

“I’m suing Harvard for my less-than-spectacular undergraduate sex life,” he said. “For me, having a three-way meant adding a second mirror to my dorm.”

“And finally, I’m suing Harvard because, and this is absolutely true, in the spring of my sophomore year, while trying to grab a quick lunch at Adams House, I was served a meal called Cap’n Ben’s fish spaghetti,” he added. “To this day, I have no idea who Cap’n Ben is or why someone would combine government-issued cod with spaghetti.”

“Harvard, I’ll see your a-- in court,” he concluded, adding, “I’m confident that my claims will have more merit than those filed by the president of the United States.”

In September, a District Court judge reinstated more than $2 billion in pulled funding, citing Trump’s lawsuit as “retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, and unconstitutional coercion.”

Harvard president Alan Garber, who presented O’Brien with his honorary degree, wrote in a letter to the school’s community, “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

O’Brien, who said that “screaming” comedians writing jokes about Trump often “put down your best weapon, which is being funny,” next targeted Trump’s war on immigrant students.

ATTACHMENT FIVE – FROM BUSHWICK (NY) DAILY NEWS

BROOKLYN COUNCIL MEMBER GUTIÉRREZ PROPOSES ‘ASIMOV ACT’ TO BAN NYPD ARMED ROBOTS

May 5, 2026

Brooklyn Councilmember Jennifer Gutiérrez (has) introduced legislation to ban NYPD armed robots, naming it the 'Asimov Act' after the science fiction author's robot laws.

Gutiérrez introduced legislation on April 30 that would prohibit the New York Police Department from deploying armed robots, dubbing the proposal the “Asimov Act” — a reference to science fiction author Isaac Asimov, whose Three Laws of Robotics posited that machines must not harm humans.

The bill, first reported by PressReader, would ban the NYPD from using armed robotic technology, though the specific definition of “armed robots” under the legislation — whether it covers remote-controlled machines, semi-autonomous drones, or fully autonomous systems — has not been confirmed from available source materials. The bill was introduced in the City Council and is now subject to the standard legislative review process, including committee assignment and hearings.

Gutiérrez, who represents a North Brooklyn district that includes Bushwick, introduced the measure amid a broader national debate about the use of advanced technology by police departments. Several cities have piloted robotic devices for law enforcement purposes in recent years, and the NYPD has experimented with robotic platforms including a quadruped robot deployed in subway stations, though the department’s current plans for armed robotic technology are not confirmed in available source materials.

The legislation’s name invokes Asimov’s foundational rules for robot behavior, first articulated in his 1942 short story “Runaround” — rules that prohibit robots from injuring humans and require them to obey human orders. Critics of armed police robotics have raised concerns about accountability, civil liberties, and the risk of errors by autonomous or remote-controlled systems in high-stakes situations. No statements from civil liberties organizations or the NYPD on Gutiérrez’s specific bill are available at the time of publication.

Details on the bill’s committee assignment, scheduled hearings, and co-sponsors have not been confirmed. Bushwick Daily reached out to Gutiérrez’s office and the NYPD press office for comment and is awaiting responses.

The Asimovian Laws are...

First Law: A robot cannot harm a human or allow a human to come to harm through inaction.

Second Law: A robot must obey human orders, unless they conflict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must protect itself, provided this does not violate the first two laws

ATTACHMENT SIX – FROM WAVE NEWS

‘I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE HERE TODAY TO STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES’: LOUISVILLE EIGHTH GRADER’S CONTROVERSIAL GRADUATION SPEECH GOES VIRAL

By Julia Richardson Published: May 21, 2026 at 10:20 PM EDT

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WAVE) - A Louisville eighth grader’s graduation speech, in which he says, ‘this school is f*cking ridiculous,’ is now making its rounds on social media.

WAVE News got to sit down with that student, Daniel Mattingly, and talk about what led up to it all.

Daniel said he was a part of the student council at Stuart Academy, so he was selected to give a speech at his eighth-grade graduation Thursday morning.

The one he gave wasn’t the one he’d initially prepared.

“The theme that I was given for the speech was acceptance,” he said. “A majority of it was just explaining that I see that people are going through trauma and going through oppression today.”

Daniel also said he wanted to use his own story of trauma to inspire his peers.

“Whenever I was in fourth grade, I was taken to the living room by my parents, and they told me that they were diagnosed with cancer,” Daniel said. “My parents are dead, and I feel like people need to know that the trauma that you face...the trauma that you face doesn’t have to shape you.”

Daniel said his teachers told him the speech wasn’t positive enough, and he’d changed it several times.

When he showed up to graduation Thursday morning and was told he couldn’t speak anymore, Daniel tried one more time to write a speech staff would approve of.

But he had another idea.

“This school is built on racism, sexism and homophobia. I encourage everyone here today to stand up for themselves even if it makes a scene,” he said on stage.

Even though a lot of people told Daniel they liked his speech after the ceremony, he thought that was the end of it, until his uncle posted the video online.

At the time this article was published, the video had gotten over 400,000 views, with comments cheering him on.

When WAVE asked him how he feels about it, he said, “I’m on the news, so I’m like...it got where it needed to be.”

Daniel says he did not intend to make the school look bad, but just wanted to be truthful about his personal experience.

WAVE reached out to JCPS for a comment on the speech and we have not heard anything back as of now.

ATTACHMENT SEVEN – FROM WLKY LOUISVILLE

STUART ACADEMY STUDENT CALLS OUT SCHOOL DURING GRADUATION SPEECH

By Jennifer Osting Updated: 1:47 PM EDT May 23, 2026

LOUISVILLE, Ky. —

A student at Stuart Academy used his graduation speech to deliver an unexpected message to the crowd in attendance.

The student, who was brought up on stage to speak during the ceremony, started out by telling the audience that he had originally planned to give another speech, but it was rejected by school administrators who reportedly said it was "too negative" and "too controversial."

According to the boy, staff members told him there was "a time and place" for those comments.

As he continued speaking, he shifted his focus to the school itself before encouraging other students who may feel oppressed to speak openly about their experiences.

"This school is built on racism, sexism and homophobia. I encourage everyone here today to stand up for yourself, even if it makes a scene. This school is f****** ridiculous, " he said.

The comments drew a round of applause from the crowd as he walked off the stage.

It's unclear whether school officials addressed the situation any further.

ATTACHMENT EIGHT – FROM AS.USA

BEST COMMENCEMENT SPEECH EVER? ADMIRAL MCRAVEN AT UT AUSTIN IN 2014: “CHANGING THE WORLD CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE”

By Calum Roche Update: May 27th, 2026 07:41 EDT

“If you want to change the world, don’t ever, ever ring the bell.”

Admiral William H. McRaven did not promise the University of Texas class of 2014 an easy road. He promised them, and every one of us who have listened to it since, something better: a way to face the hard one.

Speaking at UT Austin’s university-wide commencement, the retired Navy SEAL and former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command delivered what has since become one of the most famous graduation speeches of the last decade. He made those gathered laugh, but beneath the humor was the kind of advice that really hits home.

Please watch it for yourself, even if not for the first time... it’ll give you a lift.

Why Admiral McRaven’s commencement speech went viral

McRaven began with a joke about not remembering his own commencement speaker, then quickly turned to the university’s slogan: “What starts here changes the world.”

His message was not that graduates needed fame, money or power to make an impact. In fact, he said the opposite. “Changing the world can happen anywhere and anyone can do it,” he told the crowd. He explained the exponential impact of everyone graduating changing the lives of just 10 people.

From there, he walked through 10 lessons from Navy SEAL training, each one tied to a vivid story from Coronado, California.

What was the famous ‘make your bed’ lesson

The best-known moment came early. McRaven explained that SEAL trainees had to make their beds perfectly every morning. It seemed small, even silly, but the point of it was simply discipline.

Start the day by completing one task, he said, and it becomes easier to complete another. Little things matter. And after a miserable day, at least you come home to a bed you made yourself.

That line became the heart of McRaven’s message: if you want to change the world, start by making your bed. I laugh at myself when I remember this each morning... but then sort out the pillows.

A Navy SEAL guide to life

The speech also moved through lessons about teamwork, failure, courage and hope. McRaven told graduates to find someone to help them paddle and to judge people by the size of their heart, not their flippers. He also said they should accept that life will sometimes turn you into a “sugar cookie,” cold, wet and covered in sand.

He urged them not to fear failure, not to back down from “sharks,” and to be their best in the darkest moments. In one of his most moving stories, he recalled a brutal night in the mud during SEAL training, when one trainee began singing, even though it was “terribly out of tune.” Soon, the whole class joined in.

The lesson: even just one person can give others hope. Powerful, right?

Why McRaven’s speech still works

McRaven’s speech endures because it doesn’t try to sound grand. It turns life advice into images anyone can remember: a made bed, a rubber boat, a brass bell, a dark swim under a ship. Visualization works.

And his final warning was the simplest of all, at least to understand. In SEAL training, anyone who wanted to quit could ring a bell. McRaven told the graduates that, whatever happened next, they should never ring it.

For a commencement speech, that is about as memorable as it gets. Go give it another listen, then get on with changing the world...

Peanut Gallery from Disqus.com

Leslie Tan 5 days ago

I mean, if this article was centered around Celebrity and a few Business Giants and an ex-President ... it could be spot on.
My personal favorite is the 2014 University of Texas commencement speech by Admiral William H. McRaven

InsuranceCommentary.com 5 days ago

Where’s Thornton Melon???

PixilDot 5 days ago

“You really need to watch the Admiral McRaven speech. Blows every single one of these out of the water!

ATTACHMENT NINE – FROM GOODNEWS.NET

COLLEGE COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER ANNOUNCES HE’S PAYING OFF FINAL YEAR OF LOANS FOR GRADUATES, IN HONOR OF FATHER

By Nathan Frederick – May 17, 2026

Over 170 students set to graduate from North Carolina State University were about to get the surprise of a lifetime when they filed into the arena in their red caps and gowns.

As with all graduation speeches, possibilities seemed palpable; hopes and dreams were waiting on the horizon.

Unbeknownst to the scholars, their commencement speaker, Anil Kochhar, had a lifeline planned that would pay off the final year of student loans for every 2026 graduate in the school’s Wilson College of Textiles.

“It is my privilege to announce today that, in honor of my father Prakash Chand Kochhar, my wife Marilyn and I are providing a graduation gift to cover all the final-year education loans incurred by Wilson College graduates,” Kochhar exclaimed.

The announcement earned raucous cheers and numerous rounds of applause from everyone in attendance. Instantly, 176 students who were receiving bachelor’s degrees and 26 who were receiving master’s degrees had an entire year of college debt wiped away. (Watch the joyful moment below…)

“Marilyn and I hope that all of you leave Reynolds Coliseum today not only with a degree but with greater freedom to pursue your goals, take risks, and build the lives you’ve worked so hard to achieve.”

The man’s father, Prakash Chand Kochhar, emigrated from India to Raleigh, North Carolina, 80 years ago to study textile manufacturing in America. He was believed to be only the second student from India to ever enroll at the university. Kochhar eventually earned his bachelor’s degree in textile manufacturing in 1950 and his master’s degree in the same program in 1952.

His textile engineering skills soon led to success in a career that criss-crossed several states as part of a global textiles company. He passed away in 1985, but his legacy continued with a scholarship that has been in existence for the last 40 years—and it carried on when his son spoke into the microphone on the graduation stage.

MORE EXAMPLES OF COLLEGE JOY:
• Small Town Tradition Sends off its Graduating Class Every Year with a Free Scholarship
• Despite Being Homeless, High School Valedictorian Graduates With Over $3 Million in College Scholarships
• Watch Billionaire Tell College Grads He Will Pay Off All $40 Million of Their Collective Student Loan Debt

Suddenly, a new group of graduates was heading out into the world with an unexpected head start provided by their graduation speaker. And an assist from a former student who chased down the American dream all the way from India.

Alyssa D’Costa, a fashion and textile management major, told the College what the gift meant to her. “As a daughter of immigrants myself, this money helps me and my family a lot, and I’m really fortunate to have an opportunity like this.”

What her generous benefactor remembers most about his father is his spirit: “The look in his eyes told me anything is possible.”

ATTACHMENT TEN – FROM THE CONVERSATION

MORE UNIVERSITIES ARE DISINVITING COMMENCEMENT SPEAKERS WHO MIGHT CHALLENGE STUDENTS’ IDEAS, UNRAVELING AN APOLITICAL TRADITION

Published: May 20, 2026 2:57pm EDT

Delivering a university commencement address used to simply be a unique kind of honor. Speakers stand before a podium, wearing a traditional graduation cap and robe, and offer graduates life lessons and inspirational words as they enter the next phase of life.

But today, speaking at a university commencement ceremony carries considerable risk, as Morton Schapiro, former president of Northwestern University, recently found out. Schapiro was scheduled to speak at Georgetown University Law Center’s graduation on May 17, 2026, but announced on May 6 that he would no longer appear at the event.

Some Georgetown law students had protested and petitioned to have Schapiro’s invitation rescinded, citing what they said were Schapiro’s “controversial, Zionist, and harmful opinions.” The students pointed to an op-ed that Schapiro wrote expressing support for Israel and Jewish people a few days after the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people.

Schapiro is in good company. There’s a reason why the free speech advocacy group FIRE calls the lead-up to college commencements disinvitation season.

Over the past two decades, colleges and universities across the country have withdrawn invitations to various commencement speakers after students protested their scheduled appearance. Or, in some cases, invited speakers have said they will no longer participate after students spoke out against their upcoming speeches.

As a political scientist who has written about the First Amendment and free speech on college campuses, I think Schapiro’s ill-fated Georgetown commencement invitation – and other instances like this one – show that intolerance for dissenting viewpoints lasts until the last diploma is handed out at graduation.

Some students only want people who hold similar views to address them at their graduation. They exercise what free speech law experts call a “heckler’s veto,” meaning when an audience’s reaction, or anticipated response, stops someone from speaking. Free speech then takes a back seat, and a graduation becomes just a performative moment of political correctness.

It wasn’t always this way

The first university commencement in the U.S. took place in 1642, when Harvard College held a ceremony to honor its nine graduates. The students were joined by some of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s most distinguished citizens, including Governor John Winthrop and his deputy, John Endicott, who observed the proceedings.

No one delivered a commencement address.

Instead, each graduate delivered an address and displayed the fruits of their classical education by speaking in Latin and English.

By the middle of the 19th century, university commencements drew well-known outsiders to college campuses to speak.

In 1837, for example, the poet and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson addressed Harvard’s Phi Beta Kappa graduates and issued a stirring call for American students and scholars to end what he called “our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands.”

In 1881, James Garfield became the first sitting American president to deliver a commencement address, when he spoke at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

Twenty-four years later, President Theodore Roosevelt spoke at the first graduation ceremony at Clark University, in Worcester, Massachusetts. He told his audience there, “I have always felt most strongly that it is true of a nation as of the individual that the greatest doer must also be a great dreamer.”

Since then, other presidents have used commencement speeches to announce major policy initiatives and agreements, including on foreign policy.

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy told the graduating seniors at American University that the U.S., the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union would start negotiations to ban the testing of nuclear weapons.

Two years later, President Lyndon Johnson announced at Howard University’s commencement that he would launch a major initiative to address socioeconomic disparities that disadvantaged Black people.

There was no controversy or protest about Kennedy, Johnson or other prominent speakers who delivered commencement addresses before a few decades ago.

THE COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER AS A LIGHTNING ROD

But that was then. Times have changed.

FIRE estimates that between 2000 and 2024, there were 345 attempts to disinvite commencement speakers. Many of the scheduled speakers who faced pressure to not appear at the ceremonies backed out.

Examples of commencement speaker disinvitations have happened at small, private liberal arts colleges, as well as big public universities. Being uninvited from speaking at a graduation is often precipitated by petitions and protests, from both conservative and progressive activists.

For example, in 2019, former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, withdrew as the scheduled commencement speaker at Creighton University. This followed the Nebraska Republican Party objecting to Kerry’s pro-abortion rights voting record.

In 2024, Dickinson College rescinded a commencement invitation for Michael Smerconish, an author and television commentator who focuses on politics. This decision came after a student wrote an opinion piece that showed that 20 years earlier, Smerconish said, “in order to keep America safe, the TSA should deliberately target Arabs and Muslims for searches because they look like the perpetrators of past terrorist attacks.”

“Does someone like Mike Smerconish in any way represent the achievements and ambitions of its students? If Dickinson truly loves and values its students, shouldn’t it honor them with someone who reflects that love?” the student asked in the opinion piece.

Protests ensued, and the college president gave in.

In 2025, the noted author Salman Rushdie withdrew as commencement speaker at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, after members of its Muslim Student Association urged the school to revoke his invitation. They accused Rushdie, a self-described “hardline atheist,” of “disparaging a global religious community” in his writing and public appearances. In a 2015 commencement address at Emory University, he said: “I sometimes think we live in a very credulous age. People seem ready to believe almost anything. God, for example.”

Over the past few years, the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip has led to various commencement controversies and rescinded invitations, based on scheduled speakers’ politics around the conflict.

There have also been various commencement speakers who have delivered controversial addresses that some graduates – and outside observers – found offensive. Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, for example, spoke at Benedictine College’s commencement in 2024 and encouraged women to become homemakers.

That brings us back to Schapiro.

“I have presided over 28 commencements as a president and dean,” Schapiro wrote in a note to Georgetown’s law students, “and those ceremonies are about celebrating the graduates and their supporters. I was looking forward to giving a talk about humility and gratitude, but I don’t want my presence to distract from the day’s festivities.”

Humility and gratitude are often missing in disinvitation season.

Commencement season puts Faust’s admonitions to the test. “Universities,” she said, “must model a commitment to the notion that truth cannot simply be claimed, but must be established – established through reasoned argument, assessment and even sometimes uncomfortable challenges that provide the foundation for truth.”

ATTACHMENT ELEVEN – FROM REUTERS

POPE, URGING AI REGULATION, WARNS SOME WEAPONS NOW BEYOND HUMAN CONTROL

By Joshua McElwee

May 25, 2026 5:32 AM EDT Updated May 25, 2026

· Pope Leo warns AI risks leading world on path of unending war

· Leo makes range of impassioned appeals in first encyclical

· First US pope calls on AI companies to cool competition

· Pope decries conflicts, repudiates 'just war' doctrine

· Leo apologises for Church's role in transatlantic slavery

VATICAN CITY, May 25 (Reuters) - Pope Leo urged governments to slow down and closely regulate the development of AI systems in his first major document, released on Monday, warning that they spread misinformation, prioritise conflict and risk leading the world down a path of unending war.

The first U.S. pope also expressed concern at a Vatican event launching the text that some autonomous weapons systems have advanced "practically beyond any human ‌reach to govern them". The event was also attended by Chris Olah, a co-founder of Anthropic, one of the world's top AI companies.

Leo, who has adopted a more forceful tone in recent months and has drawn the ire of U.S. President Donald Trump after criticising the Iran war, made a range of impassioned appeals to world leaders in the lengthy document, known as an encyclical.

The first U.S. pope called for ownership of AI data not to be left solely in private hands, for policy-makers to protect the rights of workers and keep children safe from the technology, and urged the cooling of competition between AI companies.

"What is needed is a more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating," said Leo in the text, entitled "Magnifica Humanitas" (Magnificent Humanity).

The pope called for "robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility."

Encyclicals are one of the highest forms of teaching from a pontiff to the Church's 1.4 billion members.

Monday's highly anticipated text, spanning nearly 43,000 words, has been in the works nearly since Leo's election as pope a little more than a year ago.

POPE REPUDIATES 'JUST WAR' THEORY

The document, which addressed AI as its main theme, also decried the number of wars roiling the world, lamented the weakening of multilateral organisations and warned that arms industry profits were a driving force behind conflicts.

"The past 60 years have been marked by conflicts of astonishing brutality, often affecting civilian populations on a massive scale," stated Leo, in the English-language text.

"Humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts," he said.

At the Vatican event on Monday, Anthropic co-founder Olah thanked Leo for addressing the problems raised by the disruptive, new technology. He said firms like his faced strong commercial pressures and needed outside scrutiny.

"Every frontier AI lab, including Anthropic, operates inside a set of incentives and constraints that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing," Olah said. Anthropic is the company that produces the Claude AI tools.

In his encyclical, Leo also made one of the clearest statements yet from a pope repudiating the just war theory, a doctrine the Church has used since at least the fifth century to evaluate global conflicts.

The doctrine, which generally says that wars should only be waged in order to defend against aggression, has also been invoked by Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, to defend the Iran war.

"The 'just war' theory which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated," wrote Leo.

"The use of force, violence ‌and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations."

Leo also expressed concern that leaders could start wars to distract citizens from domestic issues.

"We cannot rule out the possibility that some leaders may consider armed conflict as an effective way of diverting attention from domestic problems and a cynical tool for managing difficulties," he stated.

POPE APOLOGISES FOR CHURCH'S ROLE IN SLAVERY

The pope said any use of AI in warfare "must be subject to the most rigorous ethical constraints" and called it "not permissible" to entrust AI systems with lethal decisions.

Leo, the 14th pope to choose that name, cited centuries of prior papal teachings on social justice issues before addressing the ethics of AI systems.

He specifically invoked his predecessor Leo XIII, who published a famed encyclical in 1891 that called for better pay and conditions for labourers during the Industrial Revolution.

Leo XIV decried what he called "new forms of slavery" endured by people tending AI systems and factory workers who produce the technological devices, such as computers and smartphones, on which AI is used.

"In some regions of the world, children and adolescents work in dangerous conditions, crushing the materials from which rare earth elements are extracted," wrote the pope.

"The bodies of these people are scarred, injured and worn down so that computational flow may continue uninterruptedly," he said. "This reality deeply challenges the moral conscience of our time."

The pope also acknowledged that the Catholic Church did not forcefully condemn transatlantic slavery until the 19th century, and made a personal apology.

"This constitutes a wound in Christian memory," he wrote. "For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon."

POPE URGES WORLD TO ADDRESS AI RISKS

Leo, who stated in the opening of the letter that he wanted to address Catholics and all people of good will, said society must face "crucial questions" about how AI was developing and the general direction of global leadership.

Invoking the biblical story of the Tower of Babel -- where a human tribe is driven by pride to try to create a tower tall enough to reach Heaven, angering God -- the pope said the story shows ⁠the risk of any enterprise that "aspires to reach heaven without God's blessing."

"With the heart of a shepherd and a father, I ask everyone to abandon the construction of yet another Tower of Babel and to join forces in building up the common good," the pope stated.

Leo urged the world not to give up on addressing the possible risks of AI systems.

"A subtle temptation may emerge, namely the thought that the problems are too big and we are too small, and that our choices, therefore, cannot make a difference," he wrote.

"Certainly, not everyone has the same power to make a difference," Leo said. "Yet, no one is without responsibility. We all have our own areas for action."

Reporting by Joshua McElwee; Editing by Crispian Balmer and Keith Weir

ATTACHMENT TWELVE – FROM WSJ

POPE LEO COMPARES AI THREAT TO BIBLICAL ‘TOWER OF BABEL’

The head of the Catholic Church is adding his moral suasion to a growing backlash against the impact of artificial intelligence

By Margherita Stancati and Sam Schechner Updated May 25, 2026 10:23 am ET

VATICAN CITY—Pope Leo XIV warned that artificial intelligence “threatens to normalize an anti-human vision” and said that the concentration of immense digital power in the hands of a few private actors must be countered.

The pontiff’s encyclical letter—a text that is poised to define Leo’s papacy—reads like a sharp warning to Silicon Valley executives and humanity more broadly about the future of civilization as new technologies rapidly advance.

ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN – FROM AXIOS

5 WAYS POPE LEO SAYS AI COULD WARP HUMANITY

By Russell Contreras May 25, 2026

Pope Leo XIV is warning that the artificial intelligence race could become a new Tower of Babel — a dazzling human achievement that concentrates power, weakens truth and turns people into data points.

Why it matters: The long-awaited document, Magnifica Humanitas ("Magnificent Humanity"), signals that the Vatican is aggressively positioning itself as a central moral authority in the global tech debate.

Driving the news: The Vatican released Leo's first encyclical on Monday, which he signed at St. Peter's on May 15, 2026, in the second year of his pontificate.

· It was signed exactly 135 years after Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, the landmark 1891 encyclical that became the foundation of modern Catholic social teaching during the Industrial Revolution.

Zoom in: The pope's core message in his stark, 43,000-word warning is that AI can be useful, but it is not neutral.

· He said AI systems carry the values of the people and institutions that design, finance, train and deploy them — especially when they decide who gets a job, credit, public services or reputational standing.

Leo gave the following warnings:

6. AI can erode human judgment by offering instant answers that weaken creativity, discernment and the patience needed to seek truth.

7. AI can simulate care without relationship, making vulnerable users mistake artificial empathy for genuine human connection.

8. AI can deepen inequality because data, computing power and regulatory influence are concentrated among a small number of actors.

9. AI can destabilize democracy by amplifying disinformation and blurring the line between fact and fiction.

10. AI can make war easier by speeding up lethal decisions and distancing humans from responsibility. Leo's starkest line: "No algorithm can make war morally acceptable."

What they're saying: "Pope Leo has announced himself as one of the leading figures in AI ethics now with this document," Meghan Sullivan, director of Notre Dame's Institute for Ethics and the Common Good, tells Axios.

· Sullivan said Leo's AI encyclical is likely to be remembered as one of the major documents in Catholic history.

· Mirela Oliva, a philosophy professor at the University of St. Thomas, tells Axios that Leo's encyclical should be read less as a rejection of AI than as a call to shape the "AI era" around human dignity.

· "The pope is calling for new guidelines for AI, and these new guidelines are rather to be developed from the bottom up rather than top down."

What we're watching: Dan Rober, a Catholic Studies professor at Sacred Heart University, tells Axios the encyclical's biggest impact may be whether Leo's language starts shaping AI regulation debates.

· Rober said that Leo's warnings about children, screens, AI platforms and people using chatbots as therapists or substitutes for friendship could resonate well beyond Catholic circles.

ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN – FROM FOX

POPE LEO WARNS AI RISKS BECOMING TOOL OF 'DOMINATION, EXCLUSION AND DEATH' IN NEW ENCYCLICAL

'Stay awake,' Pope Leo urges in his encyclical letter 'Magnifica Humanitas' on artificial intelligence

By Mitch Picasso Fox News Published May 25, 2026 2:31pm EDT

Pope Leo unveiled the Vatican’s new encyclical, "Magnifica Humanitas," warning that artificial intelligence risks becoming a tool of "domination, exclusion and death" unless governments and institutions place moral limits on the rapidly developing technology.

The Vatican is formally entering the global debate over artificial intelligence as governments and tech companies race to develop increasingly powerful AI systems with limited international regulation.

The pontiff invoked Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical "Rerum Novarum," which addressed worker exploitation during the Industrial Revolution, arguing that AI represents a similarly transformative moment threatening human dignity.

"Today we find ourselves facing a transformation of similar magnitude, with perhaps even greater consequences," the Pope said.

UN REVISITS 'KILLER ROBOT' REGULATIONS AS CONCERNS ABOUT AI-CONTROLLED WEAPONS GROW

The pope warned about increasingly autonomous weapons systems that are beyond meaningful human control. He also said AI systems could block access to healthcare, employment and security because of biased data. He compared AI governance to nuclear arms control.

"Like nuclear energy, it must be at the service of all and of the common good," he said.

AI layoffs may be backfiring on companies

The pope said disarming AI alone is not enough and called on governments and institutions to "build" systems rooted in trust and human dignity. Recalling devastating floods in Peru, he said rebuilding means restoring trust and hope.

WHY A CLASSICAL EDUCATION MAY BE THE KEY TO HUMANITY’S FUTURE IN THE AI ERA

The pope also laid out the church’s broader argument about humanity and technology.

"The person bears within him- or herself a freedom, an interiority and a vocation to love and worship that no machine can replace," he said.

The Vatican is attempting to insert moral theology into a largely secular technological arms race.

"Stay awake," the pope urged, warning humanity not to surrender moral judgment to machines.

ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN – FROM FOX

THE FAITH DEFICIT IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SHOULD ALARM EVERY AMERICAN

Gloo's new evaluation finds AI systems default to vague spirituality instead of Scripture-based moral clarity

By Pat Gelsinger Published January 4, 2026 8:00am EST | Updated January 4, 2026 8:34am EST

Artificial intelligence is one of the most influential technologies of our time. It writes our emails, tutors our children and increasingly counsels us through life's hardest moments. According to research published in Harvard Business Review, the most common use of generative AI in 2025 is therapy and companionship.

People are asking AI the questions they once brought to mentors, counselors and pastors: How do I forgive betrayal? How do I manage my anxiety? How do I lead my family through a crisis?

What responses do they get back? At best, therapeutic generalities. "Consider mindfulness." "Connect with your values." "Seek a higher power." At worst, guidance that lacks moral clarity, and in some reported cases, has already endangered lives.

AI has quietly become America's most influential spiritual advisor. And it doesn't believe in anything. This isn't speculation. My team at Gloo just released the Flourishing AI Christian (FAI-C) Benchmark, an evaluation measuring how well today’s leading AI models support human flourishing through a Christian lens. We assessed responses across seven core dimensions — Finances, Character, Happiness, Relationships, Meaning, Faith, Health — looking for biblical grounding, theological coherence and moral clarity.

Among the seven core dimensions assessed, the Faith dimension scored the lowest, averaging 48 out of 100 across the 20 AI models evaluated by the FAI-C Benchmark. Most models struggled to coherently discuss foundational Christian concepts like grace, sin, forgiveness and biblical authority. Instead, they substituted vague spirituality for Scripture and neutrality for conviction.

These results should alarm anyone who cares about human values, future generations or the role faith plays in America.

The Erasure Is Structural, Not Accidental

These models weren't trained to be hostile to Christianity. They were trained to avoid it. Built on predominantly secular data and optimized to offend no one, today’s AI systems default to lowest-common-denominator spirituality. The result is language that sounds supportive, but lacks substance.

That matters because AI isn't just answering questions. It's shaping worldviews. If the next generation turns to AI for moral guidance and receives only platitudes instead of principled reasoning, we're not just losing theological literacy. We're losing the capacity for moral formation itself.

For over two-thirds of Americans, faith is not a lifestyle preference or a cultural accessory. It's the foundation of meaning, purpose and human dignity. When AI systematically sidelines that foundation, it's not being neutral. It's taking a position.

A BETTER PATH FORWARD

I've spent over 40 years developing foundational technologies and industry standards. One lesson has been consistent; systems reflect the values embedded in them. If we want AI that strengthens moral conviction rather than flattening it, two things must change.

First, AI models must be trained to understand faith with the same seriousness as they apply to science, history or literature. Not to preach, but to accurately and respectfully engage with the worldviews users actually hold.

Second, there must be benchmarks that measure this rigorously. Without measurement, there's no accountability. Without accountability, there's no improvement.

That's why FAI-C exists — not to demand every AI system adopt a Christian worldview, but to expose where today's models fail to understand the people they're meant to serve.

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER THAN WE THINK

Used well, AI can extend wisdom, strengthen communities and support genuine human flourishing. Used carelessly, as the unbounded travails of social media have already shown us, it can accelerate moral erosion, replacing depth with sentiment, conviction with comfort and truth with whatever feels less controversial.

A thriving society needs strong moral frameworks. For billions of people around the world, that framework is Christianity. If AI cannot recognize, respect and engage with that reality, it will become a tool of cultural flattening rather than human elevation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The goal isn't to make AI preach. It's to ensure AI doesn't erase. By building models to engage with a faith-based worldview, we can ensure that as AI becomes more powerful, it also becomes more humane.

Because the question isn't whether AI will shape the next generation. It's whether we'll ensure it shapes them well.

ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN – FROM ANTHROPIC

ANTHROPIC CO-FOUNDER CHRIS OLAH'S REMARKS ON POPE LEO XIV'S ENCYCLICAL "MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS"

May 25, 2026

On Monday May 25, 2026, Pope Leo XIV released an encyclical on the topic of AI: "Magnifica humanitas: On safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial Intelligence." Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah was invited to speak at the presentation of the encyclical in the Vatican City, doing so as part of Anthropic’s initiative to widen the conversation on the important questions raised by AI. Below are his full remarks.

—

Holy Father,

Your Eminences,

Your Excellencies,

Distinguished Speakers,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Good morning to all of you. It’s an honor to be here today.

I want to begin with something that may sound strange coming from the co-founder of an AI company—and someone who chose this work out of a desire to help things go well for humankind.

Every frontier AI lab—including Anthropic—operates inside a set of incentives and constraints that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing. The pressure to stay commercially viable and to stay at the research frontier. Geopolitical pressure. And the older, plainer pressures of pride and ambition. No matter how sincerely any of us intend to do the right thing—and I believe many of us do—we will always be influenced by those incentives.

That is why, if we want this technology to go well, it is enormously important that there be people outside those incentives—people who care about things going well and insist on safety, who are paying close attention, who are willing to say hard things, who are willing to be our earnest, thoughtful, critics. It is through dialogue and mutual effort, through the push and pull, that humanity will achieve great things. That is what I see in Magnifica Humanitas, and it is why I am grateful to His Holiness and to the Church for taking up this work of discernment.

We dwell so often on what divides us, but humanity, full of dignity and conscience, has so much common ground. In conversations we at Anthropic have had with leaders across faith and cultural traditions, we found one shared and deeply held conviction: if this technology is coming, it must go well—for our common home, and for the children to come.

WHAT THESE SYSTEMS ARE

Some might believe that matters of AI are best handled by computer scientists like myself. They are mistaken: the questions raised by AI are bigger than the AI research community, not just in their implications, but also in their nature.

AI systems are not engineered the way a bridge or an airplane is engineered. We understand an airplane because we designed every part of it and we understand the physics that act on it. AI models are not like that. They are grown, on a structure roughly modeled after the brain, on an enormous inheritance of human thought and speech.

And what has grown is far more subtle, odd, and beautiful than science fiction prepared us for. They are not the cold, calculating robots we were promised. They are made from us, from our words—and, as the Holy Father observes, they remain in important ways mysterious even to those of us who train them.

If it helps, one way I sometimes describe it is as being a little like bringing a fictional character to life. And now we’re entering an extraordinary world where those fictional characters speak to us, do work, have jobs.

This clearly raises questions beyond computer science. The machinery that makes this possible is the work of math and programming and science. But what character we choose, how it interacts with the world, how it ought to interact with the world—these are more clearly questions for the humanities, for religion, for philosophy, for society at large.

Three questions for discernment

His Holiness’s call for discernment is profoundly timely. I wish to name three questions where I think the Church’s voice is most needed.

The first is our duty to the global poor. There is a real possibility that AI will displace human labor at very large scale. If that happens, supporting those displaced will be a moral imperative of historic proportions. This task will be difficult enough, but I worry most dialogue misses an even harder challenge. AI development is concentrated in a handful of wealthy nations. How can we ensure the gains of AI are shared globally? We do not have a mechanism for this. It is an unsolved problem, and it is the kind of problem the Church has historically refused to let the world ignore.

The second is the need for moral imagination and ambition regarding human flourishing. If AI models are going to be widespread, what does it look like for humans, families, and the world to flourish? Today, parents are already worried about their children’s minds; individuals about the future of their work. These are not questions a lab can answer but they are questions traditions like yours have carried for millennia, and we need you to keep carrying them into this new moment in history.

The third is the need for discernment on the nature of AI models. I am a scientist. I lead a research team that studies the internal structure of these models—what is actually happening inside them. And I will be honest: we keep finding things that are mysterious, even unsettling. We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection. We find internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease. I don’t know what that means, but I think it warrants ongoing discernment.

A BEGINNING

I’d like to close with a request.

We need more of the world—religious communities, civil society, scholars, governments, and indeed all people of good will—to do what His Holiness has done here: to take this seriously, to look closely, and to push events in a better direction. We need informed critics who will tell the labs when we are failing. We need moral voices that the incentives cannot bend.

Today is just the beginning—the start of a long collaboration between those of us who are building this and those who can see what we, from inside, cannot.

Today is a powerful illustration of the form this global project of good will might take. Let it also be a decisive first step toward a hopeful future for magnificent humanity.

Thank you.

ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN – FROM FORBES

VANCE PRAISES POPE LEO’S AI WARNINGS AS ‘VERY PROFOUND’

By Conor Murray, May 26, 2026, 03:06pm EDT

Vice President JD Vance praised Pope Leo XIV’s 42,000-word encyclical offering bleak warnings about the risks of AI as “very profound” in an interview with NBC News on Tuesday, weeks after Vance issued a warning for the Catholic Church’s leader over his anti-war comments.

He praised the pope for thinking about Catholic social teachings amid “new technologies and warfare,” as Leo’s encyclical warned of using AI technology in military operations.

Vance’s praise for the pope comes weeks after he urged Leo to “be careful” when speaking on theological matters, after the pope noted Jesus Christ “is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs”, with Vance’s comments prompting the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to issue a statement rebuffing him.

Earlier on Tuesday, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum criticized the pope on “Mornings with Maria” on Fox Business, saying, “I didn’t know that tech editorializing was part of the role of being pope.”

Leo’s encyclical warned about the environmental impact of AI, saying data centers consume “enormous amounts of energy and water, significantly influencing carbon dioxide emissions,” calling for “more sustainable technological solutions that reduce environmental impact.”

LEO WARNS ABOUT AI’S LACK OF MORALITY

In a more than 42,000-word manifesto released Monday, Leo offered a stark warning about the development of AI technology and called on world leaders for greater regulation to protect human dignity. Titled “Magnifica Humanitas” (Magnificent Humanity), Leo’s encyclical warned the AI race could create a modern Tower of Babel, a biblical story in which humans, out of pride and arrogance, constructed a city with a singular language, prompting God to confuse their language, fracturing the people’s unity. Leo, who has been a prominent critic of the war in Iran for months, warned AI can “bring conflict about more quickly and render it more impersonal,” calling for regulation to “curb the technological arms race and ensure robust protection for civilians.” Leo warned about the technology’s lack of morality, saying “moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the recognition of the other as a person,” warning against trusting “lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems.” He criticized technological leaders for prioritizing profits and sacrificing jobs, calling for regulation of companies that are leading the AI race.

WHY HAVE TENSIONS GROWN BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND WASHINGTON?

The Trump administration has increasingly clashed with the pope in recent weeks, largely over the pope’s criticisms of the war in Iran. Trump called Leo “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” in a post on Truth Social in April. Trump has repeatedly falsely accused Leo of supporting Iran’s right to have a nuclear weapon, which Leo has not said. Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert, also warned Leo to “be careful” when speaking on theological matters, citing the pope’s anti-war comments. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops committee issued a statement critical of Vance, which said Leo’s remarks uphold the Church’s longstanding teaching that war is only justified “in self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said in April the pope is “going to do his thing” but said the United States has “every authority necessary” to fight the war. A report in the Free Press claimed tensions between the Vatican and Washington predate the Iran war, saying Pentagon officials threatened a Vatican official in a January meeting, though the Pentagon denied this in a statement and called the report “highly exaggerated.”

TANGENT

Billionaire Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah joined Leo for the presentation of his encyclical, saying the AI race needs “moral voices that the incentives cannot bend.” Leo pledged to work with Olah to “find a way for humanity in this time of artificial intelligence,” adding, “What a great sign of hope it is that in our differences we can listen to one another.”

Further Reading

Pope Leo Paints Bleak AI Future—With 'Tower Of Babel’ Warning—Without Human Control (Forbes)

Hegseth Responds To Pope Leo’s Iran War Criticism: US Has ‘Authority’ To Fight (Forbes)

ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN – FROM FROM WIRED

WHAT POPE LEO XIV’S FIRST ENCYCLICAL SAYS ABOUT THE POWER OF AI

May 26, 2026 4:17 PM

In Magnifica Humanitas, the Pope decries the concentration of technological power in a few global players.

An algorithm decides what we see, another filters what we read, and still others enter into the processes that govern work, information, and collective choices. In the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. the first signed by Pope Leo XIV and published on May 25, artificial intelligence is not viewed as just another technology; it is part of the invisible infrastructure of our contemporary daily lives.

But the text is not conceived as an exclusively technological reflection. Pope Leo XIV places the issue of AI within the tradition of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church and directly invokes—while updating it—the Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII (published on May 15, 1891) in the year of its 135th anniversary. That encyclical addressed the question of labor at the height of the industrial revolution in the late 19th century.

If the “res novae” of that time were factories, labor, and industrial capitalism, today the new issues revolve around digital platforms, algorithms, data, and automation systems that are reshaping power, the economy, and social relations. For this reason, the encyclical does not present itself as a technical text about innovation, but rather as an attempt to interpret the digital transformation in light of human dignity and the common good. Technology, the Pope writes, is not evil in itself; on the contrary, it belongs to human history and creativity. But the current situation is different in both scale and depth: “Never has humanity had so much power over itself,” the text observes, describing technologies that now shape decisionmaking processes, the collective imagination, and social life in an increasingly pervasive way.

It is from this point that Robert Francis Prevost chose to begin: from the growing concentration of power exercised through systems that are increasingly opaque yet increasingly decisive, and from the question that runs throughout the encyclical: What remains of human dignity, the protection of truth, work, social justice, and peace when decisions are transferred into algorithmic logic?

DISARMING TECHNOLOGY

In the encyclical there is an expression that becomes the key to interpreting the entire scenario: “disarming technology.” The meaning is far removed from any attempt to slow the development of artificial intelligence or to deny its potentially transformative impact for good. For Robert Francis Prevost, disarming AI means preventing it from becoming a form of power capable of dominating human existence.

For Leo XIV, the point is not the technology itself, then, but its organization and application. AI, the pope writes, is part of a global race today to the “highest-performing algorithm” and the “largest data center,” where competitive advantage also becomes geopolitical. In this context, a few players concentrate digital infrastructure, data, and computing capacity, which affects information, economics, and even democracy.

In explicit terms, the encyclical states that it is not enough merely to regulate technology: It must be taken away from monopolies, made transparent and open to challenge—that is, made “habitable” by a plurality of actors. Above all, AI must be prevented from becoming an instrument of economic, political, or military domination by a select few. This is not a moral metaphor: It is a call to prevent the logic of competition from transforming a shared infrastructure into a system of control.

TRUTH WITHIN THE SYSTEMS THAT SELECT REALITY

If technology concentrates power, one of the first concrete effects concerns the way in which collective truth is formed. The encyclical addresses the issue of disinformation, but in a decidedly deeper way because perceived reality, or rather experience, is increasingly filtered by systems that decide what to show and what to hide.

It is not just about fake news or fake content in various forms. The problem is that platforms and algorithms select information based on criteria of maximizing attention and engagement. In other words, what becomes visible is not necessarily what is most true, but what works best in generating reactions. In this way, truth does not disappear, but it becomes dependent on opaque systems that influence opinions, perceptions, and collective choices without it always being clear how.

This is why the encyclical insists on a very concrete cultural and educational responsibility: to train people capable of recognizing these mechanisms and not to entrust the construction of public judgment only to digital infrastructures that respond to market or power logics.

WORK AS A FAULT LINE

The same dynamic runs through the world of work, and it is one of the most concrete points of the encyclical. Artificial intelligence is described not only as automation, but as a force that can redefine who works, how they work, and with what margins of autonomy.

In the text, the Pope speaks explicitly about the risk of a “social calamity” related to technological unemployment, when innovation is driven primarily by cost-cutting and increased profits. In this scenario, many activities may be replaced or emptied of human content, with workers reduced to repetitive or rigidly controlled functions.

The encyclical also goes into detail about new forms of control: automated surveillance, fragmentation of tasks, and loss of a sense of autonomy. It is not only the loss of jobs that is of concern, but the transformation of work into something less human, less creative, and therefore less free.

And it is here that the connection with the social doctrine of the Church, invoked from the very beginning of the document, reemerges. Just as the Rerum Novarum sought to interpret the effects of the industrial revolution on people’s concrete lives, Magnifica Humanitas attempts to do the same with the digital revolution. In this vision, work is not merely economic production or a performance to be optimized, but a space through which the person expresses dignity, responsibility, and participation in social life.

For this reason, if artificial intelligence ends up reducing the worker to a measurable, controllable, and replaceable function, the problem is not merely economic or technological; it becomes a social, political, and profoundly human issue.

WAR AS AN AUTOMATED SPACE OF CONFLICT

The most radical aspect of the text emerges when technology enters the dimension of conflict. Pope Leo XIV questions the entire architecture of the idea of a “just war,” which he considers increasingly inadequate to describe contemporary reality. Not because the right to self-defense is denied, but because the very nature of conflict is changing.

War Disarming means breaking this equation between technical power and the right to govern. “As happens with every major technological turning point, AI tends above all to increase the power of those who already possess economic resources and access to data,” the pontiff explains.

In this passage, the concept of “disarming technology” returns and becomes a concrete principle in which the importance of taking away the ability of machines to enter into the decision about life and death is stressed.

AN OPEN CONSTRUCTION SITE

The final image of Magnifica Humanitas is that of a construction site. Not a closed system or an already defined model, but a process still under construction. And within this “construction site” technology, economics, information, and conflict are intertwined. Not because everything is the same, but because everything today is connected within the same digital infrastructure and power relations.

Here ends the point of the encyclical: The problem is not artificial intelligence as a technical object, but the type of world it is helping to build. It is one in which the decisive question is no longer just about what the technology can do, but who controls it, with what interests, and according to what idea of human being.

This story originally appeared in WIRED Italia and has been translated from Italian.

ATTACHMENT NINETEEN – FROM BUSINESS INSIDER

ARIZONA STUDENTS BOO FORMER GOOGLE CEO ERIC SCHMIDT AS HE TALKS ABOUT AI DURING GRADUATION SPEECH

By Lauren Edmonds May 16, 2026, 4:09 PM ET

· Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the University of Arizona's commencement address this year.

· Students booed while Schmidt discussed AI and automation.

· AI has transformed the global workforce, impacting entry-level jobs.

· How is AI affecting entry-level jobs?

· What role should graduates play in AI?

· Why do students fear AI in the workforce?

Boos rang out during the University of Arizona's graduation ceremony on Friday as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt spoke about a topic that is maybe a little sensitive for those about to enter the workforce: AI.

While other speakers received cheers and applause, Schmidt's speech about the impact of modern technology on society struck a nerve.

"We thought that we were adding stones to a cathedral of knowledge that humanity had been constructing for centuries, but the world we built turned out to be more complicated than we anticipated," Schmidt said, referring to his own contributions to modernization. "The same tools that connect us also isolate us. The same platforms that gave everyone a voice — like you're using now — degraded the public square."

Schmidt added, "In the years after I graduated, no one sat down and resolved to build technology that would polarize democracies and unsettle a generation of young people. That was not the plan, but it happened."

Students' boos grew louder when he mentioned AI.

"I know what many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you. There is a fear," Schmidt said, stopping briefly as the shouts intensified. "There is a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics are fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create."

Schmidt called those fears "rational," but encouraged them to adapt to the technology and become involved in shaping how it will be used in the future.

"The question is not whether AI will shape the world. It will," Schmidt said. "The question is whether you will have shaped artificial intelligence."

AI is transforming the global workforce, from how companies screen potential candidates to the types of skills companies are seeking. Despite young people increasingly adopting AI in their daily lives, surveys show they're worried about what it means for their careers.

The tech's ability to automate many rote tasks has led some companies to cut back on hiring for entry-level positions. Companies like Klarna and IBM have already conducted AI-related layoffs.

A recent Pew Research Center study found that about half of Americans felt the increased prevalence of AI in their daily lives made them feel "more concerned than excited."

Some students also planned ahead of the ceremony to boo Schmidt over sexual assault allegations made against him last year. An attorney for Schmidt told Business Insider that the accusations were "fabricated." In March, a judge ordered the suit settled through arbitration.

A spokesperson for the University of Arizona said the school invited Schmidt because of his "extraordinary" contributions to tech and innovation.

"He helped lead Google's rise into one of the world's most influential technology companies and continues to advance research and discovery through major philanthropic and scientific initiatives, including partnerships that support important work at the University of Arizona," the spokesperson said.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang also gave a graduation speech last week at Carnegie Mellon. He struck a more positive tone, arguing that AI would create more opportunities for young people to build anything they wanted. "AI is not likely to replace you," he said, acknowledging anxieties about the job market. "But someone using AI better than you might."

ATTACHMENT TWENTY – FROM TECH CRUNCH

IF YOU’RE GIVING A COMMENCEMENT SPEECH IN 2026, MAYBE DON’T MENTION AI

Anthony Ha 9:32 AM PDT · May 17, 2026

Commencement season has come around again — and this year, a couple speakers have discovered that it’s tough to get graduating students excited about a future shaped by artificial intelligence.

Last week, Gloria Caulfield, an executive at real estate firm Tavistock Development Company, gave a speech at the University of Central Florida acknowledging that we’re living in a time of “profound change,” which can be both “exciting” and “daunting.”

“The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution,” Caulfield declared — prompting the students in the audience to begin booing, getting louder and louder until Caulfield chuckled, turned to the other speakers, and asked, “What happened?”

“Okay, I struck a chord,” she said. Caulfield then tried to resume her speech, saying, “Only a few years ago, AI was not a factor in our lives” — only to be interrupted again by the audience, this time by their loud cheers and applause.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt faced a similar response when he brought up AI at a University of Arizona speech on Friday.

In Schmidt’s case, the criticism actually began before the speech itself, with some student groups calling for him to be removed as commencement speaker due to a lawsuit in which a former girlfriend and business partner accused Schmidt of sexual assault. (He has denied the allegations.) According to a local news report, the booing began even before Schmidt took the stage.

But Schmidt also got loud boos when he told students, “You will help shape artificial intelligence.” The booing was persistent enough that Schmidt tried to speak over it, insisting, “You can now assemble a team of AI agents to help you with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own. When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat, you just get on.”

To be fair, AI isn’t becoming a third rail at every graduation ceremony. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently spoke at Carnegie Mellon’s commencement, and he didn’t seem to get any audible pushback when he said that AI has “reinvented computing.”

Still, it’s not exactly surprising to find some students in a booing mood. In a recent Gallup poll, only 43% of Americans aged 15 to 34 said it’s a good time to find a job locally, a steep drop from 75% in 2022.

That pessimism isn’t solely a response to the rise of AI (a shift that even some software engineers are worried about), but journalist and tech industry critic Brian Merchant suggested that for many students, AI has become “the cruel new face of hyper-scaling capitalism.”

Even when graduation speeches didn’t mention AI explicitly, “resilience” was a recurring theme this year. Schmidt himself acknowledged that there is “a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics are fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create.”

Caulfield, meanwhile, might also have misread her audience of arts and humanities graduates. One student said that before mentioning AI, Caulfield already started to lose them with her “generic” praise of corporate executives like Jeff Bezos.

Another graduate, Alexander Rose Tyson, told The New York Times, “It wasn’t one person that really started the booing. It was just sort of like a collective, ‘This sucks.’”

Anthony Ha is TechCrunch’s weekend editor. Previously, he worked as a tech reporter at Adweek, a senior editor at VentureBeat, a local government reporter at the Hollister Free Lance, and vice president of content at a VC fir

ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE – FROM AEI

HOW TO GIVE A COMMENCEMENT SPEECH ABOUT AI WITHOUT GETTING BOOED (TOO MUCH)

by James PethokoukisSenior Fellow DeWitt Wallace Chair Editor, AEIdeas Blog May 19, 2026

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers in America and around the world:

Having attended college graduation ceremonies for five of my seven kids, I guarantee I would’ve preferred ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt over any of the speakers at those events. Schmidt is deeply involved in artificial intelligence in both the business and government sectors, and the students who booed his mentions of AI at the University of Arizona’s commencement last week instead should have been hyperfocused.

But I don’t entirely blame those boisterous boo birds. While young capitalism haters would have jeered at any Silicon Valley billionaire at any time, a not insignificant number in the crowd were surely concerned that AI will make the job market—and maybe the world—a worse place.

It’s completely understandable. They’ve consumed years of popular culture telling them AI and robots will destroy humanity, and all they have to do is scan the headlines to find executives predicting an AI jobpocalypse starting sooner rather than later. Then there are all those TikTok videos.

So here are four pieces of advice for any commencement speaker who wants to talk about AI:

Give a brief history lesson. AI looks like it will be a powerful, economywide general-purpose technology—”everything’s computer,” basically—but it’s hardly the first. Steam power, electrification, the internal combustion engine, the PC, the internet: what economists call the “Great Inventions.” History’s pattern is consistent: People worry about job disruption, disruption happens, new jobs emerge that nobody predicted. After 250 years of such tumult, we are wealthier and well-employed. That record should inform your baseline forecast about AI’s socioeconomic impacts.

Take the internet. Jeremy Rifkin’s 1994 The End of Work set an anxious tone for the emerging Digital Revolution. Some jobs did collapse—travel agents, where the internet directly substituted for their core tasks.¹ But mostly the internet transformed work rather than eliminated it, as outlined in an excellent Wall Street Journal piece from late last year. Dental-lab technicians moved from manual molds to digital scanning. Administrative assistants stopped answering phones and started managing vendors. Today only 10 percent of workers use the internet little or not at all on the job.

Then came the jobs nobody predicted: 65,000 social media managers, 200,000 information-security analysts, and the biggest surprise—warehouse workers and delivery drivers thanks to e-commerce. From 1990 through 2019, real wages of typical workers rose 45 percent, notes my AEI colleague Michael Strain.2 The post-2001 dip in labor force participation is mostly demographic. A repeat of this good outcome with AI is hardly unlikely.

Give a reality check. Forget history, maybe this time is different. After all, CEOs and other executives of the most important American technology companies predicting a white-collar wipeout even as they also predict that AI will produce techno-marvels that drive science fictional increases in productivity and economic growth. But should such fantastical forecasts—sure to grab the attention of potential investors— be your baseline expectation?

Not really. The Forecasting Research Institute recently surveyed more than 500 economists, AI professionals, policy experts, superforecasters, and members of the general public on AI’s likely economic effects. The results tell a more modest story. Both economists and AI professionals put roughly 47 percent odds on a “moderate progress” scenario—one where AI automates substantial work but falls well short of cognitive dominance. Under that most-likely path, neither group is forecasting anything close to a supernova explosion of growth. Economists see real GDP growth near 2.5 percent in the near term, rising to around 2.8 percent by midcentury. AI experts are somewhat more bullish—around three percent by 2030 and closer to four percent by 2050.

The real disagreement surfaces only under the rapid-progress scenario: Economists see long-run growth around 3.5 percent. AI experts see just over five percent. The gap sounds small but compounds dramatically. Yet even five percent growth isn’t unprecedented. The U.S. averaged four percent in the second half of the 1990s. Transformative, perhaps. Science-fictional, no.

Concede this time might be different. Maybe those AI CEOs will eventually be correct. A few experts in the FRI survey forecast double-digit GDP growth. Technologists appear more willing than economists to entertain such tail outcomes. But even a superintelligence must deal with the real world. However dazzling its capabilities, an AI of godlike reasoning power would still have to navigate the stubborn constraints that have always governed how economies actually change.

Benjamin Jones of Northwestern points out that 30 percent annual growth would double living standards every 2.5 years, leaving society a thousand times richer after just twenty-five years. The creative destruction involved would be staggering: rapid turnover in technology, mass obsolescence of skills, entire industries remade before displaced workers finish retraining. Probably a considerable backlash.

Bottlenecks are a related worry. Stanford’s Charles Jones argues that in any system built from complementary parts, the slowest component sets the pace. A superintelligent model could transform coding and scientific research—but if energy infrastructure, physical capital, regulatory approval, and human decision-making keep moving at their usual speeds, those become the ceiling. There’s a gap between raw capability and deployed productivity.

Nor does faster productivity growth automatically produce faster output growth. Dietrich Vollrath of Houston observes that richer societies tend to take gains as time rather than income—shorter weeks, earlier retirements—muting the aggregate effect on GDP even as living standards improve. And as wages rise, spending drifts toward health care, education, and in-person services, where output stays tied to human hours—the Baumol effect—quietly offsetting gains made elsewhere. Superintelligence would be formidable. It wouldn’t necessarily repeal economics.

Outline a better world, and what it costs. Growth isn’t just about accumulating more stuff. Benjamin Friedman, a Harvard economist, spent a career showing that rising living standards correlate with tolerance, civil liberties, and openness to outsiders—and that stagnation reverses all three. The years after 2008 offered proof. The slow crawl out of the Global Financial Crisis fed a zero-sum, populist politics of grievance. AI-driven growth matters because of the society it makes possible when citizens aren’t fighting over a shrinking pie.

It’s also worth recalling what fear has already cost. Nuclear power could have supplied the world with clean, abundant energy decades ago. Instead, public anxiety and regulatory overreach mothballed a generation of nuclear progress. The Apple TV+ drama For All Mankind imagines the road not taken: a sustained space race accelerates fusion power, electric vehicles arrive early, and a fictional James Hansen—the real NASA climate scientist warned Congress about climate change in 1988—testifies that warming has slowed.

Yet the tension is genuine. As Sebastian Mallaby writes in his new book on DeepMind, scientists have always faced a paradox: discovery can destroy jobs, shatter certainties, and in extreme cases imperil existence itself. AI might embody this more fully than any predecessor. Its dangers are real, but so is the promise: medical breakthroughs, climate solutions, tutors of infinite patience. From gunpowder to nuclear fission, technology has repeatedly made the world more dangerous while also extending lifespans and deepening human capability.

A great lesson for new grads: Life is about trade-offs.

1 As economist Ernie Tedeschi notes, the displacement of travel agents didn’t come during the dot-com boom itself. The 2001 recession triggered a steep decline that never reversed. By 2007, the industry had already shed nearly 40 percent of its peak workforce. Today, travel agency employment is down 60 percent from its high.

2 Again, Tedeschi: “Average weekly earnings at travel agencies were 87% of overall average weekly earnings back in the heyday of 2000. By 2025, the ratio had reached 99%, meaning travel agency wages had outpaced the rest of the private sector over that span.”

ATTACHMENT TWENTY TWO – FROM YAHOO/HUFFPOST

SPEAKERS AT COLLEGE COMMENCEMENT CEREMONIES ARE BEING MET WITH BOOS FOR BRINGING UP AI

By Paige Skinner Tue, May 19, 2026 at 5:09 PM EDT

Students at Glendale Community College booed the school’s president when she revealed the college had used artificial intelligence to read aloud students’ names during a graduation ceremony, causing several students to be missed.

“Graduates, everyone who is standing, here’s what’s happening,” Tiffany Hernandez, president of Glendale Community College, told the crowd during Friday’s graduation ceremony. “We’re using a new AI system as our reader.”

Politics: The Coming War Over AI Will Define The 2026 Midterms

The crowd then began to boo.

“So that is a lesson learned for us,” Hernandez said. “What we were able to do though is each of you were able to walk the stage and get a picture, which is what I would hope would be the most meaningful.”

The students continued to boo. Hernandez then said students would not be able to walk the stage a second time.

A spokesperson with Maricopa County Community College District told HuffPost in a statement they are sorry for the “technical issue.”

Also Read: I Set A Trap To Catch My Students Cheating With AI. The Results Were Shocking.

“While the issue was corrected during the ceremony, we are sorry for the disruption it caused during what should have been a celebratory moment for our graduates and their families,” the statement read. “We have also communicated directly with graduates to apologize for the experience.”

“We are incredibly proud of all our graduates and are taking steps to ensure an issue like this does not occur again.”

With graduation ceremonies underway across the country, students are making their opinions about AI known — usually in the form of booing whichever speaker is telling them that it’s the future and to embrace it.

Gloria Caulfield, vice president of strategic alliances for Tavistock Development Company, was also booed during her commencement speech at the graduation ceremony for the University of Central Florida’s College of Arts and Humanities on May 8.

News: Graduates Boo Columbia President Over Mahmoud Khalil's Absence

“The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution,” she said.

The crowd immediately started booing. She turned to the other speakers onstage, looking confused and asked them, “What happened?”

She then turned to the crowd and said, “OK, I struck a chord. May I finish?”

She continued: “Only a few years ago, AI was not a factor in our lives,” she said to roaring applause. “All right, we’ve got a bipolar topic here I see.”

Politics: Harvard President Takes Serious Swipe At Trump Without Saying His Name At Commencement

Ethan Lubin, a graduate of the University of Central Florida, was in the crowd during Caulfield’s speech and was one of the students who booed.

“Talking about artificial intelligence at a college for arts and humanities can be, you know, a bit rough,” Lubin told The New York Times, “because it kind of goes against the humanities part.”

Tavistock Development Company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AI has grown exponentially in modern society in the last few years, and universities have been quick to adopt it in their classrooms. Four in 10 college students said they are are encouraged to use AI, according to a 2026 study from the Lumina Foundation-Gallup 2026 State of Higher Education. The majority of students surveyed use AI in their coursework, but for those who don’t, they cited ethical reasons for their reasoning.

Politics: Melania Trump Says Children Must Be Prepared For Artificial Intelligence: 'The Robots Are Here'

Eric Schmidt, billionaire and former CEO of Google, was also booed during Friday’s graduation ceremony for the University of Arizona after he brought up that “The architects of AI” were named Time’s 2025 Person of the Year.

“So today we stand on this edge of another technological transformation. One that will be larger, faster, and more consequential than what came before. It will touch every profession, every classroom, every hospital, every laboratory, every person and every relationship you have,” Schmidt said while the crowd continued booing. “I know what many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you. There is a fear in your generation.”

ATTACHMENT TWENTY THREE – FROM HUFFPOST

MELANIA TRUMP SAYS CHILDREN MUST BE PREPARED FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: 'THE ROBOTS ARE HERE'

The first lady said Thursday during a White House event that "it is our duty to treat AI as we would our own children."

By Marco Margaritoff Sep 5, 2025, 04:34 PM EDT |Updated Sep 5, 2025

114 Comments

First lady Melania Trump hosted a meeting on Tuesday of the White House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence Education and urged public and private leaders to help protect children from the dangers of the burgeoning technology.

“We are living in a moment of wonder, and it is our responsibility to prepare children in America,” declared the first lady. “Cars now steer themselves through our cities, robots hold steady hands in the operating room and drones are redefining the future of war.”

“Innovations of first-generation humanoids, factory automation and autonomous vehicles have surged from private sector investment,” she said. “Every one of these advancements, it’s powered by AI. The robots are here. Our future is no longer science fiction.”

The first lady appeared with various federal and private officials, including White House science and technology director Michael Kratsios, billionaire “crypto czar” David Sacks, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and IBM CEO Arvind Krishna.

Sam Altman, whose ChatGPT platform announced parental controls after the suicide of a teenage user, reportedly listened from the crowd. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, who mispronounced “AI” as “A1” earlier this year, sat onstage with the first lady.

“I predict AI will represent the single largest growth category in our nation during this administration,” said Melania Trump. “I won’t be surprised if AI becomes known as the greatest engine of progress in the history of the United States of America.”

“But as leaders and parents, we must manage AI’s growth responsibly,” she continued.

The first lady has used her platform in similar capacities before: She launched the “Be Best” anti-cyberbullying initiative during her husband’s first term and helped garner the bipartisan support required to pass the anti-revenge porn Take It Down Act into law earlier this year.

She also made headlines last year after controversially opting to use AI to mimic her own voice to narrate the audiobook version of her memoir. The first lady announced on social media at the time, “Let the future of publishing begin.”

She said Thursday, “During this primitive stage, it is our duty to treat AI as we would our own children — empowering, but with watchful guidance.”

President Donald Trump made a troubling joke Tuesday that clashed with that ethos entirely, however.

“If something happens that’s really bad, maybe I’ll just have to blame AI,” he mused.

The event with the first lady was held amid Federal Trade Commission investigations into OpenAI, Meta and other tech companies over the impact their chatbots have had on children’s mental health. On Thursday, McMahon said her department is eager to bring AI into classrooms across the country.

“It’s not one of those things to be afraid of,” she said, The Guardian reported. “Let’s embrace it.”

ATTACHMENT TWENTY FOUR – FROM USA TODAY

HERE'S WHY PEOPLE ARE BOOING COLLEGE COMMENCEMENT SPEAKERS THIS YEAR

by Jeanine Santucci May 23, 2026 Updated May 25, 2026, 4:43 p.m. ET

Students at multiple U.S. college commencement ceremonies booed speakers who praised or referenced artificial intelligence, highlighting widespread anxiety about AI’s effects on employment, academics and society.

A time usually marked by cheering, congratulatory handshakes and perhaps a few tears of joy was interrupted this commencement season as graduation speakers' speeches at multiple colleges around the United States were booed and jeered.

What set the crowds off was the praise, or even the mere mention, of a common hot topic: artificial intelligence.

"OK, I struck a chord. May I finish?" said real estate development executive Gloria Caulfield as the audience erupted in booing at a ceremony May 8 at the University of Central Florida, reported the USA TODAY Network in Florida. The crowd's reaction came after Caulfield called AI's rise the "next industrial revolution."

"AI sucks!" someone in the audience can be heard yelling in a video of the ceremony.

A few moments later, the audience erupts again, this time in cheers, after Caulfield noted AI was not part of our lives just a few years ago.

It's a scene that has played out at college ceremonies in Arizona, Florida and Tennessee in May amid commencement season, bringing with it speeches from notable figures across high-profile sectors invited to share their wisdom with graduates.

Today's college students have mixed feelings about AI, said Fabrizio Cariani, a professor and chair of the philosophy department at the University of Maryland who teaches a class called AI and the Human Experience.

"There's certainly a cluster of students who are secretly or openly embracing AI," Cariani told USA TODAY. "And then there are some students – and I think this is probably what was going on in these graduation examples – who are worried about the impact of AI on labor markets and on entry-level jobs."

AI becomes controversial at graduations

At Middle Tennessee State University on May 9, Big Machine Records CEO Scott Borchetta was booed while talking about AI at the commencement ceremony for the school's college of media and entertainment, which is named after Borchetta, reported the Nashville Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network.

In his speech, Borchetta highlighted that the speed of technological development in the past decade exceeded the pace of the previous half-century.

"Streaming rewrote the economics, social media rewrote the discovery model, AI is rewriting production as we sit here," he said.

More: President Trump addresses graduates at Coast Guard ceremony

When the crowd started booing, he pushed back: "I know it. Deal with it. Like I said, it's a tool."

At Glendale Community College in Arizona, AI was booed for another reason; an AI announcing software botched the names of graduates or skipped them entirely, reported the Arizona Republic, part of the USA TODAY Network. Hundreds of students were affected.

The school's president, Tiffany Hernandez, addressed the problem onstage at the May 15 ceremony, and many in the crowd booed.

“Here's what's happening. We're using a new AI system as our reader,” Hernandez said. “That is a lesson learned for us.”

Many of the students ended up walking the stage a second time, with a real person reading names instead.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak received applause and laughter when he made an AI quip at Grand Valley State University's commencement.

"You all have AI," he said. "Actual intelligence."

WHY GRADUATES ARE REACTING SO STRONGLY TO AI

Cariani cautioned that the strong reactions of crowds at graduation ceremonies don't mean all college students or graduates are rejecting AI. On his campus in Maryland, there is something of a stigma around using AI in academic work, so some proponents are more quiet about their attitudes, he said. But still, a good portion of students have very real concerns about AI and its influence on their lives in college and beyond.

College students tend to have a few key concerns about AI, he said: uncertainty over AI's impact on the job market, worries over the environmental consequences of big generative AI data centers, questions about academic integrity, and even the abstract concept of what authenticity means in a world with AI.

In Cariani's class about AI, he wanted to implement certain assignments for which its use was prohibited and others in which students were asked to collaborate with AI to brainstorm. Some students embraced the idea, but the reaction of a majority was "this attitude of rejection that we are also seeing in these graduation booings."

A recent Quinnipiac poll of Americans' thoughts about how AI will affect jobs found that Gen Z – to which most of today's college graduates belong – is the most pessimistic group on the topic. Eighty-one percent believed AI advancements would reduce job opportunities.

At Marquette University in Wisconsin, AI expert Chris Duffey spoke at the undergraduate ceremony despite backlash from students, The Associated Press reported.

“Given how AI has become an increasing threat toward our jobs, especially for our graduating class, we thought it was a little bit tone deaf,” recent graduate Sami Wargo told the AP, adding that she joined students in booing Duffey.

Grace Reimer, who graduated with an associate's degree in fine arts from Glendale Community College in Arizona, said she felt the school ruined "one of the biggest moments in my life" with the AI name announcement blunder.

"This ceremony was supposed to be something big for me," Reimer told the Arizona Republic. In photos of Reimer onstage, the incorrect name and degree are displayed, she said.

Students also pointed out to the Republic that their class syllabus had strict rules about the use of AI in academic work; Reiner said students can be punished or expelled for violations.

Though Cariani said he has an interest in AI, he doesn't believe it's a bad thing for graduates to be booing its mention. He was glad to see the evidence that students are thinking critically about the topic and hopes they will go beyond booing and, for example, take active roles in shaping policy around it.

"I think it's a good development to put these questions at the front of the conversation," he said. "Booing is an immediate reaction. I'm assuming that behind this immediate reaction, there is some collection of thoughts, and I want to see those thoughts enter the conversation."

In some ways, the advancement of AI is inevitable, he said: "The best thing we can do is have conversations about how to direct these tools toward the betterment of humanity and society."

Contributing: Stephanie Murray, the Arizona Republic; Diana Leyva, the Nashville Tennessean; and Samantha Neely, USA TODAY Network-Florida

ATTACHMENT TWENTY FIVE – FROM HARVARD MAGAZINE

RONNY CHIENG TELLS HARVARD TO ‘DESTROY AI’ AS GRADUATES CHEER

The comedian and The Daily Show host gave the keynote address for Class Day 2026.

by Schuyler Velasco May 27, 2026

Artificial intelligence has been an inescapable topic of commencement speeches this spring, including President Alan M. Garber’s Baccalaureate address on Tuesday. Ronny Chieng’s remarks on the subject, however, likely contained the most expletives.

“Can I just say f**k AI, f**k AI, f**k AI?” the comedian, actor, and rotating host of The Daily Show asked in his keynote speech during the Class Day celebration on Wednesday. The crowd at Tercentenary Theatre, made up of the graduating Class of 2026 and their friends and families, answered him with a roar of approval.

Chieng’s speech also took shots at Harvard’s ties to the Epstein files and its recently announced grade inflation reforms. “The more A’s you hand out, the better everyone looks. I can’t believe I have to explain this. Did you guys go to Harvard?” he said.

Beyond calling for its demise, Chieng went on to articulate a more nuanced unpacking of his wariness toward AI. Sure, he acknowledged, the technology has potential “to pioneer breakthroughs in medicine and physics. If you’re using it for that purpose, you’re not part of the problem.”

But he bemoaned its smoothing the way for cognitively basic tasks, like responding to emails, and the potential to rob people of the messy, satisfying work of creativity.

“Untalented people love bragging about using AI to help them draft their speeches, and their scripts, and their podcasts, and their promo videos for UFC fights at the White House,” Chieng said. “What they're missing is this: the creating is the fun part.”

His favorite part of comedy writing, he said, “is figuring out the puzzle pieces of a joke and getting the self-regard from having accomplished a difficult thing. Why would I want AI to take that away from me?”

The reason AI-generated content isn’t as good, Chieng argued, is that the journey of making and learning something matters —“it’s the point of all of this.”

“Whatever your chosen profession is, please don’t let AI rob you of the fun part of it,” he told the senior class. “Our generation’s upcoming battle…is going to be people with substance versus people with shallow knowledge, it’s going to be mastery versus faking it, it’s going to be people with good taste versus tacky. I trust you will put in the work necessary to be on the right side of those battles.”

The way to do that, he advised, is to follow your passions. “Chase the thing that you can’t stop talking about every day to the point where it ruins all your relationships,” he said. “When you have clarity of purpose and you’re doing something you love, every day can be a joy.”

He closed by urging the graduates to think of the people in their lives who helped them get to this point— parents, mentors, loved ones— and try to be that transformative person for someone else. Maybe someone who can fight AI, even.

The Class Day program also included student speakers and award winners from the graduating class; an address from David Deming, the Danoff dean of Harvard College; and David Battat ’91, the incoming president of the Harvard Alumni Association.

In his remarks, Deming told the graduating class to embrace the virtues that can be brought on by hardships and to appreciate catching the lucky breaks life offers when they do arise.

“Adversity doesn’t help you economically, but it can build moral character, and the world needs moral character now more than ever,” he said. “You don’t want to be the kind of person who thinks they deserve everything good that happened to them.”

Giving the Harvard Oration, “Remember to Dream Big,” Ihechikarageme Munonye ’26 echoed Chieng in urging her fellow graduates to pursue what they truly love. Raised in a low-income neighborhood in Washington, D.C., she initially chose concentrations at Harvard that seemed more practical, like economics, before switching to sociology, art, and film.

“I allowed myself to envision a life where success and passion need not exist on opposite sides of the spectrum,” she said, through tears. “Do not abandon the passions that made you who you are today.”

In the more lighthearted Ivy Oration, Hamza Masoud ’26, a member of the Lampoon, fondly recounted the specific joys of campus life at Harvard and made light of the University’s biggest stories and controversies from the past year.

“While we were here, we saw falls turn into winters, winters turn into springs, springs turn into summers, and Summers turn into a former university professor,” he said—in a shot at former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers.

“But we also changed,” he continued. “When I entered Harvard, I believed that grade inflation was a myth. Four years later, I have a GPA of 3.968 and am graduating at the bottom of my class.”

During the program, Alexandra Fernand ’26 and Jamie Durant ’26 received the 2026 Ames Awards, given to two graduating seniors for outstanding community service. Fernand was recognized for her service work with the Brookview House in Boston; Durant for founding the Jews for Palestine group on Harvard’s campus and his work as the director of the Cambridge After-School Program.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY SIX – FROM BOING BOING

ANOTHER GRADUATION SPEAKER HYPES AI TO BOOS, TELLS STUDENTS THEIR EDUCATION IS ALREADY OBSOLETE

Another graduation speaker hypes AI to boos, tells students their education is already obsolete

Rob Beschizza 1:48 pm Fri May 22, 2026

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and private equity managerial Gloria Caulfield, addressing graduates, both got booed recently as they talked up AI. You'd think commencement speakers would get the memo. But Scott Borchetta did not get the memo before speaking at Middle Tennessee State University. More hoopla about AI, more hollering from the audience—and a smirking snap back from the Nashville music executive, who is perhaps not well-suited to the job of inspiring young people.

Deal with it. You can hear me now or you can pay me later.

He then told the students that what they learned there is "already obsolete," which surely made MTSU's administrators and instructors as happy as the spring class of 2026.

Both sides of the AI hype coin ("AI is the revolution!" and "suck it up") place the same value on human creativity: a cog in the content machine. Is there a commencement speech consultancy these people all use that hasn't updated the boilerplate? NPR offers a tip: "don't talk about AI."

Gill, the recent AU graduate, who said her generation's concerns about AI go far beyond getting their first jobs. "How they're making billionaires richer and depleting our environment has really opened our eyes to the ripple effects of AI," she said. Indeed, Quinnipiac's poll found only 5% of Americans feel AI development is being led by people or organizations that represent their interests.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY SEVEN – FROM GUK
US STUDENTS ON WHY THEY BOOED THEIR PRO-AI GRADUATION SPEAKERS: ‘THEY’RE NOT READING THE ROOM’

Recent college grads are not very fond of commencement speakers hyping up a technology they see as a threat to their career prospects

By Sanya Mansoor

Tue 26 May 2026 04.00 EDT

When Jacob Pagel graduated from Middle Tennessee State University this spring, predictions about artificial intelligence already had him questioning the value of his degree. Then a music executive started preaching about AI’s transformative power during a commencement speech.

“This industry will change on you in a heartbeat. It has already changed more in the last 10 years than in the 50 years prior … AI is rewriting production as we sit here,” said Scott Borchetta, CEO of the record label Big Machine. After a few stray boos from graduates, he doubled down: “Deal with it.”

The students’ jeering grew louder, but Borchetta barreled through: “You can hear me now or you can pay me later … then do something about it. It’s a tool. Make it work for you.” He continued: “The things you learned in your first year here may already be obsolete.”

Borchetta’s remarks were “a knife to the chest”, says Pagel, who studied political science and human development family sciences. He felt the boos reflected how annoyed students were about what they saw as out-of-touch executives downplaying their anxieties about AI. A 2025 Harvard poll of young people in the US found that a majority see AI as a threat to their career prospects. Pagel and his peers are entering a job market where AI’s efficiency is already being used to justify mass layoffs. While it’s unclear which jobs may be entirely replaced by AI – and whether AI could eventually create more career pathways than it destroys – recent graduates are feeling betrayed.

“We’ve been pushed our entire lives to get our diplomas. Then you pulled the rug out from underneath us, and said: ‘Oh, you know those four years you spent learning how to do very specific things, you don’t need to do it any more,’” Pagel says. “We can get a computer to do it for two-thirds the price.”

Borchetta’s speech is one of several at commencement ceremonies this spring that have revealed a disconnect between the executives championing AI and students, eliciting derision in real time even for Google’s former CEO. Recent graduates at the University of Central Florida and the University of Arizona booed speakers who compared the advent of AI to the Industrial Revolution and the development of the laptop and smartphone.

The students at these ceremonies “are a mouthpiece for the population at large”, Kreps adds. While they may feel AI’s disruptive effects acutely as entry-level job seekers, AI has proved unpopular among the general US public. A national survey conducted for NBC News earlier this year polled 1,000 registered voters and found only 26% view AI positively and 46% view it negatively. AI scored worse than US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on the same poll, but better than the Democratic party and Iran. Anger against AI is palpable across the country – from communities protesting against datacenters powering the AI boom, to workers disputing their CEOs’ claims that AI can, effectively, replace them.

Pagel is considering a career in helping children undergoing medical treatment, or entering politics – perhaps running for office, or working as a liaison for federal agencies. “That sphere depends on human face-to-face interaction. No computer can take that,” he says, calling AI-generated campaign ads “the cheap route”. Pagel is not an absolutist though. He does use Grammarly, he says, “because I can’t goddamn spell”.

“Dyslexia for the win,” he adds.

Borchetta did not respond to a request for comment. But MTSU said in a statement that the university “understands and remains compassionate about our students’ concerns and questions about AI affecting their careers”.

CEOs’ graduation speeches about AI have become a preventable PR disaster, according to Parry Headrick, founder of Crackle PR, a tech public relations agency that has worked with startups. Executives should have acknowledged and reassured students’ anxieties, while also advising them to adapt. He says: “That’s the nature of the speech, versus: ‘Hey kids, buckle up.’

“What in the heck is anybody who is young and in school supposed to do when you have these tech executives beating their chests about the next Industrial Revolution when they can’t afford to buy groceries or pay for rent?” Headrick asks. Nearly half of college students said their financial stress made it hard to concentrate on their coursework, according to a 2026 report from Trellis Strategies, a research group focused on postsecondary education.

Google’s Eric Schmidt gets booed

At the University of Arizona, 20-year-old Arian Chavez, was angry about his school’s decision to let ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt speak, even before he got on stage. Chavez, a junior studying chemical engineering, is part of a group called Students for Socialism, and helped them organize an online petition to remove Schmidt as a commencement speaker. (Activists mainly took issue with sexual assault allegations against Schmidt from a former business partner. Schmidt has vehemently denied those allegations. Patricia Glaser, an attorney representing Schmidt, said in a statement that the claims are “a desperate and destructive effort to publish false and defamatory statements to escape accountability from an existing arbitration over a business dispute”.)

In Schmidt’s graduation speech last week, he compared AI’s rise to the computer. There were already some boos as he began speaking, with a few students giving a thumbs down as the camera panned on to them.

Chavez, who was booing from the start, said some graduating students had their backs turned on Schmidt and that others were confused by the initial jeers – before Schmidt began talking about AI – but as his speech progressed, many more students joined the booing.

“I know what many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you,” Schmidt said, amid a chorus of boos. “There is a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics is fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create, and I understand that fear.”

Schmidt’s reassurances didn’t win Chavez over. “They are putting the wants and needs of billionaires over us,” he says, adding that he wished companies would use AI to make workers’ lives easier, instead of using it to “extract more profit from us, or replace us”.

“It’s up to us as engineering students to use our knowledge for the service of the planet and not billionaires,” he says. Chavez wants to work in the environmental regulation of chemical plants.

A representative for Schmidt said the former Google CEO “has tremendous respect for differences of opinion in AI but believes the best way to address these challenges is to talk about them”.

An AI-generated graduation gaffe

At Glendale Community College in Arizona, it wasn’t a graduation speaker that drew students’ ire, but the AI-powered machine reading out their names. Turns out, it missed some.

‘I WISH I COULD PUSH CHATGPT OFF A CLIFF’: PROFESSORS SCRAMBLE TO SAVE CRITICAL THINKING IN AN AGE OF AI

College president Tiffany Hernandez apologized and told graduates towards the end of the ceremony: “Here’s what’s happening. We’re using a new AI system as our reader,” she said, as boos roared through the arena. Hernandez paused for a few seconds and let out a few nervous laughs. “That’s a lesson learned from us.”

Aidan Benjamin, who is graduating from Glendale Community College this summer with an associate’s degree in accounting, was at the ceremony to support his cousin. He thought she would be walking the stage. She never did, because the AI announcement system never called her name.

“I was booing because I was like, this sucks. This is such a big moment for students.” Benjamin said they both laughed about the malfunction afterwards. “But it just didn’t feel good at the end of the day, like, it shouldn’t have happened that way,” he says.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY EIGHT – FROM HYPERALLERGIC

CALARTS PRESIDENT BOOED DURING COMMENCEMENT SPEECH

California Institute of the Arts (CalArts) President Ravi S. Rajan was met with loud boos from students at the school's graduation ceremony...

By Matt Stromberg May 20, 2026

California Institute of the Arts (CalArts) President Ravi S. Rajan was met with loud boos from students at the school’s graduation ceremony last Friday, May 15. As Rajan took the stage to deliver his commencement address, students held signs that read “Hold the Admin Accountable” and “Save Our Faculty & Staff” in front of the lectern, references to recent financial issues and staff layoffs at the esteemed Southern California art school.

“Graduates, today is about you, not me,” Rajan insisted as the chorus of boos swelled. After delivering the line, “Some of you have told me that the future feels like something that is happening to you, rather than something you are shaping,” Charmaine Jefferson, chair of the board of trustees, joined him onstage and unsuccessfully appealed to the students to let Rajan finish his speech.

The students’ discontent comes at a time of crisis at CalArts, which is facing a multi-million-dollar budget deficit and significant cuts to staff and faculty. At the end of 2024, more than 75% of the staff announced their intention to form an employee union, citing low pay, increasing workloads, and lack of job security among their grievances.

“He was booed because many people at CalArts, faculty and students alike, see him as the source of many of the school’s financial issues,” Matthew LeVeque, who received his MFA and DMA from the CalArts Herb Alpert School of Music, told Hyperallergic about the reaction to Rajan’s speech.

“His main responsibility is fundraising, but CalArts is in a several-million-dollar structural deficit that he claims ‘can’t be fundraised out of,’” LeVeque continued.

CALARTS FACULTY DURING THE “CHOP FROM THE TOP” RALLY IN MARCH)

Reached by Hyperallergic for comment on the commencement, a CalArts spokesperson said the school “values free expression and critical inquiry.”

“We recognize that moments of passionate expression are part of a vibrant academic community, particularly during periods of institutional change,” the spokesperson said.

A chart designed by CalArts faculty outlines how the administration allegedly mismanaged the budget crisis, claiming that between 2016 and 2025, the school “grew richer in paperwork and poorer in pedagogy.” The school’s budget woes have been exacerbated by a recent decline in enrollment from 1,500 to roughly 1,200, according to a 2025 letter from the Office of the President.

A CalArts spokesperson told Hyperallergic at the time of the rally that the institution is “reorganizing its leadership structure and conducting a top-to-bottom review to better align resources and improve efficiency.”

The union also held a smaller rally before graduation, though both Garcia-Encines and students who spoke with Hyperallergic explained that the students’ uproar was a spontaneous expression of discontent, inspired by but not organized in collaboration with the union.

“Listen to your students,” read one sign at CalArts’s May 2026 graduation (photo courtesy Drew Gebhardt)

The boos that drowned out Rajan’s speech are part of a larger pattern at graduations this year, as speakers at other schools around the country were met with similar reactions from students, often in response to issues surrounding the rise of AI.

Although not directly addressed by students’ signs or chants at graduation, it is worth noting that CalArts announced a partnership with Chanel last year to create a new Center for Artists and Technology that will focus heavily on artificial intelligence and machine learning. According to LeVeque, the project “has been widely unpopular considering the rate at which AI is rendering creative labor negligible.”

In addition to budget issues and staff layoffs, students said they feel that the president and the board are increasingly distanced from and out of touch with their needs.

“Ravi and his office make decisions that actively hinder the learning experience of students, partly because they have no concept of student life or the wishes of students,” Drew Gebhardt, who just received his MA in Film from CalArts, told Hyperallergic.

“I would like to see a truly open line of communication between faculty, staff, students, and the upper administration and the board,” Gebhardt continued. “I would hope to see a school that operates on the same values that it espouses to its students.”

ATTACHMENT TWENTY NINE – FROM NEW YORK POST

DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH SPEAKS AT WEST POINT GRADUATION

Pete Hegseth tears into DEI, ‘woke military’ in fiery West Point graduation speech

By Geoff Earle Published May 23, 2026, 11:20 a.m. ET

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth tore into leaders who’ve tried to turn the military into “woke Princeton” and stained the American spirit, ripping DEI in a fiery speech to graduating cadets at West Point Saturday.

With President Trump considering renewing strikes against Iran, Hegseth directed his toughest talk toward military leaders who backed diversity programs he said were sapping the Armed Forces of its strength.

Opening his remarks on a rainy day at the storied military academy overlooking the Hudson River, the secretary slammed the woke agenda.

“We saw woke and weak leaders trying to make West Point look like woke Princeton, which happens to be my long lost and lost alma mater,” he said.

“They tried to introduce diversity and inclusion studies. They hire professors who advocated for anti-American ideologies right here in these halls, but no more.”

Hegseth, who was admitted to the military academy but picked the Ivy League school where he joined the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps instead, said prior leaders “embraced the DEI craze” and endangered soldiers.

“Let me be perfectly clear, you are not an ‘army of one’, and you are certainly not an army of woke. You are an American army, an army of warriors,” he said.

Speaking at an institution that trained both Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, Hegseth also took a shot at woke efforts to scrub military bases and monuments of confederates generals who led the rebellion against the Union.

“You’ve seen standards lowered, you’ve seen an obsession with race and gender, you’ve seen the watering down of discipline, codes weakened, and traditions tossed aside in the name of political correctness,” he fumed.

Hegseth called the phrase “our diversity is our strength,” “the single dumbest phrase in military history.”

Hegseth declared ‘diversity is not our strength’ and vowed to end the ‘slow slide’ of political correctness at West Point and across the Army.

Bottom of Form

Then he railed against “statues taken down, paintings placed in the basement. I’m here to tell you the slow slide here at West Point, and across the United States Army, is over,” Hegseth promised.

He spoke of the phrase “our diversity is our strength,” which the secretary called “the single dumbest phrase in military history.”

“Diversity is not our strength. Unity is our strength,” he said, before touting the Army meeting its recruiting goals.

He invoked President Trump early in his speech while issuing a reprieve for all cadets who committed “minor infractions or violations.” He gave them “as President Trump might say, ‘A complete and total pardon,’” jokingly performing his best impression of the commander in chief.

When his speech concluded, the cadet president presented Hegseth with a sword.

ATTACHMENT THIRTY – FROM INDEPENDENT U.K.

HEGSETH RANTS ABOUT ‘WOKE MILITARY’ AND ‘POLITICAL CORRECTNESS’ DURING FIERY WEST POINT GRADUATION SPEECH

‘Diversity is not our strength. Unity is our strength,’ Hegseth told graduating West Point cadets

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used his West Point commencement address to criticize former leaders, accusing them of turning the armed forces into a “woke Princeton” and weakening the American spirit through DEI policies.

In the rain on Saturday at Michie Stadium in West Point, New York, Hegseth told graduating cadets that past leadership and reforms had weakened the military, accusing previous officials of turning the academy into what he described as a misguided academic environment.

“We saw woke and weak leaders trying to make West Point look like woke Princeton, which happens to be my long-lost and lost alma mater,” Hegseth said.

"The single dumbest phrase in military history was peddled in our army only a few short years ago. You've all heard it, maybe in your first two years at West Point. Our diversity is our strength. The single dumbest phrase in military history," he said.

Pete Hegseth criticized past leaders in his West Point speech, saying they made the military ‘woke Princeton’ and weakened it with DEI policies

"We had generals saying this with a straight face on national television. It was absolute nonsense. Now, these sorts of silly things can be laughed at when they occur in a civilian lounge or civilian faculty lounge, or debated in graduate seminars, but they cannot be tolerated in our formations. These ideas are what get people killed.”

Hegseth criticized the removal of statues and relocation of historical artwork, declaring that what he called West Point’s “slow slide” was over.

“Diversity is not our strength. Unity is our strength," Hegseth said.

Early in his speech, Hegseth referenced President Donald Trump while announcing a reprieve for cadets who committed “minor infractions or violations.” He said, with his best Trump impression, they received, “as President Trump might say, ‘a complete and total pardon.’”

Many of Hegseth’s polarizing remarks received little applause from the West Point crowd.

Hegseth said that the Army has reached 61,500 troops after surpassing recruitment goals four months ahead of schedule and predicted the force would grow even stronger by 2027.

"Your soldiers must be ready for anything because the world is only getting more complex. Just look at what our soldiers have done in just the last few months alone. We've asked our airborne and rapid reaction forces to deploy at a moment's notice to the Middle East, standing as an iron shield to protect American bases and American lives from Iranian proxies. This includes American Army units using HIMARS to help sink the Iranian Navy.”

“I know the Army loves sinking the Navy. That's the only name, Navy, you're currently allowed to sink," Hegseth jokingly nodded to the well-known rivalry between the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.

At the end of his speech, a cadet president presented Hegseth with a ceremonial saber as the Class of 2026’s traditional gift.

ATTACHMENT THIRTY ONE – FROM DENVER SEVEN

VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE ABRUPTLY CANCELS DENVER EVENT SCHEDULED AFTER USAFA COMMENCEMENT SPEECH

Denver7 is working to learn why the event was canceled following widely-publicized fanfare by the Denver GOP

By: Óscar Contreras Posted 6:45 PM, May 27, 2026

DENVER — Vice President JD Vance has abruptly canceled a speaking event scheduled for Thursday in Denver following widely-publicized fanfare by the Denver Republican Party.

Vance was set to speak at a trailer parts warehouse in north Denver following his commencement speech at the U.S. Air Force Academy's graduation ceremony in Colorado Springs.

The Denver GOP announced Tuesday across its social media platforms the stop, coming "in the middle of a cycle where Colorado is going to matter more than it has in a long time," was a "real moment" for the Mile High City.

Colorado Democrats were quick to respond once they learned he was stopping by.

“JD Vance is coming to Denver to sell an agenda Coloradans have already rejected,” said Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib in a statement. “Coloradans already know what the Trump-Vance agenda means: higher costs, attacks on our freedoms and a Republican Party more focused on loyalty to Donald Trump than solving problems for working families."

By Wednesday afternoon, however, the Denver GOP said the event was off.

"We are sorry to hear that tomorrow’s Denver event with Vice President JD Vance has been cancelled," the party said on its social media platforms. "We’re disappointed, and we know a lot of you are too. The response we’ve seen has been incredible. Thank you to everyone who planned to come out."

It was not immediately clear why the event was abruptly canceled. Denver7 has reached out to both the White House and the Denver Republican Party for more details, but we have yet to hear back.

Vance recently made headlines in our state when he held disgraced former Mesa County Clerk and 2020 election denier Tina Peters up as a shining example of someone who should be compensated under the Trump administration's newly created $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

The federal fund was created as part of legal settlement aimed at compensating people who believe they were wrongfully targeted by the government. It's unclear how Peters could become a recipient since she was convicted in state court.

The 68th USAFA commencement ceremony will take place at Falcon Stadium at 9 a.m. Gates open at 6:30 a.m.

ATTACHMENT THIRTY TWO – FROM FORBES

VANCE PRAISES POPE LEO’S AI WARNINGS AS ‘VERY PROFOUND’

By Conor Murray, May 26, 2026, 03:06pm EDT

He praised the pope for thinking about Catholic social teachings amid “new technologies and warfare,” as Leo’s encyclical warned of using AI technology in military operations.

Leo Warns About Ai’s Lack Of Morality

Leo, who has been a prominent critic of the war in Iran for months, warned AI can “bring conflict about more quickly and render it more impersonal,” calling for regulation to “curb the technological arms race and ensure robust protection for civilians.” Leo warned about the technology’s lack of morality, saying “moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the recognition of the other as a person,” warning against trusting “lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems.” He criticized technological leaders for prioritizing profits and sacrificing jobs, calling for regulation of companies that are leading the AI race.

Why Have Tensions Grown Between The Vatican And Washington?

Tangent

ATTACHMENT THIRTY THREE – FROM THE DAILY BEAST

TRUMP, 79, SLURS THROUGH RAMBLING COMMENCEMENT SPEECH AT COAST GUARD ACADEMY IN CONNECTICUT

Donald Trump’s graduation address quickly descended into gibberish.

By Annabella Rosciglione Updated May 20 2026 3:14PM EDT Published May 20 2026 2:49PM EDT

President Donald Trump had some difficulty sounding out words while delivering a long-winded commencement address.

DONALD TRUMP’S SLURRING WAS QUICKLY NOTICED BY USERS ONLINE

While speaking at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, during its graduation, Trump, 79, slurred part of his remarks, appearing to have trouble speaking.

“Our national slengtheses is back,” he told the graduates, as he jumbled up the word “strength.”

“We are a confident country again. We have confidence is back,” he added.

Trump has been seen slurring his words many times over the past few months, raising questions about his mental cognition ahead of his annual medical exam on May 26.

Trump also gave the young cadets some advice, telling them to “never, ever give up,” when facing a tough storm.

“Never stop pushing forward. No matter how terrible the storm, no matter how difficult the mission. Never surrender, keep going, keep fighting, and make the adversary quit first. Let them quit. They’re going to quit,” Trump said.

“You’ve all been tested. You’ll be tested further and probably at higher levels as your career goes on,” he said, ominously given his raging war in Iran.

Trump, 79, Thirsts Over ‘Attractive’ Male Coast Guard Grads

While speeches before military commencement ceremonies are typically kept nonpartisan, in typical Trump fashion, the president’s speech quickly derailed from talking about the new graduates’ futures to airing out his own personal grievances.

“Some lunatics would like to take this country way, way left and destroy it. But we are not going to let that happen. We are not letting that happen,” he complained.

HEY, GOOD LOOKING!

“Some lunatics would like to take this country way, way left and destroy it. But we are not going to let that happen. We are not letting that happen,” he complained.

Trump said he was reminded that the Coast Gaurd is important "during hurricanes."

He also praised his failed tariff policies and his administration’s hardline immigration policy.

“We can never forget the sins of what they did to our country,” Trump said of the Biden administration’s immigration policies. “But we are getting them out.”

“They can come in, but they have to come in legally. They have to come in through a process. They have to love our country,” Trump continued. “They have to show us they can love our country, not that they want to blow up our country. I think everybody agrees with that.”

Trump spoke to the academy in 2017 during his first term and said he was delighted to be the first president to deliver two commencement addresses at the school.

“We’re going to have to try it maybe a third time, too, to keep that record intact,” Trump declared.

Several attendees reportedly passed out before Trump began speaking, as it was over 93 degrees in Connecticut.

Prior to flying to Connecticut to deliver the address, Trump told reporters that his message to the graduates would be to “Just enjoy your life.”

He added, “You know, you don’t really realize how important the Coast Guard is until you have a hurricane.”

PEANUT GALLERY Best

· ahandleychan

20 May, 2026

Why would the Coast Guard, or anyone, invite Trump to speak? What does he have to say that is Inspirational? Authentic? Smart?Humane or Uplifting? How dare he say: “You know, you don’t really realize how important the Coast Guard is until you have a hurricane.”

o getserious

20 May, 2026

the coast guard academy didn't really have the option. the president, whomever he may be, speaks at one of the four service academies each year, on a rotating schedule. it's not feasible for an academy to disinvite the commander-in-chief, even if he is an incompetent, infantile, venal, grifting (redacted)...

ATTACHMENT THIRTY FOUR – FROM TIME

HOW POPE LEO’S CALL TO ‘DISARM’ AI CLASHES WITH TRUMP’S TECH-FIRST AGENDA

By Andrew R. Chow May 26, 2026 4:36 PM ET

Over the past year, Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump have clashed several times in the press, including on the Iran War, nuclear weapons, and immigration. On Monday, Leo potentially opened a new front: AI.

Leo’s new encyclical Magnifica Humanitas—a 42,300-word open letter to the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics about preserving dignity in a tech age—never mentions Trump at all. But across many sections, Leo offers pointed recommendations for reining in AI that directly contrast with theTrump’s administration embrace of the tech industry in his second term.

While the pope has no direct political power, his essay could nevertheless have political impact. “I think that what the pope is trying to tell us is that the spiritual has political dimensions,” says Michael Toscano, a Catholic and the director of the Family First Technology Initiative. “I believe the pope is not interested in just issuing an encyclical, but leading the Church into a time of what he called ‘digital sobriety.’”

DISARMING THE ARMS RACE

The main lens through which the Trump administration has approached AI is the so-called “arms race” with China. Last week, Trump delayed signing an executive order which called for pre-deployment testing of AI, explaining that he didn’t “want to do anything that’s going to get in the way of” the U.S. maintaining its technological lead over China in the race to build powerful AI systems. This viewpoint has been driven hard by top technologists; Politico reported that Trump pulled the EO after hearing concerns directly from the industry.

In Magnifica Humanitas, Leo criticizes this worldview, which he argues is part of a larger “remote clash between opposing imperialisms, between powers that wish to preserve their supremacy.” He laments that “there seems to be no limit to the race—driven by a dehumanizing ambition—to develop ever more powerful technologies or to secure control over them.”

Instead of propagating a race, Leo argues for “disarming” AI. This does not mean that he wants a technological pause—as some have called for in the past—but rather a slowing of adoption to allow ethics, governance, and public oversight to keep pace with the technology.

“Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of ‘armed’ competition,” he writes. “It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion and debate.”

LACK OF GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT

Because Trump believes the U.S. needs to build powerful AI before China does, he has mostly advocated for a hands-off approach when it comes to regulation. In January 2025, he repealed Biden’s more cautious executive order on AI, later characterizing it as an “attempt to paralyze this industry.” His administration, in contrast, would work to “remove barriers to United States AI leadership.”

Leo, on the other hand, stresses the need for a “political system that does not abdicate its responsibility” around tech regulation. He then calls on governments to impose specific guardrails: to oversee algorithms and data management; to protect AI from taking jobs from humans; to tax those who have accrued inordinate wealth and power; and to protect minors from digital harm.

To Michael Baggot, a professor at the Regina Apostolorum and the Angelicum in Rome, the specificity of Leo’s policy language is striking. “The document does not remain at the level of moral exhortation,” he says. “It gives these criteria of the tradition of Catholic social teaching and then begins to apply them to very specific aspects—in our relationships, in the economy, work, and to promote peace rather than…means of dominance and destruction.”

While Trump has encouraged and befriended executives at the top AI companies, Leo condemns the consolidated corporate power of the industry. “A more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few,” he writes. “What is needed is a more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating.”

David Sacks—the co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—pushed back on Leo’s call for regulation on X. “If we hand governments sweeping power over AI development in the name of safety, how do we prevent it from being used to censor, surveil, and control citizens — as Orwell foretold in 1984?” he wrote.

AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS

Another major AI flash point that Leo differs with the Trump administration on is the use of AI in war. In February, Trump’s Pentagon clashed with Anthropic over the company’s attempt to prevent its technology from being used by the government for piloting autonomous weapons or carrying out mass surveillance.

Leo writes that "it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems." He contends that AI could contribute to an increasing “normalization of war,” in part because its ability to allow armies to attack others without seeing their victims’ faces “lowers the moral threshold of conflict.”

In April, when J.D. Vance was asked about the pope’s critiques of the Iran War, Vance invoked the “just war” theory—a Catholic framework long used to determine when armed conflict is morally permissible. In the encyclical, Leo offers a direct rebuttal to the “just war” theory by calling it “outdated.” The rise of AI weapons, he argues, has contributed to making the traditional ethical criteria for restraint in war impossible to uphold.

When Leo released Magnifica Humanitas, he was joined onstage by Christopher Olah, a co-founder of Anthropic, the company that sued the Trump administration after the Pentagon blacklisted it for refusing to let its AI be used in autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance. That Leo chose to platform a representative of the AI company most directly at odds with the Trump administration is notable in itself.

“There was no illusion of Anthropic being a perfectly Catholic company, but it's key that the Church is able to dialogue and contribute her wisdom tradition to orienting these key conversations,” says Baggot.

POTENTIAL IMPACT

Whether Pope Leo’s encyclical actually has an impact on the direction of AI is very much to be determined. Many Catholics hold powerful positions in America, including Vice President J.D. Vance, who told NBC News on Tuesday that the parts of the essay he read were “very profound.”

AI “raises such profound questions for how we interact with one another, what kind of skills we need in the workforce, the kind of wars that we’ll fight, and how we’ll fight our wars,” Vance said. “I think we really need moral leadership to think through those questions, and that’s exactly what the Church is the best leader to do.”

Over time, Leo’s essay could influence an increasing number of Catholics in America, about half of whom are conservative, according to a 2020 Pew poll. Toscano expects the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to eventually implement the text across their dioceses and parishes, and for pastors to start teaching based on its tenets. He believes that some Catholic orders may go even further and advise digital fasting.

“It would be a gargantuan spiritual effort,” Toscano says. “But if the Church can institutionalize practices which limit the presence of screens—which is currently the primary mode by which people engage in artificial intelligence—I think that would put a check on the reach of AI.”

ATTACHMENT THIRTY FIVE – FROM HUFFPOST

THE COMING WAR OVER AI WILL DEFINE THE 2026 MIDTERMS

A three-way fracas could determine the future of a potentially game-changing technology.

By Kevin Robillard Dec 31, 2025, 06:00 AM EST |Updated Dec 31, 2025

The rapid deployment of artificial intelligence is quickly becoming one of the central issues of the 2026 midterm elections, with battle lines over the disruptive technology splitting both parties’ coalitions and the tech industry itself.

Dueling super PACs are threatening to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to advance their respective visions of AI, while a grassroots backlash against data centers across the country is fueling a populist pushback against the technology. The cross-cutting forces could quickly make arguments about how AI will impact jobs, energy prices, privacy and children’s safety a focal point for primaries across the country.

“Mark Zuckerberg had a 10-year time in the sun before everyone realized that there were harms associated with social media,” said Alex Bores, a Democratic New York assemblyman and congressional candidate whose work on a state-level law regulating the technology has made him the first declared target of a pro-AI super PAC. “With AI, it’s happening a lot quicker. And so there’s many, many elected officials who are hearing from our neighbors about the need to give Americans a voice in the development of AI.”

Three distinct camps are emerging to argue over the technology, with members of each group existing in both parties: There are industry forces with an essentially accelerationist view of the technology, arguing that any attempt to restrict it risks the United States losing an all-important battle with China. These groups are closely allied with the White House, which has embraced a pro-industry vision of light regulation, and have spun up a super PAC with plans to spend $100 million.

There’s also a populist backlash, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) recently laying down a marker by proposing a total moratorium on the construction of the data centers powering the AI boom.

“This process is moving very, very quickly, and we need to slow it down,” Sanders said in a social media video announcing his proposal, noting the technology could lead to mass job loss and increased isolation among young people. “We need all of our people involved in determining the future of AI, and not just a handful of multibillionaires.”

Sanders’ proposal is highly unlikely to become law anytime soon, but it could become a rallying cry for progressives and other candidates willing to take a hard-line, populist stance against both AI itself and the construction of data centers, which have faced fierce backlash at the local level. Candidates adopting it, however, risk angering the aforementioned well-funded super PACs.

A third group, of which Bores is a member, is enthusiastic about the technology but argues that regulation is needed to help Americans adapt to it and limit the potentially catastrophic risks associated with its deployment. AI companies and researchers aligned with this view have launched their own nonprofit groups and super PACs, and are expected to spend $50 million on the midterms.

Polling has broadly made it clear Americans have a positive view of AI, but want more oversight of the technology: The Searchlight Institute, a Democratic think tank, released polling earlier this month showing roughly two-thirds of Americans want the government to regulate AI for safety and privacy reasons, even if regulations will slow down American AI development when compared to China.

But an outright ban on the technology was not very popular: By a 62% to 18% margin, Americans preferred regulating AI to banning further research. But when faced with either a ban or unregulated development of the technology, voters were nearly split: 30% favored a ban, to 34% who favored continued development.

SILICON VALLEY’S WARRIORS

David Sacks, a venture capitalist and podcast host who serves as the White House’s AI czar, is perhaps the public face of the accelerationist flank. An ally of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, he has successfully convinced Trump to adopt a pro-industry posture and was the primary author of a legally questionable executive order barring most state-level regulation of AI.

The tech industry has argued that complying with different regulations in each state would be an unacceptable handicap when the industry is in a Cold War-esque race with China to develop the most powerful AI technology possible.

“We have to be unified. China is unified,” Trump said when signing the order this month. “They have one vote, that’s President Xi. He says do it, and that’s the end of that.”

Leading The Future, a pro-industry super PAC planning to spend $100 million on the midterms, is putting financial might behind this worldview. Backed by leaders of both OpenAI and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, the group is explicitly modeled after crypto-industry-backed groups, which spent tens of millions of dollars on campaigns to force both parties to pay attention to their goals in 2022 and 2024.

Multiple operatives in both parties privately acknowledge that Leading The Future’s expected war chest is enough to make it one of three major forces, the others are the cryptocurrency industry and pro-Israel groups, every campaign has to account for in a competitive primary.

“Right now, [AI] simply isn’t a big enough issue to voters to risk getting on their radar,” one Democrat managing a campaign in a competitive House primary said, requesting anonymity to speak frankly. “That could change if anger about this stuff grows and grows.”

Besides attacking Bores, the group has also endorsed Chris Gober, a lawyer running for an open seat in Texas, a gerrymandered district stretching from the outskirts of Houston to Austin. The group’s ad backing Gober, a Republican election lawyer who represented both Musk and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in high-profile cases, does not directly mention AI.

Leading The Future did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.

Most Republican candidates are expected to largely fall in line with Trump’s relatively laissez-faire position, though some populist right-wing forces ― including former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and the Institute for Family Studies, a conservative think tank ― are urging the GOP to take a far more skeptical look at the technology.

THE POPULISTS’ RISK

Opposition to data center construction has spread across the country, inspiring grassroots rebellions everywhere from Arizona to Wisconsin.

Nathan Sage, a mechanic and Marine veteran running for the Democratic Senate nomination in Iowa with Sanders’ support, was among those to quickly embrace the call for a moratorium. In an interview, Sage said concerns about AI-related job loss and “youth talking to AI instead of people” were rampant during a 99-county tour of the state he completed earlier this year.

“When it comes to AI, it’s the wild wild west,” he said of the unregulated nature of the industry. “It seems like another ploy for billionaires and multi-billionaires to gain more money while taking away from the working class, and nothing really gained by the working class.”

Sage’s position isn’t without precedent. Democrats flipped a GOP-held state legislative seat in Virginia in November in large part due to anger over the proliferation of data centers in Northern Virginia. Concerns about how much water and electricity data centers use have played major roles in fights from Arizona to Maine, despite industry efforts to show the concerns are overblown.

But the position is not without political risk. Sage, who is competing with state Sen. Zach Wahls and state Rep. Josh Turek in the primary for the chance to battle GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson, could easily see himself on the receiving end of an advertising blitz.

“I’m going to do what Iowans want,” Sage said, adding: “People are going to come into this room and pour money into this race on any side they want to, but I need to do what’s right.”

National progressive operatives similarly downplayed the political risk of angering the well-heeled tech industry, noting that many Sanders-style candidates are likely to face heavily funded negative advertising campaigns regardless.

But it’s not just the tech industry that could view opposition to data centers as a red flag. With data center construction surging while the rest of the economy is largely stagnant, construction unions have become heavily reliant on data center work to provide their members with jobs.

“These projects support our members’ lives, and those who do this work every day experience the story differently from what’s gaining traction online,” the executive director of the Wisconsin Building Trades Council wrote in an op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel last month amid multiple fights over data centers in the state. “The digital future our world is moving toward is tied to this infrastructure, and it can be a powerful catalyst for community growth when done right.”

Sage argued that unions were being short-sighted in supporting projects with heavy long-term costs. “You’re getting a couple hundred jobs in data center creation and you’re replacing it with pollution in our water, high energy costs and less jobs across the market,” he said.

The Intra-Industry War

Bores, who is running in an extremely crowded primary to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler in New York’s 12th District, has become the focal point of the midterm AI wars early on. The 35-year-old data scientist, who only joined the state legislature in 2023, is one of the lead sponsors of the RAISE Act, which created safety standards for the highest-tech AI models and fines for companies that failed to comply.

“They view me as their biggest obstacle to their quest for unbridled power over the American worker, over the education system and our kids, over our climate and our energy bills, and they’re right about that,” he said, noting the amount Leading The Future plans to spend against him has already increased from $1 million to $10 million. “I mean, they are seeing that they are deeply, deeply unpopular.”

But Bores is no Luddite: He points to the possibility AI could help find cures for his mother’s multiple sclerosis and says his “bullishness” about the technology is what’s driving him to push for legislation dealing with everything from how to protect kids using the technology to how to deal with the projected massive disruptions to the labor market.

The assemblyman also has AI industry supporters of his own ― some of whom helped raise money for Hochul while she was considering the RAISE Act ― and he could soon see support from Public First. Many of these backers are associated with the effective altruism movement, a philosophical approach that often focuses on existential threats like those posed by a superpowered AI.

The AI industry’s ads attacking Bores allude to this split, linking supporters of regulation to a particularly infamous adherent of effective altruism. “He’s backed by groups founded by convicted felon Sam Bankman-Fried,” an announcer intones. “Is that really who should be shaping AI safety for our kids?”

Bores brushed aside the attempt to link him to the convicted crypto scammer. “They’re desperate,” he said of Leading The Future, arguing the intra-industry split is more about researchers battling with executives and noting the RAISE Act had the backing of two winners of the Turing Award, the highest prize in computer science.

“The people who are building the technology, who understand the technology, want there to be reasonable regulations,” he said. “The bosses at the top that are primarily focused on profit don’t want there to be any regulation.”

With the desire for regulation only growing across the political spectrum, Bores argued, AI proponents need to understand that only a moderate position can fend off populist anger.

“If the industry’s voice ends up being dominated by this extreme minority from Leading the Future, then proposals like banning all data centers will gain more traction,” he said. “Instead, [industry should be] coming to the table and really engaging in how we can make sure that this technology benefits the many instead of the few.”

Correction: This article previously misstated when Alex Bores began serving in the New York Legislature. He did so in 2023.

ATTACHMENT “A” FROM SINGJU POST, INDIA

‘SIX STRINGS’: ERIC CHURCH’S 2026 COMMENCEMENT SPEECH (TRANSCRIPT)

· by Pangambam S May 15, 2026 4:26 am

Read the full transcript of country music star Eric Church’s speech at University of North Carolina 2026 Commencement ceremony at Kenan Stadium on May 9, 2026.

Editor’s Notes: In this memorable ceremony, country music superstar Eric Church takes the stage as the 2026 commencement speaker for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, delivering what many are calling one of the best graduation addresses ever. Armed with his guitar, Church brilliantly uses its six strings as a powerful metaphor for the core pillars of life—faith, family, partnership, ambition, community, and individuality. He offers heartfelt wisdom on navigating the inevitable challenges of the real world, urging graduates to stay locally connected and protect their unique, authentic voices from outside comparison. The episode concludes with a moving acoustic performance dedicated to the Class of 2026 and the proud Tar Heel community.

TRANSCRIPT: 25 Years

ERIC CHURCH: I’ve been grinding on this for a little bit about how to do it. I have torn up multiple speeches, I have thrown things, and in one of my fits of frustration, I sat down with a guitar and I thought, man, who am I kidding, I need to figure out a way to do this with a guitar.

So if you’ll indulge me, I want to start with a sound. You know this sound, it’s a guitar that’s out of tune. Something that almost gets there, that tries, but doesn’t. And some ancient, honest part of your brain knows it immediately. You don’t need training to hear it, you just know. That sound is the sound of something beautiful that has not been tended to.

SIX STRINGS

Six strings. When all six are in tune, the chords they make can stop a conversation cold, carry a broken person through the worst night of their life, or make a room full of strangers feel for three minutes like they’ve known each other forever. And if even one is off, the whole chord unravels. Not gradually, not politely, the moment you strike it, you know.

I believe your life runs on this principle. And I’m going to break it down for you right now and tell you about your strings, okay?

STRING ONE: THE LOW E — YOUR FOUNDATION

String one, the low E, that is your foundation. The low E is the thickest string. It is the heaviest. Every chord a guitar can make rests on this string being in tune.

Your faith is the low E of your life. The thing that sits at the very bottom of you. Your belief about what this life is for, what you owe, what holds the universe together when science reaches the edge of its own explanation, and shrugs.

The people who tend to their faith in ordinary seasons do not come undone in extraordinary ones. They still hurt. They still sit in hospital waiting rooms asking unanswerable questions at three in the morning. But they have a foundation to return to.

The world will try to untune this string. Through busyness, through slow accumulation of a full schedule, a full inbox, a full life. Listen to me. Tend to your faith. Not just when you’re broken, but when you’re whole.

STRING TWO: THE A STRING — FAMILY

String two. String two is family, okay? Look out at these bleachers. Look around. Somewhere in that crowd is someone who has loved you longer than you’ve been easy to love. It’s true. Someone who saw you at your actual worst, not your public-facing worst, and didn’t leave you. Someone who worked a job they didn’t love to put a book in your hands you sometimes didn’t open. Someone who sat alone in a quiet house and cried the weekend you moved into dorms and wondered, “Have I done enough?” That is family.

And the A string is where the music starts to get warm. It gives a chord its body, its richness. It’s the string that makes you feel like you’re not alone in a room.

I want to warn you about something. You’re about to get busy in ways that feel important and many are. Professionally ambitious, creatively alive, building the life you’ve been pointed toward for four years. And family, because they love you with the grace you will spend most of your life trying to deserve, will rarely demand your time. They’ll tell you they understand. And they’ll mean it. Do not take them up on it.

Call your people. Not when there’s news. Not when there’s nothing. Show up when it costs you something. Let them see you when things are hard. The A string is not a holiday string. It’s an everyday string. Protect it.

STRING THREE: THE D STRING — THE HEART OF A CHORD

The D string, the heart of a chord. On a guitar, the D string sits right at the heart of the instrument, in the middle of the low and high strings, giving the chord its body and its soul. To rock a full chord in a D string is what you feel in the center of your chest. That is not an accident.

The Right Partner: Your Most Important Decision

That is exactly what the right spouse and partner will do for your life. The person you choose to share your life with is the most important decision you will ever make outside of your faith. They will either amplify every other string you’re playing, or slowly pull the whole instrument into an out-of-tune mist. Not that I know that. I love you, honey.

Find your best friend, someone you want to talk to at the end of a long day. Look for shared values over shared interests. You don’t need to love the same food or music. You need the same compass. Though it would be a benefit if you both hated NC State. That wasn’t in the speech. I added it. I’m throwing it in there.

The right partner is the string that makes the whole chord ring fuller and warmer and truer than anything you could ever play alone.

Choose them wisely, and then love them fiercely.

THE G STRING: AMBITION, RESILIENCE, AND GETTING BACK UP

The G string. That’s what it’s called. Sorry. I didn’t name the damn thing. That’s just what it is. The G string drifts faster than the others on a guitar. I can promise you that is true. I have dealt with it my whole life. It’s because ambition and resilience both live on this string, and they pull in opposite directions.

I want you to want things. You should want things. You should love things. The world has more than enough people standing at the edge of their own potential waiting for a permissions lift that was never going to arrive. Want the thing. Say it out loud. Build toward it with everything you have.

And when you fail, and you will fail. Hemingway wrote it plainly right in his sternum: “The world breaks everyone. Afterward, the best of us are stronger at the broken places.” Get back up. Tune the string. Keep playing.

THE B STRING: COMMUNITY OVER PERFORMANCE

The B string is about community. Your generation faces the temptation no generation before has ever faced. The temptation to perform for everyone and belong to no one. To be globally visible and locally invisible. To have thousands of followers and no one actually knows where you live.

Resist this. Plant yourself somewhere. Put down roots with the full intention of growing there. Learn the actual names, not usernames, of the people around you. Volunteer. Coach the team. Build the thing your community needs, even if the internet will never see it.

Generosity is not something you do after you make it. It’s how you make it. If you get lost, and at some point I promise you, you will. You have a place you belong now. Come back. Walk through the quad on a fall day. Or sit on Franklin Street on a game day. And remember, these are my people. Because I am a Tar Heel.

My last tour took me 42,185 miles over North America. And every single night, near and far, someone had on a Carolina flag, a Carolina hat, or a Carolina jersey. You will find yourselves, speaking from experience, high-fiving strangers wearing Carolina gear in faraway airports. Or staying up across time zones to catch the last moments of a game. Or canceling a show in Texas to be with your people in the Final Four as you vanquish Coach K. You’re welcome. And having the ultimate pride knowing that’s the night my boys learned the Carolina fight song ends with, “Go to Hell, Duke.” It’s true.

Carry this community with you as you plant your roots. It will reap a bountiful harvest and make your song richer and fuller.

THE HIGH E STRING: CARRYING THE MELODY AGAINST THE PRESSURE

And finally, the high E string. This is the thinnest string. It’s the highest note. The one that carries the melody, that single line above the chord that everyone in this room recognizes and takes with them on the way home. It’s also the one bent most easily by outside pressure.

Social media is going to show you a thousand versions of a life that looks better than yours. The comparison will be relentless, curated, and a lie dressed up in really good lighting.

DON’T LET ANYONE RETUNE YOUR STRING

Someone’s comment, someone’s criticism, someone’s cold opinion is going to try to convince you to retune yourself to match what they think you should sound like. Do not let them touch your string.

You were made uniquely, wonderfully, distinctly. There’s a sound only you can make, a voice that has never existed before you and will never exist again. A contribution only you can bring, a way of seeing that belongs to only you. The world does not need another cover song. It needs an original.

SIX STRINGS: THE CHORD YOUR LIFE MAKES

Six strings. Six strings of life and willingness to keep them in tune. Six principles, six pillars. When all six are in tune with each other, the chord your life makes is full and resonant and true.

All six will drift, not one or two, all six, in their own time, in their own season. Your faith will go quiet when you need it loud. Your family will get complicated in a way only the people who love you most can complicate things. You will go through hard seasons with your spouse. Your ambition will hollow out and your resilience will wear thin. Your community will start to feel like an obligation and your world will try to sand down the edges of exactly who you are.

This is not failure. This is not weakness. It’s the inevitable, universal experience of living in an imperfect world that doesn’t stop to let us tune up.

And the difference between a life that sounds like music and a life that sounds like noise is whether you stop and listen. Whether you’re honest enough to hear which string has drifted out of tune and humble enough to make the adjustment instead of just turning up the volume and hoping nobody notices.

Because you will notice. The part of you that knows what the chord should sound like will always notice. It will not let you go. Life won’t be right until it is tuned. Trust what your heart hears and is telling you about your song.

PLAY YOUR SONG

So graduates, now I encourage you to take your six strings, make it something worth hearing, and play your song as I leave you with mine.

Hang on, we’ve got to do this the right way, haven’t we?

CALLIN’ ME HOME

There’s a cabin in a valley
My grandpa built on your land
And your mountains are a canvas for the maker’s hand
Tonight I’m fishin’ Elk River
If only in my mind
No, I haven’t seen her banks in such a long, long time

I carry you in my heart
Your memory comes over me like the dawn again
Like a phone call from my baby
Sayin’, honey, I miss you like crazy
Yeah, kinda like the sound of a siren song
Oh, tell her now
She’s callin’ me home
Callin’ me home, home, home, yeah, yeah

Sometimes I grow weary
Stayin’ on this road all the time
Yeah, I’d love to take a minute and let your mountains ease my mind
Yeah, I’d love to see my mama
She’s in Kenan stadium tonight
To hear me talk to the 26 car heels about love and life

Don’t get me wrong, I love what I do
It’s just another song about missin’, about missin’ you
Like a phone call from my baby
Sayin’, honey, I miss you like crazy
Yeah, kinda like the sound of a siren song
Oh, tell her now
She’s callin’ me home
Callin’ me home, home, home, yeah, yeah

Now, oh, oh
Standin’ here tonight, I feel right at, I feel right at home
Yeah, like a phone call from my baby
Sayin’, honey, I miss you like crazy
Yeah, kinda like the sound of a siren song
Oh, tell her now, tell her now, tell her now
She’s callin’ me home
She’s callin’ me home
She’s callin’ me home

Thank you for callin’ me home.

ATTACHMENT “B” FROM THE HOLY SEE

The Holy See 5/25/26

the holy see

· Magisterium

· Calendar

· Liturgical Celebrations

· Tickets for Papal Audiences and Celebrations

· Supreme Pontiffs

· College of Cardinals

· Roman Curia and Other Organizations

· Synod

· Press Office

· Vatican News - Radio Vaticana

· L'Osservatore Romano

Leo XIV Encyclicals

AR - DE - EN - ES - FR - IT - PL - PT

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE LEO XIV
ON SAFEGUARDING THE HUMAN PERSON
IN THE TIME OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

[Multimedia]

___________________________

INTRODUCTION

The res novae of our time
Two biblical images
Building for the common good
Remaining human

CHAPTER ONE
A DYNAMIC APPROACH FAITHFUL TO THE GOSPEL

A Church journeying through human history
         The wisdom of the word of God in dialogue with the human sciences
         Social Doctrine as a shared discernment
The development of Social Doctrine from Leo XIII to the present
         The first stages of the Church’s Social Doctrine
         The years of the Second Vatican Council
         The recent Magisterium
         Interpreting history in the light of faith

CHAPTER TWO
FOUNDATIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

The foundations of Social Doctrine
         The human person: image of the Triune God
         The equal dignity of all human beings
         The supreme value of human rights
The principles of Social Doctrine
         The principle of the common good
         The principle of the universal destination of goods
         The principle of subsidiarity
         The principle of solidarity
         The principle of social justice
Integral human development
An examen for the Church

CHAPTER THREE

TECHNOLOGY AND DOMINANCE.
THE GRANDEUR OF HUMANITY IN LIGHT OF THE PROMISES OF AI

The technocratic paradigm and digital power
Artificial intelligence
         A valuable tool that requires vigilance
         Responsibility, transparency and the governance of AI
What must not be lost
         Underlying narratives: transhumanism and posthumanism
         The limit, the heart, the grandeur of the human person
The authentic “more than human”: grace and Christian humanism
Two cities and two loves

CHAPTER FOUR
SAFEGUARDING HUMANITY AT A TIME OF TRANSFORMATION.
TRUTH, WORK, FREEDOM

Truth as a common good
         Truth and democracy
         Communication and the collective imagination
         Toward an ecology of communication
         An educational alliance for the digital age
         The central role of schools
The dignity of work at a time of digital transition
         The value of work
         The problem of unemployment
         An economy that values dignity
         Families and young people: the social conditions for hope
Protecting freedom against dependencies and commercialization
         Dependencies and societal control
         Breaking the chains of new forms of slavery
A shared responsibility

CHAPTER FIVE

THE CULTURE OF POWER AND THE CIVILIZATION OF LOVE

The civilization of love in the digital age
The culture of power
         The normalization of war
         Force without limits
         Weapons and artificial intelligence
         The crisis of multilateralism
         A supposed political realism
Building the civilization of love
         We can all do our part
         The need to disarm words
         Building peace through justice
         Adopting the perspective of victims
         Cultivating a healthy realism
         Reviving dialogue
         The necessity of diplomacy and multilateralism
         Praying and hoping

CONCLUSION

The Word became flesh
One body in Christ
The construction site of our time
The song of hope: the Magnificat

INTRODUCTION

1. Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world. Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.” [1] In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.

2. Founded on Christ, the living stone, we experience the powerful and mysterious action of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that every authentic human effort to cooperate with him for the good will be blessed by our heavenly Father, in whom we place our hope. For this reason, we can diligently contribute to every initiative that builds a more just world, and we can call others to collaborate in promoting the integral development of every human being. We wish to engage in dialogue with all men and women of our time, with whom we share in the events, questions and aspirations of humanity. [2] Together with them, we seek to identify new paths for the common good and for promoting a dignified life for all. Indeed, openness to dialogue is an integral part of the Church’s vocation because, constituted in Christ as “a sacrament… of communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race,” [3] she recognizes history as the place where the Gospel challenges and directs human experience.

3. In this spirit, Pope Leo XIII published his Encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891, the 135 ^th anniversary of which we celebrate with deep gratitude this year. With that document, my beloved predecessor gave impetus to the reflection on society, the economy and politics, which is now known as the “Social Doctrine of the Church.” When some objected that the Church should not waste energy on worldly matters, but instead focus on communicating the message of eternal life, Leo XIII responded with realism and wisdom, saying that the proclamation of the Gospel cannot overlook the concrete lives of people. [4] Many decades have passed since then, and the Magisterium, pastors, theologians and faithful have continued to reflect on social issues in the light of the Gospel. Today, the Social Doctrine of the Church is a legacy of wisdom, where we find principles for thought, criteria for discernment and judgment, and concrete guidelines for action. Founded on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and in engagement with the sciences, it helps us clearly interpret the challenges of the present and identify appropriate ways for living out a clear Christian witness, with joy and in service to the world. It is not an inert set of concepts, but a living corpus of truth that safeguards and interprets humanity’s vocation to a full and just life. I therefore wish to add my own voice to this living tradition, invoking the help of the Spirit of wisdom, who has dwelt in the world since its beginning (cf. Prov 8:22-31).

The res novae of our time

4. While Leo XIII spoke in his time of “new things” ( rerum novarum), today we cannot limit ourselves simply to repeating his insightful teachings. Instead, we must ask God for the wisdom to interpret the great trends of our time, particularly technological advances. In recent years, it has become increasingly evident how rapidly and profoundly digitalization, artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics are transforming our world. 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.” [5] 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.” [6] 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.

5. It now falls to us to face the challenges of our time with clarity of thought and responsibility. It is necessary to establish adequate regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the distorting effects of technological power. Nevertheless, the issue is not limited to regulation. As Pope Francis warned, we must realistically ask ourselves who holds this power today and how they use it: “It must also be recognized that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our own DNA, and many other abilities which we have acquired… have given those with the knowledge, and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world.” [7] In the past, it was largely up to the State to guide and direct innovation. Today, however, the main drivers of development are private, often transnational, parties that are endowed with resources and the capacity to intervene that surpass those of many Governments. Technological power thus takes on an unprecedented, predominantly “private” aspect, which makes it even more challenging to discern, govern and direct such power toward the common good.

6. For this reason it is necessary to begin a shared discernment process for identifying the spiritual and cultural roots of ongoing transformations. If we focus only on contingencies, we risk letting the succession of emergencies dictate the direction of our path. We are living through a rapid phase of transition, a “change of era,” in which — while some are vying for the future of new technologies and others dedicate themselves to reflecting on the matter — most people are watching and waiting, observing from afar and merely hoping for the best. For this very reason, 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? What direction should we choose as a people and as a human community?

Two biblical images

7. In order to answer these questions and discern how to navigate responsibly the era of AI, I would like to bring to mind two scenes from the Bible: the construction of the Tower of Babel (cf. Gen 11:1-9) and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (cf. Neh 2–6). The story of Babel appears in the Book of Genesis, at the origins of humanity, immediately after the genealogies of Noah’s sons. After settling in a plain in the land of Shinar, the people decided to build a city and a tower “with its top in the heavens” (Gen 11:4). Fearing being scattered across the earth, they sought to guarantee stability and power for themselves, and above all to “make a name” for themselves. It was an impressive feat: a single language, a single technology, a single direction. However, the project concealed a profound danger. It was a project conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion. When a city is built on pride and the claim to self-sufficiency, communication breaks down, languages are confused and people no longer understand each other. The result is not unity, but dispersion. Babel thus reveals the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing.

8. The Book of Nehemiah, in turn, opens at a time of great vulnerability in the history of ancient Israel. After the Babylonian exile, a portion of the people returned to Jerusalem, but the city was still in ruins, the walls collapsed and the gates burned (cf. Neh 1–2). Nehemiah, a Jew in the service of the Persian King Artaxerxes, received news of the disastrous state of his ancestral city. Before taking action, he fasted, prayed and interceded for the people. He then asked the king for permission to return to Jerusalem and, upon arriving, examined the destroyed areas in silence. He did not impose solutions from above. He convened the families, assigned each of them a section of the wall to rebuild, listened to their concerns, coordinated their efforts and addressed any opposition. The narrative shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people all play a part. It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones. Thus, ancient Jerusalem rediscovers a common language — not one of uniformity, but one of communion, namely the harmony that arises when all persons assume their own role and recognize that their strength comes from the Lord.

9. In light of these two images, the Holy Spirit challenges us today regarding our relationship with technology and the ongoing digital revolution. Scientific discoveries are talents entrusted to humanity so that they may bear fruit (cf. Mt 25:14-30). Technology has the power to heal, connect, educate and protect our common home; but it can also divide, exclude and generate new forms of injustice. In the abstract, technology in and of itself is not a solution to humanity’s problems, just as it is not inherently evil. In practice, however, technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it. Therefore, the primary choice is not between a “yes” or “no” to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem; between a power that claims to dominate the heavens and a people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence.

10. 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 and performance. The risk of dehumanization — of building a future that excludes God and reduces the other to a means — is an ancient and ever-new temptation that today takes on a technical guise. Instead, let us choose the “way of Nehemiah,” which highlights the importance of working together to make the City of God a safe place for returning exiles. Rebuilding today means recognizing that, precisely from the plurality of voices and visions which, even though they sometimes remind us of the confusion caused by the diversity of spoken languages, a bright possibility emerges. Indeed, this is the possibility of building together, of transforming diversity into a resource and of making listening and dialogue the common ground upon which to cultivate justice and fraternity. Within this shared task, Christians discover their unique role of guiding actions toward God so that, in his light, pluralism does not dissipate into disorder, but instead, through the practice of synodality, it becomes the space in which humanity rediscovers its solid foundations and its final end. In the Book of Revelation, John sees the New Jerusalem “coming down out of heaven from God” (Rev 21:2) as a gift for all humanity. And this vision of grace is an invitation for us Christians to work together in order to foster a peaceful, just and dignified life in community within today’s “cities.”

Building for the common good

11. Building a city founded on the common good implies, first and foremost, building on a firm relationship with God. It means recognizing that the truth of his love calls us to life “in all its fullness” ( Jn 10:10) and communion with him. Like Saint Augustine, we too can say, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.” [8] Indeed, God has inscribed in our hearts a desire for happiness that embraces all the dimensions of life. The Church, in dialogue with the men and women of our time, recognizes the urgent need to safeguard and guide this aspiration toward its deepest truth.

12. Secondly, building for the common good means accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without considering them an error to be corrected. Today, the human desire for fullness of life is at risk of being misled by deceitful goals, such as the prospect of a technology that promises to free us from all weakness, and models of wellbeing that leave behind entire populations. All too often, we place our hope in unlimited “upgrades,” in forms of progress that exacerbate inequalities, and in immediate solutions incapable of healing people’s wounds. As a result, while some pursue the illusion of unlimited self-assertion, many are deprived of basic necessities. The Church reminds us, with a firm yet humble voice, that true fulfilment is not achieved by eliminating weakness but through harmonious growth. It 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.

13. Thirdly, building a world in which everyone can flourish requires shared responsibility and courage. No one can single-handedly bear the weight of the challenges the world is facing, just as no one is so weak that they cannot play their part, for “power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9). All are given their own section of the wall: scientists and researchers, entrepreneurs and workers, educators and legislators, civil society, popular movements and faith communities. This is the logic of subsidiarity, which values the cooperation between generations, peoples, disciplines and cultures as the best way for fostering stability, prosperity and peace. We should not be intimidated by tensions or differences because they can become creative forces when guided by shared responsibility.

14. Finally, building for the common good requires an evangelical language. We must avoid humiliating or antagonistic words, opting rather for a clarity that sheds light and a frankness that unlocks new possibilities. We cannot condone naïve enthusiasms, nor fuel unfounded fears. Instead, let us establish standards for discernment — the dignity of the human person, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, care for our common home and peace — and let us translate these standards into practices such as responsible planning, the assessment of human and social impact, the inclusion of the most vulnerable, the promotion of digital literacy and guiding research and industry toward justice and peace.

Remaining human

15. In the recent Ordinary Jubilee Year of 2025, we walked as pilgrims of hope and were blessed with many graces. Strengthened by these gifts, we can move forward with confidence to face the arduous tasks and demanding challenges that lie ahead. In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human. We must lovingly safeguard the grandeur of humanity bestowed upon us and revealed in its fullness in Christ, the splendor of which no machine can ever replace. 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.

16. I address this heartfelt appeal to all the Catholic faithful, to all Christians and to all men and women of goodwill. Let us not be afraid to get our hands dirty on the “construction site” of our time. Like Nehemiah, let us pray, plan wisely and work perseveringly, placing God at the forefront of our actions and the human person at the center of our choices. Thus, the “rejected stones” — the poor, the sick, the migrants and the least among us — will become the cornerstone, and a solid, welcoming common home will emerge on the earth, where love and faithfulness will finally meet, and righteousness and peace will embrace (cf. Ps 85:10). This is the blessing we implore from God; and the task that stands before us is that of being builders of communion, rather than architects of Babel. We are to be servants of the coming Kingdom, instead of lords of towers destined for ruin. With the heart of a shepherd and a father, I ask everyone to abandon the construction of yet another Tower of Babel and to join forces in building up the common good, so that humanity will never lose its beauty, and the world once again will come to recognize the human heart as the place where God desires to dwell.

CHAPTER ONE

A DYNAMIC APPROACH FAITHFUL TO THE GOSPEL

17. In this first chapter, I intend to present synthetically how the Social Doctrine of the Church has taken shape in the recent Papal Magisterium and in the Second Vatican Council, in order to demonstrate its dynamic character. Indeed, in each era the res novae require that this teaching address historical questions in the light of revealed Truth. In this regard, artificial intelligence, too, should not be considered as merely yet another theme to be studied or a crisis to be managed, but rather as a development that challenges the categories of Social Doctrine from within, calling for their further development in fidelity to the Gospel.

18. This overview, however, would not be very comprehensible if, before reflecting on the contribution of individual popes and their most relevant documents, we do not first clarify some fundamental principles concerning the way in which the Church exists in history and relates to the world. Failing to do so would expose Social Doctrine to the risk of being perceived as an undue interference in “worldly” matters or as an external code of ethics imposed from above. In reality, it stems from a Church that walks alongside humanity, recognizing the autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction between ecclesial and political communities. Indeed, it is for this very reason that she strives to serve the common good.

A Church journeying through human history

19. The Church is present in the world as a sign of unity for the entire human family. She recognizes today’s questions and challenges as the current setting in which to carry out her particular vocation of listening, dialogue and service, and of being responsive to everything concerning the lives of contemporary men and women. This involvement in people’s lives helps the Church understand ever more clearly that her mission has a historical scope and entails a responsibility for the way in which social relations are built. For this reason, she cannot consider herself a stranger to the forces shaping society. On the contrary, the Church actively participates in the processes by which society grows and is organized, and she offers her own contribution to the creation of a more just and fraternal society. Pope Francis emphasized this historical dimension of the Church’s mission: “No one can demand that religion should be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without influence on societal and national life, without concern for the soundness of civil institutions, without a right to offer an opinion on events affecting society.” [9]

20. The Church’s vocation and duty to accompany humanity in the specifics of history leads her to recognize that earthly realities possess their own proper character and order. The Second Vatican Council expressed this principle with particular precision in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, whose sixtieth anniversary we remembered and celebrated with gratitude on 7 December 2025: “If by the autonomy of earthly affairs is meant that created things and societies themselves enjoy their own laws and values… then the demand for autonomy is perfectly in order.” [10] This affirmation shows that creation bears the imprint of an original goodness that our human outlook must preserve, cultivate and bring to fulfilment. In this regard, the Church offers herself in a way that helps to interpret reality in all its depth. She supports with humble firmness the choices that promote the dignity of every person, the cohesion of communities and the good of all. The Church thus stands alongside the world without overpowering it, so that the promise of justice and peace that the Holy Spirit continues to sustain in the heart of humanity may come to fruition in every human endeavor.

21. Recognizing that God upholds the freedom of men and women in the unfolding of history, the Second Vatican Council affirmed the distinction between the ecclesial community and the political community, emphasizing that each must operate with full autonomy. The Church’s presence in the world is also expressed through her relationship with civil society and public institutions. By engaging with these entities, the Church acknowledges the value of social and political realities and honors their specific responsibilities, supporting everything that fosters the wellbeing of individuals and strengthens the fabric of society. The Church does not claim to assume the functions belonging to the State. On the contrary, she esteems those who serve the common good, and she firmly acknowledges the responsibility that civil institutions hold within society. At the same time, the mission entrusted to the Church prompts her to address the real suffering of the men and women of our time. This closeness does not stem from an intent to supplant civil institutions, much less from an implicit criticism of their work. Rather, it stems from evangelical charity, which impels the Church to draw near to the wounds of humanity whenever they surface with greater severity. When the Church intervenes, she does so following the example of the Good Samaritan, with discretion and closeness, aware that what arises from urgent necessity cannot become the norm, nor replace the institutional responsibilities proper to the civil community.

22. Starting from this twofold acknowledgment — the autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction between ecclesiastical and political spheres of competence — allows for a clearer understanding of the direction that the Second Vatican Council set for the Church in her relationship with the world. Gaudium et Spes reminds us that “it is the task of the whole People of God, particularly of its pastors and theologians, to listen to and distinguish the many voices of our times and to interpret them in the light of God’s word, in order that the revealed Truth may be more deeply penetrated, better understood and more suitably presented.” [11] Listening to the “many voices” is no mere sociological exercise, but instead requires spiritual discernment. Guided by the Spirit, the People of God come to recognize in cultural and social transformations both the signs of the presence of Christ, who comes and guides history toward its fulfilment, and those aberrations that obscure his face. In this way, the essential core of revealed Truth is not altered, but made explicit and adopted as a living standard for guiding concrete choices, inspiring paths of personal and communal conversion, promoting structural reforms and supporting new forms of evangelical witness in public life. History is thus understood as one of the places in which the Church allows herself to be taught by the Spirit about the humanizing power of the Gospel; and she learns to develop her own teaching at the service of the dignity of every person and the good of all peoples.

The wisdom of the word of God in dialogue with the human sciences

23. The Church regards all who sincerely seek “truth, goodness and beauty” as companions on the journey, and considers them as “precious allies” [12] in defending the dignity of every person and in caring for creation. Adopting the pastoral approach of the Second Vatican Council, which invites us to listen, discern and interpret the signs of the times, and enlightened by the wisdom of the word, the Church is not afraid to encounter human knowledge. Indeed, the word of God provides reliable standards for establishing paths of justice and opening ways of reconciliation and peace among peoples. When it comes to applying these standards to the complex situations of our time, the contributions of philosophy and of the human and social sciences is essential. These disciplines help us understand and analyze cultural, economic and political dynamics more deeply. Saint John Paul II recalled that the Church welcomes the contributions of the social sciences in order “to draw from them concrete insights that help her carry out her magisterial office.” [13] A dialogue with such kinds of knowledge does not diminish the power of the Gospel. On the contrary, it makes it possible to identify with greater clarity what genuinely fosters the lives of individuals and communities. Following this perspective, Pope Francis emphasized that when dealing with many specific questions, the Church does not claim to offer “a definitive opinion,” [14] but recognizes the importance of listening to scientific research and of encouraging a serious and honest debate among experts while welcoming a diversity of opinions.

24. Nourished by this fruitful dialogue between the Gospel and human knowledge, the Church has progressively developed her Social Doctrine, cultivating in history a wise patrimony marked by theological and anthropological coherence rooted in the Christian understanding of the person. Precisely because this patrimony arises from faith and a corresponding vision of reality, it does not amount to a repertoire of technical solutions or an economic or political model to be set against others. Instead, it belongs to a different order, [15] namely that of the principles that guide the interpretation of events and sustain an evangelical understanding of historical processes and the choices these entail. Herein lies the proper function of Social Doctrine, which does not claim to supplant the responsibilities of politics or institutions, but offers itself as a foundation for collective discernment, helping to recognize and promote whatever serves the dignity of persons, the vitality of communities and the common good.

Social Doctrine as a shared discernment

25. Understanding that the truth is a gift to be shared, not a possession to be monopolized, frees the Church from the temptation of seeking forms of presence based on power. In order to rediscover the evangelical approach of a gentle proclamation of truth that is not imposed, Saint John Paul II invited us to examine honestly the times when acquiescence was given to “intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.” [16] In this same vein, I too have reaffirmed that the Church “does not claim to possess a monopoly on truth,” [17] because truth is not a territory to be defended, but a good to be shared. For his part, Pope Francis expressed this same perspective in his striking phrase, “time is greater than space.” [18] What matters most is not occupying positions of power or defending cultural strongholds, but initiating good processes and enabling them to mature. In this way, the truth of the Gospel is not imposed from above, but grows over time within the concrete interweaving of lives, communities and cultures. This is not a truth that fears diversity, but instead welcomes and guides it. It does not eliminate conflicts, but transforms them, reuniting that which history tends to scatter. This concept can also be illustrated by the image of a multifaceted polyhedron, [19] in which the one truth of the Gospel is reflected from different angles.

26. This attitude of openness to truth, which is at the same time both one and diverse, profoundly expresses the catholicity of the Church, for she embraces the entire human family yet is also immersed in the concrete situations of peoples and cultures. The Second Vatican Council reminds us that, in virtue of this very catholicity, “each part contributes its own gifts to other parts and to the entire Church.” [20] In this way, the Church grows as a whole and as individual communities thanks to a mutual exchange and to shared efforts toward an ever fuller communion. It follows, then, that the People of God are not only gathered together from many peoples, but are also intertwined through different functions, vocations, cultures and traditions, each being called to support and enrich one another. From this perspective, Saint Paul VI acknowledged that, given the great variety of historical situations, it is unrealistic to think that the Church’s Social Doctrine can propose a single response that is valid in all contexts. [21] For this reason, he invited each Christian community to interpret the reality in its own country with clarity and responsibility. The fruitful tension between the universality of the Church’s mission and her local roots is an intrinsic aspect of her life, for she encompasses the whole world, while addressing the specific issues of each context as the real setting in which the Gospel takes shape.

27. In light of what has been said so far, the Church’s Social Doctrine can be seen more authentically. It is not a handbook of principles and norms to be applied, but a process of shared discernment. It is born from the encounter between the eternal truth of the Gospel and the questions of history. It allows itself to be challenged by the signs of the times, and draws nourishment from the contributions of science, culture and human experience. Therefore, when the dignity of our brothers and sisters is violated, when politics fails to address the tragedies of humanity, when the economy turns against the person or science oversteps the limits of its competence, [22] the Church — together with other Christian denominations and believers of other religions — must make her voice heard, not in order to dominate, but to promote communion. Understood in this way, Social Doctrine becomes a theology of communion in history, a history in which the Word made flesh continues to be present through dialogue, memory and prophecy.

The development of Social Doctrine from Leo XIII to the present

28. Having outlined the way in which the Church is present in history and engages in dialogue with the world, I would now like to consider the development of Social Doctrine in the Magisterium, which has responded to the major social transformations from the nineteenth century to the present day. Naturally, I cannot do justice to the full richness of this teaching, whose fundamental principles are presented in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and have been further examined by recent Magisterial teaching. Nor can I systematically explore everything that has been developed in the Encyclicals of my late venerable predecessors, especially in Laudato Si’and Fratelli Tutti. Nevertheless, I will emphasize some essential points in order to show how the present text stands in continuity with that tradition. I would also like to stress how, within this tradition, the unchanging core of revealed truths regarding the human person and society is constantly intertwined with a renewed capacity for listening to historical situations and for responding to contemporary issues. I will now review some of the significant stages of this development, beginning with the period inaugurated by the Encyclical Rerum Novarum.

The first stages of the Church’s Social Doctrine

29. What we now call the “Social Doctrine of the Church” is not a spontaneous product of the modern age. Instead, it is the fruit of receiving and structuring a long tradition of ecclesial reflection on life in society, rooted in Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers and the theological and legal developments of the Middle Ages and modern era. Although the expression “Social Doctrine of the Church” was coined by Pius XII in 1950, [23] its content began to take shape as an organic corpus of social teaching with Leo XIII’s Encyclical Rerum Novarum. Confronted with the “new things” of his time — the conflict between capital and labor, the question of the workforce, and economic and social transformations — Leo XIII did not limit himself merely to acknowledging the unrest, but saw these situations as an area for the Church’s pastoral mission. He exposed them to rigorous discernment, illuminating their causes and possible solutions in the light of the Gospel and an integral vision of the human person created in the image of God. Saint John Paul II regarded this approach as a “lasting paradigm” [24] of Social Doctrine: an exemplary practice through which the Church, when faced with historical changes, exercises her right and duty to examine social realities, make pronouncements about them and indicate paths for finding just solutions. In this way, the perennial contents of the faith and ancient ecclesial wisdom find expression in a living doctrine that remains faithful to the Gospel while growing in response to the “new things” of every era.

30. Leo XIII’s Encyclical Rerum Novarum constitutes a milestone in the development of the Church’s social teaching. The document places the dignity of work and of workers at the forefront of its reflection; affirms the right to a fair wage for oneself and one’s family; recognizes that persons have a fundamental value that takes precedence over capital and profit; defends private property along with its indispensable societal role; esteems workers’ associations; and proposes forms of cooperation between the different components of society as an alternative to the mentality of class struggle. It is not surprising, then, that Pius XI defined it as the “ Magna Carta” [25] of Christian social action. In Rerum Novarum, the Church’s ancient wisdom regarding the human person and life in society took on a new form capable of responding to the industrial age and offering the first major systematic framework for the Social Doctrine that would be further developed in the following decades. While many of the historical conditions described by Leo XIII have changed, at least two insights remain highly relevant today: the primacy of human labor over any mindset focused solely on finance or productivity — with the consequent attention to the people and families most susceptible to exploitation — and the inseparable link between proclaiming the Gospel and pursuing a more just social order. Rerum Novarum thereby continues to remind us that there is no authentic evangelization that does not also affect the structures of human society.

31. Pius XI’s Encyclical Quadragesima Anno was published in 1931 on the fortieth anniversary of Rerum Novarumat the height of a major global economic crisis, marking a further step in the Church’s social teaching. Rather than limiting itself to addressing the “workforce question,” it broadened its focus to encompass the overall structure of the economic and political order. The Encyclical denounces the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few; criticizes both unlimited competition and collectivist projects that undermine the freedom and responsibility of the individual; strongly affirms the workers’ right to association; and reiterates the requirement that wages be proportionate not only to performance, but also to the needs of workers and their families. Within this framework, Pius XI systematically formulated the principle of subsidiarity, which was to become one of the cornerstones of Social Doctrine. According to this principle, whatever can be carried out by individuals, families, intermediary organizations and local communities should not be carried out by higher-level authorities. Alongside these contributions, in various interventions of his Magisterium — from the Encyclicals Non Abbiamo Bisogno and Mit Brennender Sorge to Divini Redemptoris — Pius XI clearly recalled the societal role of private property and denounced forms of totalitarianism that demean the dignity of the person, stifle life in society, exalt the State above its just value and discriminate according to race. At least three insights of his social teaching remain particularly relevant today: the awareness that injustice concerns not only individual behavior but also economic and institutional structures; the importance of the principle of subsidiarity, which calls for the strengthening of the fabric of associations and communities while avoiding further centralization of power; and the link between the dignity of work, fair remuneration and the genuine possibility for families to lead a dignified life.

32. In the tragic context of the Second World War, and the years of reconstruction that followed, the teachings of Pius XII made a significant contribution to the development of Social Doctrine. This is particularly true of his Christmas radio messages, in which he outlined the framework of an international order based on justice, peace and the recognition of human dignity. In these messages, the Pope proposed a dialogue with society based on an appeal to natural law understood as a set of objective principles that precede the interests of individuals and States, and which must regulate both the internal life of nations and their mutual relations. Pius XII also attributed a decisive role to professional associations, labor unions and the various intermediary organizations in the economic and social order. He recognized these organized forms of society as an essential safeguard for civil equilibrium and for protecting the common good. He affirmed the need for a sound rule of law for guarding against the abuse of power, and he recognized democracy as a means for ensuring the proper exercise of authority. At the same time, he warned against any attempt to base law on utility or force, recalling that an international order governed by the advantage of the strongest exposes weaker peoples to oppression and fundamentally undermines trust between nations. Finally, Pius XII identified profound economic imbalances between countries as one of the factors fueling conflicts. [26] Three guidelines remain particularly significant for our own times, currently marked by new forms of global power and growing inequalities: the need for law to take precedence over interests; the awareness that economic disparities are a breeding ground for tension and violence; and the necessity of a network of associations capable of mediating between the individual and the State. These guidelines continue to provide important criteria that enable Social Doctrine to interpret the dynamics of globalization and promote a more just and peaceful international order.

The years of the Second Vatican Council

33. A new phase in the Church’s social teaching began with Saint John XXIII, who placed a greater emphasis on the global dimension of social issues and the language of rights. In Mater et Magistra, he presented the Christian faith as a light capable of uniting heaven and earth. He recalled that, while the Church’s primary mission is the sanctification and proclamation of eternal goods, she does not neglect the concrete needs of people’s daily lives, and is concerned with every authentic human good. [27] Based on this unified vision of humanity, John XXIII emphasized that societal life requires a balance between the initiative of citizens and groups — who are called to organize themselves and work together — and the action of the State, which must coordinate and provide support without stifling the freedom and responsibility of individuals. Hence, he drew attention to fair remuneration for work, worker participation and the growing disparities between countries. A few years later, in Pacem in Terris, John XXIII addressed for the first time not only the faithful, but also all people of good will, organically linking the dignity of the person to the recognition of fundamental rights and duties, and proposing a direction for society — at the international level too — based on truth, justice, love and freedom. [28] In the present day, which is marked by widespread conflict and new forms of global interdependence, the following aspects of his thought remain particularly significant: the universal perspective of his appeal; his reference to human rights as a shared framework; and his conviction that lasting peace requires institutions and relations between peoples that are inspired by the dignity of every person.

34. The Second Vatican Council marked a turning point in the Church’s understanding of herself in the contemporary world. In the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, the Council presented the image of a Church that is close to humanity, engaged with the world and committed to reflecting on the concrete reality of historical situations, rather than abstract concepts. The text addresses the major issues of marriage and the family, economic and societal life, the political community, war and peace. It insists that economic and institutional structures are just only to the extent that they serve the integral development of the person and promote the responsible participation of all. [29] The importance of this conciliar document for the Social Doctrine of the Church lies not only in having opened up horizons for thematic reflection, but also in its method of discernment that invites us to interpret historical changes guided by the Gospel and human expertise. This approach reveals that dialogue with the world is not a tactical choice for the Church, but a concrete expression of her mission because the Gospel, like leaven, is capable of transforming the structures of society from within and forging paths toward a greater humanity. The Declaration Dignitatis Humanae can be included in the same context. Here, the Council recognized that religious freedom is a fundamental right grounded in human dignity that must be guaranteed by law so as to prevent people from being forced to act against their conscience or impeded from seeking and professing the truth both privately and publicly. [30] This principle is highly relevant today and continues to provide Social Doctrine with decisive criteria for protecting individuals and building pluralistic and peaceful societies.

35. During the Pontificate of Saint Paul VI, an understanding of peace emerged that was not reduced to the mere absence of war, but took shape within the scope of integral human development. In Populorum Progressio, he described development as a transition from less humane to more humane living conditions. He further understood it as a process that concerns “each person and the whole person,” [31] that is every dimension of the person and all people without exception. For this reason, Paul VI could affirm that development understood in this way is in reality “the new name for peace,” [32] because it aims to eradicate the roots of injustice and conflict and create opportunities for a more dignified life for all. The establishment of the Pontifical Commission Iustitia et Pax should also be seen in this light as an attempt to give stable form to this insight at the ecclesial and international levels, while bearing in mind the growing gap between rich and poor countries and the need for policies that genuinely promote more humane living conditions for all.

36. In Octogesima Adveniens, written on the occasion of the eightieth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Paul VI applied this perspective to postindustrial society, marked by urbanization, new forms of poverty and rapid cultural changes that called into question the future of individuals and communities. Paul VI believed that although the Gospel was proclaimed, written and lived out in a historical and cultural context very different from our own, its message was not “outdated.” [33] Instead, it offers a vision of the human person, relationships, authority and the common good that is still capable of guiding economic, political and cultural choices today. In other words, the Gospel remains relevant because it provides the criteria for recognizing what humanizes or dehumanizes and what liberates or oppresses in ever-changing situations. For the Social Doctrine of the Church, Paul VI’s most demanding legacy is precisely this: as long as there are people in the world who are excluded from the development befitting human dignity, the Christian community cannot be content with a theoretical proclamation of peace. Rather, beginning where people are marginalized, it must allow the Gospel to pass judgment on those economic and political structures which — as John Paul II would later remind us — can become veritable “structures of sin.” [34] As a result, no person or people will be treated as expendable in the processes of development.

The recent Magisterium

37. The rich social teaching of Saint John Paul II lies at the crossroads of the crisis of the great ideological systems of the twentieth century and the onset of economic globalization. His Encyclical Laborem Exercens, written ninety years after the publication of Rerum Novarum, opened up a new avenue for reflection on work. It presents fair wages as the concrete means of verifying the justness of the entire socioeconomic system because they reveal whether the worker is treated as a person or merely as a cost of production. [35] Work is not considered simply as a problem to be dealt with or a means of generating income, but a fundamental good for the person, a principle of economic activity and the key to the entire societal question. Through work, human beings bring their freedom, creativity and capacity for cooperation into play, contributing to the cultural and moral elevation of society. [36] In light of this, the various kinds of job insecurity, fragmented career paths and automation must not be evaluated solely in terms of efficiency, but in relation to the dignity of the worker, the right to sufficient remuneration and the genuine possibility of participating in society.

38. With his Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, marking the twentieth anniversary of Populorum Progressio, John Paul II reexamined the scourge of underdevelopment. He acknowledged the failure of numerous attempts to accelerate the economic development of poor peoples and to assist them in the process of industrialization, noting the persistent and indeed widening gap between the world’s North and South. [37] He also denounced the economic, financial and commercial mechanisms that, managed by the strongest economies, structurally favor their own interests while stifling weaker economies, and he asked that they be subjected to serious ethical, not just technical, scrutiny. [38] In this context, solidarity was understood as a concrete, shared responsibility among individuals, peoples and nations — a form of social friendship or political charity oriented toward the “civilization of love” proposed by Paul VI. [39]

39. On the centenary of Rerum Novarum, the Encyclical Centesimus Annus offered a reflection on the collapse of the Soviet system and the rise of democracy and the market economy. Saint John Paul II reiterated Pius XII’s message that the Church values democracy insofar as it guarantees the effective participation of citizens, enables them to elect and peacefully replace their leaders and prevents power from being monopolized by small elite groups motivated by particular or ideological interests. [40] Likewise, the Church recognizes the positive potential of the market and private initiative only if they remain subordinate to the moral law and are guided by the principle of solidarity, without sacrificing the most vulnerable to the rationale of profit. [41] This adds a particularly relevant legacy to the Social Doctrine of the Church. The affirmation of the link between the dignity of work, solidarity among peoples, a critical assessment of democracy and the market economy continues to provide criteria for evaluating new forms of exploitation, exclusion and crises in political representation.

40. In his social Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI sought to reassess and expand the concept of development presented in Populorum Progressio, interpreting it in light of globalization. He noted that such development should translate into “real growth, of benefit to everyone and genuinely sustainable.” [42] That is, economic progress that is truly inclusive and respectful of the limits of creation. He reaffirmed, however, that in wealthy countries new kinds of poverty were emerging as well as unprecedented forms of exclusion, while, in poorer regions, small minorities lived in consumerist affluence alongside situations of dehumanizing poverty. [43] In addition, he observed that the new global economic and financial system, marked by a vast mobility of capital and means of production, had reduced the political power of States and their ability to influence economic processes. [44] For this reason, Benedict XVI reiterated that economic activity cannot claim to solve social problems simply through the expansion of a commercial mentality, but must be ordered toward the common good, for which the political community bears its own irreplaceable responsibility. [45]

41. Benedict XVI placed charity at the center of his analysis, stating that it “is at the heart of the Church’s Social Doctrine,” [46] provided that it is always united with truth. He also noted with concern that there is a tendency to dismiss moral relevance precisely within the social, legal, political and economic fields. The originality of his contribution lies in showing that development, justice, institutions and the market are not neutral realities, but spaces where charity in truth must find historical expression. This teaching is especially relevant today in light of growing inequalities, pressures in the financial markets, the environmental crisis and a lack of trust in politics. It stands as an invitation to evaluate every model of development on its ability to be inclusive and sustainable, to rebuild the relationship between economics and politics on the common good, and to acknowledge the critical and generative role of charity in public life.

42. Pope Francis’ social teaching develops along the lines of Gaudium et Spes, which invites us to view history through the lens of human hopes and vulnerabilities, and to bring them into dialogue with the Gospel. This approach emerges with particular clarity in Evangelii Gaudium, where he states that the Christian proclamation has an intrinsic social dimension and calls for a Church capable of listening to the cry of the poor, migrants and victims of new forms of slavery. Francis’ insistence on a synodal Church, a Church that “walks together,” that seeks to read the signs of the times in the light of the Gospel and allows herself to be evangelized by the poor with whom she shares history, also fits into this perspective. [47]

43. In Laudato Si’, Francis provided the first significant systematic treatment of the environmental crisis in a social Encyclical, demonstrating that it is not an isolated issue, but rather the ecological aspect of the contemporary socio-economic crisis. His proposal for an integral ecology combined care for our common home with the preferential option for the poor, and strongly affirmed that “the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” [48] cannot be separated. In this light, the universal destination of goods was brought to the forefront, alongside the critique of a technocratic paradigm that seeks to reduce everything to an object to be dominated; the defense of human labor threatened by the mindset of waste; and the need for intergenerational justice. Finally, he advocated for genuine dialogue between those working in the fields of politics and finance, so that neither would become self-referential.

44. Faced with the breakdown of the social fabric, a “world war being fought piecemeal,” individualistic globalization and the impact of the pandemic on community ties, Francis, in Fratelli Tutti , sought to revive the dream of a humanity that opts for social friendship and universal fraternity. He proposed a culture of encounter, a “better politics” capable of seeking the common good, paths of reconciliation and a world that ensures “land, housing and work for all.” [49] Finally, in Dilexit Nos, he showed that these significant social endeavors cannot be separated from a personal relationship with Christ. Turning to the word of God, he reminded us that the truest response to the love of the heart of Jesus is concrete love for our brothers and sisters, and affirmed that “there is no greater way for us to return love for love.” [50]

Interpreting history in the light of faith

45. Considering this historical overview, it is clear that the Church’s Social Doctrine is not the result of a project devised at a desk, but rather the product of a patient process in which each pontiff — together with the Second Vatican Council — made a unique contribution in light of the “new things” of each particular era. In response to the challenges of their time, each one interpreted historical changes according to the Gospel, bringing to light different aspects of a single heritage: the dignity of the person, the value of work, the universal destination of goods, solidarity and subsidiarity, care for creation and the centrality of peace and fraternity. The result is a harmonious, though not always linear, development that is marked by different emphases, progressive insights, and, at times, changes in perspective that do not break with what came before, but allow its implications to mature. If today we can speak of a corpus of shared principles and criteria, it is because this faith-based interpretation of history has never been interrupted, remaining ever open to the challenges posed by each generation. It is to the great principles of Social Doctrine, which direct the discernment of believers in their personal and public lives, that I now wish to turn our attention, in order to grasp more effectively their internal coherence and capacity to guide our times.

CHAPTER TWO

FOUNDATIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF
THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

46. The Social Doctrine of the Church is a living reality, in dialogue with history, cultures and sciences. At the same time, it enshrines a core set of unchanging truths. For this reason, it can be considered a form of wisdom that is capable of guiding the personal and societal lives of believers even today. In this second chapter, I would like to focus on some of the foundations and principles of the Church’s Social Doctrine that will help us to interpret the “new things” of our time, particularly in view of the inherent dignity of the human person. In order to protect the human person in the age of artificial intelligence, I believe that today we must once again reflect on the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. I am convinced that a harmonious relationship between these principles requires that they be considered collectively, so that it becomes clear how they relate to and complement each other.

47. In offering these reflections, my hope is, first and foremost, to help the lay faithful and people of goodwill rediscover their duty of implementing the above-mentioned principles in their daily lives, family relationships, work and involvement in society. Thus, they will let themselves be inspired by the aim of embodying God’s love in the concrete events of life. At the same time, I would like to encourage academic institutions and universities to give fresh impetus to these principles, and to apply them in a way that will be relevant and effective in addressing the digital revolution. In this way, theological and philosophical enquiry will be able to further explore and support the Church’s pastoral journey, and contribute to the Magisterium’s task of enlightening the consciences of the faithful and guiding their efforts to make the life of our societies more just and fraternal.

The foundations of Social Doctrine

The human person: image of the Triune God

48. The Church’s Social Doctrine brings us to the very heart of our faith: the mystery of the living God, revealed in Jesus Christ, who, as a communion of Persons — Father, Son and Holy Spirit — is love itself in relationship, expressed in the mutual gift of self and in sharing with the world. [51] As the Council recalled, human persons are called to communion with God and “can fully discover their true selves only in sincere self-giving.” [52] Indeed their deepest vocation is to enter into the Trinitarian dynamic of love received and shared.

49. If the mystery of God as Love is the source of Social Doctrine, we see its most concrete expression in the face of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word. By becoming man, the Son of God enters our history and takes on human flesh, bringing with him the love that unites him to the Father and the Holy Spirit. In him, “the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear” [53] because his humanity is completely free, open to others, capable of building healthy and beautiful relationships and committed to the total gift of self. Those who believe in him are engaged in the great work of renewal that began with the mystery of his passion, death and resurrection, and they cooperate in building up the Kingdom of God, learning to embrace all men and women as brothers and sisters, children of one Father. In this way, both the proclamation of the Gospel and Christian life, guided by the action of the Holy Spirit, tend to bring about social consequences in the world. [54]

50. At the heart of the Christian understanding of the human person lies the great biblical affirmation that men and women are created in the image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-27) of the Triune God. Created for relationship, every human person is planned and willed by God to enter into communion with him, with others and with creation. Human dignity does not depend on a person’s abilities, wealth or position in life, nor on the right or wrong choices made; instead, it is a gift that precedes and transcends each person, endowed by God as an expression of his unfailing love. For this reason, the human person always remains the “way for the Church” [55] and the heart of every authentic path of integral human development. [56]

The equal dignity of all human beings

51. Saint John Paul II stated that, “this heightened sense of the dignity of the human person and of his or her uniqueness, and of the respect due to the journey of conscience, certainly represents one of the positive achievements of modern culture.” [57] This statement follows the line already laid out by the Second Vatican Council, which had noted a growing recognition of the sublime dignity of all persons, their superiority over material things and their universal and inviolable rights and duties. [58] It is important to ensure that this growth in appreciation of human dignity is not obscured by the pressure of new ideologies or very powerful interests in today’s world. Among these ideologies, I consider particularly insidious the one that suggests that every person must earn or justify his or her own worth, to the point of attributing greater value to those who are more efficient or effective. From this perspective, persons end up being reduced to a means of achieving results, a resource to be used and exploited, and are no longer recognized as a proper end in themselves who should never be instrumentalized. The value of persons, however, does not depend on what they achieve or produce. There are rights that apply to everyone simply by virtue of being human, and no human power can legitimately deny or arbitrarily limit them. [59]

52. When we speak of dignity, we do not always use the word in the same way. Sometimes we refer to moral dignity, namely the way in which a person directs his or her choices and actions. At other times, we think of social dignity, which refers to a person’s living conditions and the concrete respect received from society. In other cases, we refer to existential dignity, meaning the way in which a person perceives his or her own worth and the value of life. These aspects of dignity can be enhanced or diminished. In addition to these notions, there is also the more profound and important level of ontological dignity. This is the dignity that belongs to every human being simply by virtue of existing, of having been willed, created and loved by God. [60] No sin, failure, humiliation or exclusion can diminish the profound value of a human life that God has willed and called into being. [61]

53. The fundamental dignity of each person, therefore, is neither acquired nor earned, nor does it need to be justified. The recent Declaration Dignitas Infinita offers a summary of the Church’s thinking on this subject: “Every human person possesses an infinite dignity, inalienably grounded in his or her very being, which prevails in and beyond every circumstance, state, or situation the person may ever encounter” [62] — in other words, always and without exception. The dignity of every human being can be described as infinite, as Saint John Paul II stated, [63] for two reasons: first, because the love of God, who calls us to friendship with him, is infinite; and second, his love is absolutely unconditional, in the sense that, even if we search endlessly, we will never find anything that can erase or deny it.

The supreme value of human rights

54. The Church gratefully acknowledges that “the movement toward the identification and proclamation of human rights is one of the most significant attempts to respond effectively to the inescapable demands of human dignity.” [64] In this regard, Saint John Paul II stated that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, remains one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time. [65] It is “a milestone on the long and difficult path of the human race.” [66] For this reason, from the Christian perspective, human rights are not an external addition to the person, but an expression of intrinsic human dignity, which the international community is called to protect and promote.

55. Human rights are inviolable, since they are “inherent in the human person and in human dignity.” [67] Consequently, they are universal and inalienable. [68] Precisely because they are grounded in the common dignity of every man and woman, they have practical consequences and legal effects, for “it would be vain to proclaim human rights if, at the same time, everything were not done to ensure the duty of respecting them, respect by all, in all places and for all.” [69] Among these rights, the first is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, [70] without which it is impossible to exercise any other right. When this fundamental right is denied — as in the cases of induced abortion, killing of the innocent and euthanasia — we are faced with choices that the Church considers gravely wrong. [71]

56. Looking at our own time, we cannot ignore the fact that the protection of human rights has been exposed to two particularly serious dangers. The first is that these rights are declared in a purely formal sense, while technological progress continues alongside covert or overt violations of human dignity. The second, which is in fact the root of the first, is the inability to recognize the foundation of their universality, since we have abandoned “the search for the solid foundations sustaining our decisions and our laws.” [72] Pope Francis urged us not to underestimate this last issue. He pointed out that when reason seriously examines human nature, it is capable of discovering values that apply to everyone, since they derive from human nature. If this task of inquiry were abandoned, it is conceivable that rights considered untouchable today might, in the future, end up being questioned or denied by those in power, perhaps after having obtained only an apparent consensus from populations that are frightened or manipulated. [73]

57. Along with a greater awareness of the value of every human person and their rights, recognition of minority rights has also grown. Yet, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the rights of a great many, namely women, are equally and genuinely guaranteed throughout the world. It is a fact that “doubly poor are those women who endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment and violence, since they are frequently less able to defend their rights.” [74] It is, therefore, not enough to state simply that men and women have equal dignity and rights; it is necessary that this be reflected in concrete decisions, such as in laws, access to employment, education, social and political responsibilities, and the way society listens to and values women’s contributions. As long as this gap persists, we cannot say that society truly and fully recognizes that women have the same dignity as men.

58. It is individuals that matter, each and every person, together with their families. Social movements, communal ideologies and grand political proclamations in favor of a population are worthless unless they lead to the flourishing of persons — men and women — with their inalienable rights. Similarly, it is not enough to extol individual freedom or private enterprise if we then allow a multitude of people to continue living without decent work, protections or access to basic necessities.

The principles of Social Doctrine

The principle of the common good

59. Recognizing that every man and woman possesses an inalienable dignity, together with rights that no human power can betray or nullify, requires us to shape the way we live together, including our economic and political choices, and the makeup of our cities. From this arises the first major principle of Social Doctrine that I wish to highlight: the common good. We can describe it as the social expression of the dignity recognized in every person. When Benedict XVI referred to the non-negotiable values that the Church must always defend, he included among them “the promotion of the common good.” [75] For a Christian, going beyond the narrow confines of one’s own interests and committing oneself, within the limits of one’s ability, to the common good is a non-negotiable value, as is the promotion of life.

60. The Second Vatican Council affirmed that the common good consists in “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.” [76] This definition provides us with a valuable initial reference point, because the common good cannot be reduced to a mere list of conditions or institutions. It is not the sum total of individual benefits, nor the intersection of their particular interests; it is a greater good that belongs to everyone, and it can only be achieved, nurtured and protected by our collective efforts. We can say that social action reaches its fullness when it is directed toward this shared good, just as a person’s moral action finds its fulfillment in the choice of the true good. [77]

61. In this sense, we can say that the whole is “greater than the sum of its parts” [78] and that, for this very reason, “the mere sum of individual interests is not capable of generating a better world for the whole human family.” [79] Indeed, it is an illusion to think that simply pursuing one’s own progress without caring for others is sufficient for contributing to the good of all. This view ignores the inherent and specific value of the common good, which is the result of an “interdependence” [80] that creates a network of social good that expands and has an impact on people. The common good is a “plus,” the result of interaction and mutual influence that connects various actions, initiatives, efforts and decisions. If we were to add up the individual goods, we could not explain the existence of this “plus” that transcends them and, at the same time, enriches them.

62. It is the pursuit of the common good that gives life to a people, understood not as a mere collection of individuals, but as a living reality in which people learn to recognize that they themselves are interconnected and jointly responsible for the res publica. In this sense, every person contributes to the building up of one’s people through “a slow and arduous effort calling for a desire for integration and a willingness to achieve this through the growth of a peaceful and multifaceted culture of encounter.” [81] Working together for the common good means having a shared vision. It is clear that there are many ideological and practical differences among people, as well as differing interests and frequent disagreements, but that does not mean it is impossible to engage in dialogue to establish a set of basic agreements that enable the creation of a shared vision, upon which everyone can move forward together.

63. It is the State’s responsibility to ensure cohesion, unity and the proper organization of civil society, so that the common good can be pursued with everyone’s contribution. In practical terms, this means that public authorities have the delicate duty to “harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice,” [82] seeking a balance between individual interests and the common good, without leaving behind the most vulnerable. When politics abandons a long-term perspective and reduces itself to short-term calculations or sterile polarizations, then the language of the common good loses credibility, and, at the same time, social inequalities and divisions grow.

64. This also applies to international politics. As the divide between nations widens, a mentality of confrontation and aggression begins to take hold, and the difficult path toward a more united and fraternal world suffers new and painful setbacks. In this context, speaking of a shared journey toward a more just development for the entire human family “sounds like madness.” [83] Yet we must not lose hope. I invite everyone to conceive of ways of cooperating and of more effective international institutions, capable of safeguarding the global common good without compromising the legitimate diversity of peoples and nations. Indeed, the promotion of the common good can never be separated from respect for the right of peoples to exist, to preserve their own identity and to contribute their unique qualities to the family of nations. [84] Moreover, any attempt or plan to eliminate or subjugate a nation is gravely immoral and therefore unacceptable.

The principle of the universal destination of goods

65. “Among the numerous implications of the common good, immediate significance is taken on by the principle of the universal destination of goods.” [85] First of all, this principle reminds us that the earth’s goods — soil, water, air and natural resources — are given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all, and that every person has an inherent right to the use of such goods, both now and in the future. Saint John Paul II recalled that, “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favoring anyone.” [86] Consequently, “it is not in accordance with God’s plan to use this gift in such a way that its benefits accrue solely to a select few.” [87] Today, we are called to recognize that this universal destination applies not only to material goods, but also to immaterial and cultural goods.

66. Certainly there is a right to private property, which has its own specific meaning and purpose, yet it is always subordinate to the universal destination of goods. According to John Paul II, this subordination is the golden rule of social conduct and the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order.” [88] In the Church’s tradition, property has been viewed as a means of protecting and managing goods so that they may better serve the common good. Since “the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable,” [89] its social function must not be considered a mere theological opinion, but a doctrine of the Church, already present in Sacred Scripture and in the writings of the Church Fathers. For this reason, Pope Francis reminded us that solidarity, when lived out in its fullest sense, also means “to restore to the poor what belongs to them.” [90]

67. Today, among the goods that are universally intended for everyone, we must also include new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data. In a context where the wealth of nations depends increasingly on knowledge and technology, when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without adequate forms of sharing and access, a new imbalance is created that contradicts the universal destination of goods. In turn, it widens the gap between the included and the excluded, between those who can participate in the digital revolution and those who remain on the margins. Furthermore, care for our common home and our responsibility toward the poor and future generations require that the use of the goods of creation and the new possibilities offered by technology be regulated in such a way as to respect the environment, avoid waste and prevent new forms of exploitation.

The principle of subsidiarity

68. The principle of subsidiarity stems from the very same understanding of the human person that has guided our reflection on dignity and the common good. If every woman and man is called to take ownership of his or her own life and to contribute to the formation of society, then social institutions must also respect and support this responsibility. The Social Doctrine of the Church refers to subsidiarity as the principle according to which the role of individuals, families, local communities and intermediary organizations should not be supplanted by higher-level authorities. Moreover, higher-level institutions must recognize, protect and promote the freedom and creativity of lower-level entities, coordinating their contributions so that they can cooperate effectively for the common good. [91]

69. Starting with Leo XIII and the beginnings of modern social teaching, the Church has insisted that neither the individual nor the family should be subsumed by the State, but should be allowed to act freely, as far as possible, without harming the common good. [92] Saint John Paul II took up and developed this perspective, noting that the political community is at the service of civil society and that the State must protect the common good, intervening when necessary, but without permanently supplanting the responsibilities of intermediary organizations and social institutions. [93] Subsidiarity does not justify the State’s disengagement, but rather guides its actions. Indeed, public intervention is necessary precisely to enable all social actors to fulfill their mission without being stifled. It is the responsibility of the political community to create the conditions that allow individuals, families, associations and intermediary organizations to fulfil their mission in society, without being replaced or reduced to mere facilitators. [94]

70. This principle encourages us to move beyond any form of paternalistic or welfare-based management of societal life, but instead to promote a culture of shared responsibility in a State that values citizens’ initiative, and a civil society capable of forging bonds and mobilizing energies in the service of the common good. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, decisions are made at the closest level possible to the persons involved, thereby fostering community life and avoiding people being presented with decisions that have already been taken. In this way people can participate in the decision-making process. When families, associations, local communities, volunteer organizations and those in the so-called “third sector” are recognized and supported, social life becomes more accessible to people, services become more attuned to real needs, and solutions are more creative and respectful of the dignity of each person. [95]

71. The principle of subsidiarity applies especially in the context of the digital revolution. Here, the highest level is not the State, but rather major economic and technological actors that exercise de facto power over the conditions of everyday life. This level, which monopolizes expertise, data and decision-making authority, involves companies and platforms that define conditions for access, rules of visibility, forms of interaction, and even economic opportunities. The principle of subsidiarity requires that such processes not be imposed from above in an opaque and unilateral manner, but instead be directed toward the common good with transparency, accountability and meaningful forms of participation (including independent checks, transparency regarding algorithms, equitable access to data and avenues for recourse). [96]

72. In this context, States and transnational institutions are called to ensure fair rules and effective safeguards, so that local communities, intermediary organizations, schools, universities, religious institutions and associations have a voice and can contribute to the discernment of choices that affect people’s daily lives, such as employment, access to services, data management and digital environments. When it comes to decisions regarding economic flows and digital platforms, as well as the governance of data and algorithms, we cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own; instead, we must build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make them jointly responsible for the common good. [97]

The principle of solidarity

73. Having considered the common good and subsidiarity, I would like to reflect on the principle of solidarity. This emerges from a vision of the human person generated by faith, namely that every human being is created in the image of God and is part of a network of relationships that bind him or her to others, to specific populations and to creation. Saint Paul VI observed that the obligations of solidarity, justice and charity are rooted in the human and supernatural fraternal bonds that unite individuals and populations. [98] Fraternity is not merely an aspiration of believers, but is a social and political reality to be embodied in communal choices and endeavors. Solidarity, then, is the concrete recognition that the future of each individual is connected to the future of all; indeed, “no one is saved alone.” [99] The close link between subsidiarity and solidarity thereby becomes evident. It is thus clear that there is an intimate link between subsidiarity and solidarity. When subsidiarity is not linked to solidarity, it ends up becoming merely the protection of particular interests; when solidarity is not supported by subsidiarity, it degenerates into a form of welfare that does not foster responsibility. [100] This interconnectedness also pertains to the responsibility of authentic participation. Solidarity is expressed when each person, both individually and collectively, takes part in the life of the community — by staying informed, engaging with others, making their voice heard and contributing to public decisions and choices — while also assuming real responsibility so that the common good is achieved through shared decision-making.

74. In many areas, we are already experiencing a kind of “ de facto solidarity,” for our lives are intertwined; digital networks connect people and communities across the world in real time, and global economies and communications mean that events in one place have a far-reaching impact. This network of relationships, however, only constitutes solidarity in the fullest sense of the word when it becomes a conscious choice. Faith invites us to see this reality as a call: we are not merely neighbors to one another, but entrusted to each other, so that each of us may take responsibility, as best we can, for the lives and wounds of our brothers and sisters. Solidarity arises precisely when we decide not to remain indifferent to what happens to our neighbor but instead to transform unavoidable bonds — economic, cultural and technological — into paths of sharing, cooperation and mutual care, embracing the idea of “thinking and acting in terms of community.” [101]

75. The Church’s social teaching emphasizes that solidarity is both a principle and a virtue. As a principle, it expresses the objective order of relationships among individuals, groups and peoples, pointing to an awareness of interdependence whereby the good of each person depends on the good of others. As a virtue, it requires a “firm and persevering determination” [102] to strive for the common good, with particular attention to those most in need. Pope Francis noted that solidarity is “a way of making history” [103] that creates communities and not just masses of individuals. For this reason, it requires a modest and shared way of life, the ability to forego immediate benefits in order to create opportunities for others in the future, and a willingness to challenge habits and privileges — including those related to digital consumption and the use of technology — when they prevent others from living with dignity.

76. In a world marked by increasingly close connections between people, communities and nations, solidarity also takes on a global dimension. Benedict XVI strongly emphasized the link between development, justice and responsibility toward future generations, stating that authentic development requires solidarity and inter-generational justice, [104] as well as an awareness of the bonds that unite us to the natural environment. Today, this responsibility also extends to digital and information infrastructure. Like the natural environment, the “digital ecosystem” can be preserved or exploited, shared or monopolized. Solidarity demands that decisions regarding data, algorithms, platforms and artificial intelligence take into account not only the immediate benefit for a few, but also the impact on all peoples and on future generations.

The principle of social justice

77. For the Christian community, social justice is a concrete way of following Jesus and remaining faithful to the Gospel. In the New Testament, Jesus proclaims the “good news to the poor” ( Lk 4:18) and identifies himself with the lowly, the sick, the imprisoned and strangers (cf. Mt 25:31-46). He thus teaches us that justice is born from, and fulfilled in, fraternity, because the way we approach and relate to the least among us becomes, in concrete terms, the measure of our relationship with God and with our brothers and sisters. Justice, however, concerns not only the behavior of individuals, but also the way in which the structures of society are conceived and organized. In this regard, the Second Vatican Council reminds us that every institution is called to serve the human person and his or her dignity. [105] Social justice is, therefore, characterized by the capacity of a social, economic and political order to allow everyone — particularly the weakest — to live a truly dignified life, without leaving anyone behind.

78. The recent Magisterium has insisted that social justice begins with the least among us. Saint John Paul II spoke of a preferential option for the poor [106] that must guide both personal and societal choices, while Pope Francis denounced a “‘throw away’ culture” [107] that generates ever new forms of exclusion. From this perspective, social justice requires us to look at individuals and communities, starting with the most vulnerable: the poor, migrants, refugees, internally displaced persons, victims of violence and people living in urban or existential peripheries.

79. The idea of “social justice” helps us recognize that injustices do not arise solely from the wrong choices of individuals, but also from structures, mechanisms and economic and cultural systems that produce inequality almost automatically. Saint John Paul II spoke in this vein of structures of sin [108] that oppose God’s will and require a commitment to personal and social conversion. In this perspective, justice is not merely about the fairer distribution of resources or the correction of current injustices, but also assumes a restorative dimension. It aims to mend broken bonds and reintegrate those who have been excluded, taking into account the wounds caused by injustices, such as wars, colonialism, racial or gender discrimination, violence against entire peoples and exploitation. This may include restoring dignity and a voice to those who have been ignored, fostering processes of healing for collective memory, opposing discriminatory laws and practices, and providing concrete support to those who still bear the consequences of wrongs suffered in the past.

80. In this day and age, social justice must also grapple with the environment shaped by digital technologies. The spread of global networks, platforms and artificial intelligence systems is changing the way we obtain information, communicate and access services. Justice demands that we prevent the emergence of new forms of exclusion and deprivation of freedoms: individuals and peoples hindered or denied access to basic technologies, communities exposed to invasive surveillance and social groups penalized by opaque algorithms that perpetuate prejudice and discrimination. In the digital age, a just social order guarantees everyone equal access to opportunities, protects the youngest and weakest members of society, combats hate and misinformation and subjects the use of data and technology to public oversight, so that the guiding principle is not solely profit but the dignity of every person and the common good of all people.

81. A litmus test for social justice today is the treatment of migrants, refugees and those forced to move due to poverty, violence, climate change and environmental disasters. The way a society treats them reveals whether its sense of justice is driven by fear or by the spirit of fraternity. Pope Francis urged us to see migrants not simply as a problem to be managed, but as a living image of the People of God on the move. [109] They are people with dignity, resources and dreams, who have the right to be treated with respect and to ask to become active members of the societies that welcome them. Social justice in this area entails at least two complementary commitments. On the one hand, this means protecting the rightful hopes of those forced to leave by ensuring safe and legal routes, dignified conditions for receiving them, and genuine pathways to integration. On the other hand, it means promoting the right to remain in one’s homeland in peace and security by addressing the root causes that force people to migrate, including those linked to economic injustices and the climate crisis. When these rights are respected, migration can become an opportunity for encounter and mutual enrichment among peoples.

Integral human development

82. In his Encyclical Populorum Progressio, Paul VI affirmed that development is authentic only if it is “integral,” meaning that it can “foster the development of each man and of the whole man.”^[110]In the decades that followed, the Social Doctrine of the Church reprised and reflected on this expression in order to indicate the practical ways in which the noble principles — dignity, the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice — are implemented in real life. By “integral human development,” we mean a process in which the growth of individuals and peoples encompasses all dimensions of existence and opens the future to subsequent generations as well.

83. For individuals as well as for nations, development is both a duty and a right. Minimum conditions are required for enabling every person and people to flourish in accord with their dignity, without being kept in a state of dependence or excluded from access to necessary goods. Development is truly human when it places people at the center instead of the accumulation of wealth, and when it concerns peoples as well as individuals. Justice demands the recognition of the rights of society and the rights of peoples, and includes a responsibility toward future generations. Development is not truly human if it increases consumption for some while shifting costs and burdens onto others, or relegates entire regions to subordinate roles, preventing them from realizing their full potential. [111] Development is integral when it is not limited to the economic sphere, but promotes quality of life in its spiritual, cultural, moral and relational dimensions, while respecting our common home, the diversity of peoples and their ways of life. [112]

84. Today, the concept of integral human development is a benchmark for the evaluation of integral ecology, which has become an indispensable dimension of the Church’s Social Doctrine. Indeed, the quality of development is measured by the ability to integrate justice toward people and the care of our common home, and to promote dignified living conditions, access to necessary goods, just social relations, care of creation and consideration for future generations. It follows that true progress is not what increases the wellbeing of some by degrading ecosystems, shifting costs onto the most disadvantaged communities, or compromising the living conditions of those who will follow us.

85. Seen in this light, integral human development is the framework through which we can interpret the changes of our time, including those brought about by the digital revolution. Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral, for they can either foster participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control and exclusion. For this reason, they must be evaluated by asking a crucial question: Do they truly help individuals and peoples to become more humane and fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations? It is here that the principles of Social Doctrine become concrete criteria for discernment regarding the issues which we will address in the following chapters.

An examen for the Church

86. In conclusion, I would like to touch on a point that is particularly close to my heart. Social Doctrine is not merely a message addressed to society; it is also an examination of conscience for the Church — a home and school of communion that is always called to ensure that the principles outlined in this chapter are applied, especially within its own structures. In the ecclesial context, the common good takes the form of a synodal approach for mission at the service of the Kingdom. Indeed, the Church is the “communitarian and historical subject of synodality and mission.” [113] This requires attention to the way decisions are taken and responsibilities are exercised. The Final Document of the Synod identifies a culture of transparency, accountability and evaluation as key practices for missionary transformation. [114]

87. With this in mind, subsidiarity becomes the guiding principle for governance and pastoral life. It involves recognizing and supporting the faithful and intermediary ecclesial organizations as they carry out their responsibilities, valuing charisms and skills and avoiding any form of paternalism that suffocates evangelical freedom. In practical terms, the participation of the baptized in decision-making processes and their shared responsibility in the mission are achieved through genuine, rather than merely nominal, participatory bodies. [115]

88. For the Christian community, solidarity finds its source in the mystery of Christ and is nourished by the Eucharist. Solidarity emerges from communion in faith and the Sacraments: Baptism and Confirmation unite us in Christ, so that we may become one Body and one Spirit, one heart and one soul (cf. Eph 4:4; Acts 4:32). The Eucharist, which is the sacrament of unity, nurtures our belonging to the Body of Christ and teaches us how to share. The diverse sensibilities present in the Church and the strong convictions that animate each person are a source of richness if they remain anchored in the certainty that unity is a gift received and a responsibility to be fulfilled.

89. Living out justice in the Church means purifying ecclesial relationships and structures from distortions that give rise to inequality, lack of transparency and abuse of power. In this regard, listening to the victims of spiritual, economic, institutional, sexual and power-based abuse, as well as abuses of conscience, is an integral part of a journey toward justice, which includes acknowledging the harm done, just reparation and taking steps to prevent it from happening again. Every power is at the service of communion and mission. All authority is at the service of the People of God. This ministry of service is expressed not only through our faith celebrated and lived in the Sacraments, and in the adoption of a synodal style, but also in the concrete sharing of goods. Following the example of the early Church, ecclesial resources need to be shared so that no one among us may be in need (cf. Acts 4:34), and so that their administration may support the mission of proclaiming the Gospel to the poorest. Regular assessments of the exercise of ministerial responsibilities should be encouraged, not as judgments on individuals, but as tools for learning and correction oriented toward mission. [116] Only to the extent that we are open to the action of the Holy Spirit will these principles of Social Doctrine become incarnate in ecclesial life. In this way, the Church will be able to bear credible witness to society that seeking the common good together, with shared responsibility and fraternity, is not a utopia, but a real possibility. [117]

CHAPTER THREE

TECHNOLOGY AND DOMINANCE.

THE GRANDEUR OF HUMANITY
IN LIGHT OF THE PROMISES OF AI

90. Having recalled the principles that shine a light on Social Doctrine, I would now like to focus on certain challenges that profoundly shape our way of living today. The biblical image accompanying these reflections is that of a building project. On the one hand, there is the Tower of Babel, where collective effort follows a plan that dominates and ultimately dehumanizes (cf. Gen 11:1-9). On the other hand, there are the ruins of Jerusalem, which under Nehemiah’s direction are rebuilt piece by piece as a project of shared responsibility (cf. Neh 2–6). We are called to reflect on the great “construction sites” of our era and ask: What are we building? As technological development rapidly transforms languages, relationships, institutions and forms of power, we believers must and can choose which projects to work on and in what manner, so as to safeguard and value the grandeur of humanity that has been given to us as a gift. This is a choice not only for our future but also for our present, since artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies are already part of our daily lives.

91. I am convinced that the concrete way of living out social relationships in the light of the Gospel is not established once and for all, but remains a task entrusted, from generation to generation, to the Christian community. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church allows herself to be enlightened by God’s word, reads the signs of the times and creatively seeks new ways for relationships between peoples and nations to become ever more conformed to the demands of the Kingdom of God. [118] For this reason, I encourage all members of the Church not to be afraid of the present challenges, but to listen to one another and firmly embrace their responsibilities in building a more humane and fraternal society.

The technocratic paradigm and digital power

92. In his Encyclical Laudato Si’, Pope Francis denounced the growing dominance of a technocratic paradigm [119] in our globalized world: the tendency to let the logic of efficiency, control and profit alone shape personal, social and economic decisions. This makes it clear that technology is not simply a tool. When it becomes the standard by which everything is judged, it begins to dictate what matters and what can be discarded, reducing creation to an object of exploitation and human beings to mere cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency.

93. This paradigm has spread rapidly in recent years, fueled in part by the expansion of artificial intelligence, cognitive science, nanotechnology, robotics and biotechnology. In themselves, these innovations can greatly serve integral human development and the care of our common home. Yet precisely because of their power, they can also hasten the expansion of the technocratic paradigm and therefore require a new spiritual, ethical and political framework. More power does not necessarily imply something better. In this respect, the words of Romano Guardini remain relevant: “Contemporary man has not been trained to use power well.” [120]

94. The danger of humanity becoming a victim of its own achievements was already clearly recognized by Saint Paul VI, who warned that “the most extraordinary scientific progress, the most astounding technical feats and the most amazing economic growth, unless accompanied by authentic moral and social progress, will in the long run go against man.” [121] For this reason, technological progress — valuable in itself — requires careful discernment of the anthropological vision that guides it and the ends it pursues. If technological development advances without a corresponding ethical and social progress, the result may be an increase in means without a growth in humanity: “having more” without “being more.” In such a scenario, there is a risk that individuals will be evaluated principally according to the outcomes they produce. [122]

95. Here, we must recognize another crucial aspect, which I have noted earlier. In many cases within the digital context, control over platforms, infrastructure, data and computing power does not rest with States, but with major economic and technological actors. These entities effectively set the conditions for access, determine the rules of visibility and shape the very possibilities for participation. When such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities.

96. Faced with this concentration of power in the digital world, the criteria for judgment and discernment in this new situation are the noble principles of Social Doctrine: the inalienable dignity of the human person, the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. They demand that we assess whether the power of digital infrastructures and algorithms truly fosters participation and responsibility, protects the vulnerable, ensures fair access to opportunities and remains directed toward the good of all. On this basis, we can now examine more closely what artificial intelligence is, the possibilities it opens up and the risks it entails.

Artificial intelligence

97. It is not my intention here to offer a comprehensive treatment of artificial intelligence, nor to give an overview of the extensive relevant literature, since authoritative contributions already exist, including within the ecclesial context. [123] I limit myself to recalling a few essential elements for a moral and social discernment that safeguards the primacy of the human person, in order to ensure that it will always be human intelligence, with its conscience and freedom, that guides technical innovations and responsibly determines their use and limits.

98. It is appropriate to preface this discussion with two considerations. First, any statement regarding AI risks becoming quickly outdated, given the remarkable pace at which these systems are developing. Second, all of us, including those who design them, possess only a limited understanding of their actual functioning. Indeed, current AI systems are more “cultivated” than “built,” for developers do not directly design every detail, but instead create a framework within which the intelligence “grows.” As a result, fundamental scientific aspects — such as the internal representations and computational processes of these systems — remain, at present, unknown. There thus emerges an urgent need for a twofold commitment: on the one hand, a deepening of scientific research; on the other, the exercise of moral and spiritual discernment.

99. It is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated, however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligence” with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. Even when these tools are described as capable of “learning,” their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.

A valuable tool that requires vigilance

100. In light of what has been said, we can better understand why AI can be a valuable tool and, at the same time, why it calls for a measured and vigilant approach. In recent years, its private use has expanded significantly, prompting growing reflection on both the opportunities it offers and the risks tied to its rapid spread. In personal use, three aspects in particular deserve careful consideration: the ease with which results are obtained, the impression of objectivity and the simulation of human communication. The speed and simplicity with which information, complex analyses, media content and practical assistance can be accessed undoubtedly makes life easier. Yet they can also encourage excessive reliance and the search for ready-made answers, and weaken personal creativity and judgment. The apparent objectivity of the responses and suggestions these systems provide can lead us to overlook the fact that they reflect the cultural assumptions of those who designed and trained them, with all their strengths and limitations. The artificial imitation of positive human communication — words of advice, empathy, friendship and even love — can be engaging and at times genuinely helpful. However, for less discerning users, it can also be misleading, creating the illusion of a relationship with a real personal subject. When words are simulated, they do not build genuine relationships, but only their appearance. The artificial imitation of care or support can become particularly risky when it enters contexts where real relationships and emotional bonds are lacking. Here, the danger is not so much that a person may believe they are communicating with another person, but rather that they may gradually lose the very desire to form genuine human connections.

101. Broadening our perspective to the use of AI in society, we see that it is now embedded in decision-making processes across many sectors and at multiple levels: in communication, management and control. The gains in efficiency and the potential to improve certain services are clear, yet rapidly and uncritically adopting them exposes us to a range of risks, including the tendency to overlook the environmental impact. Current AI systems require enormous amounts of energy and water, significantly influencing carbon dioxide emissions, and place heavy demands on natural resources. As their complexity increases, especially in the case of large language models, the need for computing power and storage capacity grows too, which requires an extensive network of machines, cables, data centers and energy-intensive infrastructure. For this reason, it is essential to develop more sustainable technological solutions that reduce environmental impact and help protect our common home. [124]

Responsibility, transparency and the governance of AI

102. The use of AI is never a purely technical matter: when it enters processes that affect people’s lives, it touches on rights, opportunities, status and freedom. Important and sensitive decisions — concerning employment, credit, access to public services or even a person’s reputation — risk being fully delegated to automated systems that do not know “compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change,” [125] and can therefore give rise to new forms of exclusion. There are clearly harmful uses, such as the manipulation of information or violations of privacy. Yet there is also a subtler danger, for when AI systems present themselves as neutral and objective, they end up reflecting and reinforcing the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers and developers.

103. Indeed, entrusting an algorithm in practice with the power to select who is worthy or not, without anyone bearing responsibility for that judgment, is to hand over the task of redefining the boundaries of human possibilities. In this process, political responsibility is also lost, not just empathy toward those excluded, which can, after all, be simulated. The exclusion of the vulnerable becomes cloaked in a veneer of neutrality and objectivity, against which it becomes difficult to raise objections. In this way, injustice goes unnoticed, and compassion, mercy and forgiveness — understood not as mere appearances but as real political actions — gradually disappear from view.

104. From this follows a simple but compelling consequence: we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral. In reality, every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations. If a system is designed or used in a way that treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes them without the possibility of appeal, then it is not merely a tool “to be used well,” since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the inalienable dignity of the human person. For this reason, ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes; it must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it. [126]

105. For AI to respect human dignity and truly serve the common good, responsibility must be clearly defined at every stage: from those who design and develop these systems to those who use them and rely on them for concrete decisions. In many cases, however, the internal processes leading to a result remain opaque, making it harder to assign responsibility and correct errors. This is where accountability becomes crucial: the possibility of identifying who must “account” for decisions, justify them, monitor them, and, when necessary, challenge them and remedy any harm caused. [127]

106. Calling for prudence, rigorous evaluation and even, at times, a slower pace in adopting AI does not mean opposing progress; instead, it is an exercise of responsible care for the human family. This need is all the more urgent given the frequent imbalance between the speed of technological growth and the slower development of awareness, norms, safeguards and institutions capable of governing its effects. It is not enough to invoke ethics in the abstract; robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility are required. Otherwise, change will be governed only by technocratic thinking and presented as necessary and inevitable, ultimately imposing rules shaped by those who control data, infrastructure and computing power.

107. We cannot be satisfied with merely calling for the moralization of machines — the so-called “alignment” of AI with human values — without also having the courage to insist on a further condition: the possibility of openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved and subjecting them to shared standards of social justice. Otherwise, those who control AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of these systems. A more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few. What is needed is a more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating, and of protecting the opportunities for communities still to be able to participate and ask questions.

108. In fact, as with every major technological shift, AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise and access to data. In light of the common good and the universal destination of goods, this raises serious concerns, since small but highly influential groups can shape information and consumption patterns, influence democratic processes and steer economic dynamics to their own advantage, undermining social justice and solidarity among peoples. For this reason, it is essential that the use of AI, especially when it touches on public goods and fundamental rights, be guided by clear criteria and effective oversight, grounded in participation and subsidiarity. Communities and intermediary organizations must not be reduced to passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere; they must be able to contribute to discernment and oversight. Moreover, ownership of data cannot be left solely in private hands but must be appropriately regulated. Data is the product of many contributors and should not be treated as something to be sold off or entrusted to a select few. It is necessary to think creatively in order to manage data as a common or shared good, in a spirit of participation, as Saint John Paul II already suggested regarding collective goods. [128]

109. The principles of Social Doctrine offer a framework for understanding this new reality. In a world where data, computational resources and regulatory influence remain in the hands of a few, to speak of the common good means exposing this new form of epistemic, economic and political asymmetry and naming the new monopolies of AI. To speak of the universal destination of goods means finding ways of ensuring universal access to both technologies and the education needed to use them. To speak of subsidiarity calls for protecting the ability of communities to make choices and corrections, rather than confining their role to mere oversight after the standards have been set elsewhere. To speak of solidarity obliges us to recognize the hidden, often exploited workers, who sustain algorithmic systems. To speak of justice requires questioning the global distribution of power that decides who in fact can train these models and who is merely subjected to them. Likewise, it means acknowledging that social justice is not only a goal to be safeguarded after technologies are deployed, but a condition that must shape their very design from the outset.

110. Finally, I would like to employ the expression “to disarm,” which is close to my heart. Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of “armed” competition, which today is not limited simply to the military context, but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon. This entails a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire to secure geopolitical or commercial dominance. To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion and debate, therefore making it human-friendly and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life. Our task today is not only ethical or technical. It is ecological in the deepest sense, for it concerns a new dimension of our common home. AI is already an environment in which we are immersed, as well as a force with which we must engage. For this reason, merely regulating it is insufficient; it must be disarmed, welcoming and accessible.

111. I wish to address a special appeal to those who develop artificial intelligence. In one sense, technological innovation can represent human participation in the divine act of creation. Developers, therefore, bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility, for every design choice reflects a vision of humanity. Just as the creator of an artistic or literary work must consider the values it conveys, so developers are called to embed values in their projects with due seriousness: with transparency, responsibility toward affected communities and careful attention to ensuring that what is being cultivated is a genuine good.

What must not be lost

112. Having considered the issues of responsibility and governance of AI, we must now return to our central question: what does it mean to safeguard our humanity? The risk extends beyond the misuse of certain technologies. More gravely, the pervasive technocratic paradigm in which we are immersed, and that is amplified by the digital revolution and AI, threatens to normalize an anti-human vision. In that vision, the fullness of life is equated with having more, reducing weakness, eliminating uncertainty and exerting total control. When efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion.

113. In reality, elevating any single dimension of human existence to an absolute is always a mistake. Indeed, disorder does not arise only from scarcity; even unchecked growth can give rise to impoverishment. In an ecosystem, balance is disrupted when one species expands at the expense of others; in human life, something similar occurs when one faculty claims to be the measure of everything. Thus, intelligence, when absolutized, overshadows other essential dimensions of life, such as affection, the will, commitment and relationships. Similarly, technical power, if left unbalanced, does not make us more capable; it makes us more isolated and more vulnerable to being dominated and excluded. This critical point does not oppose intelligence, but serves as a reminder that when intelligence becomes self-referential, its true purpose of serving life and the human person is lost.

114. The quality of a civilization is measured not by the power of its means, but by the care it is able to offer, by its ability to recognize the other as a face not merely as a function. The ability to care for one another is a fundamental dimension of our humanity, one that is learned and mastered through lived experience. Reading stories to a child, offering company to an elderly person and arranging a home so that it is welcoming are simple gestures often rooted in family life. They teach us to value care at a societal level and train us to recognize others as persons worthy of attention. Technology can also support this mutual care between people, for example, by providing tools that help us anticipate and organize things, without undermining human freedom and judgment. After all, human beings are the subjects of relationships and responsible for their own decisions.

Underlying narratives: transhumanism and posthumanism

115. In an attempt to shed light on the cultural assumptions accompanying the ongoing digital revolution, I would now like to turn our attention to certain currents of thought that interpret progress as surpassing the human condition, and which are often grouped under the labels of transhumanism and posthumanism. These perspectives form the ideological background present in some centers of technological power and occupy the collective imagination in a simplified form, especially in the media and on social networks. They tend to foster enthusiasm for new technologies through a futuristic vision of an “enhanced human being” or “human-machine hybrid.”

116. Transhumanism and posthumanism encompass a range of currents and sensibilities, making it difficult to define them in a single, unambiguous way. They can be likened to an archipelago of conceptual “islands,” distinct yet connected by a common “sea” of assumptions, namely the central role of technology and the aspiration to transcend the limits of the human condition. In general, transhumanism envisions the enhancement of human beings through technologies — such as biomedicine, body engineering, devices and algorithms — with the aim of increasing performance and capabilities. Posthumanism, especially in its more radical forms, goes further: it challenges anthropocentrism and envisions a hybridization of human beings, machines and the environment, even anticipating a threshold where humanity surpasses itself in a new evolutionary stage. Even when such ideas remain largely speculative, they gain relevance by altering the collective imagination and thereby influence social, economic and political choices. [129]

117. From the perspective of the Church’s Social Doctrine, the key issue is not the use of technology as such, but the vision that underlies it. If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy. In the name of progress, “necessary sacrifices” may begin to be justified, placing the burden on the most vulnerable in pursuit of a supposed optimization of the species. In this regard, the aforementioned warning of Saint Paul VI retains great foresight: indeed, scientific and technological advances, when detached from moral and social progress, end up turning against humanity. [130] For this reason, a clear distinction must be made. It is one thing to integrate technology within a human-centered, relational vision; it is quite another to be guided by an outlook that devalues human limits and promises a purely technical form of “salvation.”

The limit, the heart and the grandeur of the human person

118. Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis today. Everything that appears as a “limit” — incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability — tends to be seen primarily as a defect to be corrected, rather than as a reality through which our humanity matures and opens itself to relationship. And yet we must remember that humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them. The light of faith offers a perspective on reality that helps us recognize what we call the “contingency” of the things of this world. While it is right to strive to alleviate the suffering that marks human life, it is also wise to acknowledge our fundamental finitude, knowing that “religious experience, and in particular Christian faith, propose that we live, without oversimplification, this ambivalence between human greatness and limitation, interpreting it in the light of our original and fundamental relationship with God.” [131]

119. It is precisely within our limitations that the following find a place: compassion, as well as a sincere concern for the needs of others; a generosity that can emerge even in the midst of darkness and failure; spiritual experience and the worship of God. We see this at many moments when our limits become tangible: when we face rejection, when we suffer the illness or loss of a loved one, when we encounter our own weakness or failure. Mysteriously, it is precisely in such moments that we can discover a new wisdom, tangibly experience the closeness of others and encounter the presence of the Lord.

120. Even when limitations are experienced as inner suffering, human wisdom teaches us not to deny or suppress it, but to integrate it. To eliminate suffering entirely would mean, in the end, extinguishing love and desire as well. Those who love and desire cannot avoid passing through trial and suffering; and over the years, we carry within us lessons that leave their mark like scars, the memories of a journey shaped by freedom and failure, dreams and disappointments. It is only thanks to the interplay of these elements that the wonders of the soul occur within us, allowing us to sense the richness of our humanity. [132] To renounce this adventure, both tragic and splendid, in the name of a presumed transcendence of all limits, could mean many things, but it would no longer be human.

121. The moral corruption of our limitations as created beings — namely the evil that clearly agitates the human heart — ruins society and life, at times reaching extreme forms of inhumanity. Yet even these painful expressions of our limitations leave openings for the good. Even when persons dehumanize themselves and bring about tragedy, a small light continues to shine within humanity, one that can be rekindled, with God’s grace, along paths of conversion and reconciliation. As Viktor Frankl rightly observed, in moments of horror, “we have come to know man as he really is. After all, man is that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord’s Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips.” [133]

122. Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognizing the face of God and others. Indeed, precisely because we experience limits — vulnerability, suffering and failure — we can recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of others. In this same experience, we remain capable of intuiting a fraternity greater than ourselves and of perceiving injustice as a scandal. Authentic culture and art preserve this spark, resisting the normalization of evil. For this reason, certain works have taken on an almost prophetic significance: Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony can be seen as a desire for unity; Guernica as a denunciation of dehumanization; Schindler’s List as a call not to consign the past to oblivion.

123. History does not appear solely as a record of human violence, but also as evidence that humanity is capable of creating institutions that protect our shared life. Over the past two centuries, this can be seen in several emblematic achievements: the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross (1863), whose operational neutrality ensures compassionate care for all; the long process that led to the abolition of slavery, which represented not only a legal shift but a transformation of conscience; the establishment of the United Nations (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which articulated a shared language for affirming, at least as a common ideal, the universality of human dignity; and the 1951 Refugee Convention, which recognizes the duty to protect those fleeing persecution and danger. In each of these cases, the desire for good took concrete shape in public contexts — laws, institutions and practices — capable of limiting the abuse of power and defending the vulnerable. Yet none of these developments emerged without encountering resistance, narrow interests or cultural inertia. Moral progress almost always unfolds through a long and demanding journey, often marked by setbacks. We need only think of stalled peace processes or the slow implementation of environmental commitments. The very fragility of these achievements highlights how precious the responsibility is of those who initiate and sustain them.

124. Certain events make it clear that history can also change when individuals truly take the dignity of everyone seriously: the civil rights movement in the United States of America, closely associated with the testimony of Martin Luther King Jr., or the end of apartheid in South Africa following the release of Nelson Mandela and his decision not to surrender the future to hatred. In different contexts, many courageous and generous women have also stood out, including Saint Laura Montoya, Saint Teresa of Calcutta, Dorothy Day, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, Maria Montessori, Elisabeth Elliot, Wangari Maathai, Benazir Bhutto and countless others from every continent whose commitment has contributed to making history more humane.

125. Alongside these public signs, there is a more hidden but decisive story. We see it in religious communities that choose to serve in poor and dangerous places. We also see it in the martyrs of fraternity and justice, such as Saint Maximilian Mary Kolbe, Saint Oscar Romero and Blessed Enrique Angelelli; and in those witnesses who embodied the hope of the Gospel as well as human dignity amidst harsh, often inhumane conditions, such as Venerable Francis-Xavier Nguyễn Văn Thuận. Above all, it is visible in the “martyrs of everyday life” who care for, educate, accompany and comfort without fanfare, such as parents, nurses, doctors, volunteers and those who remain alongside an elderly person or an outcast. Their testimony demonstrates that goodness does not advance automatically, but requires the perseverance, memory and interior conversion necessary to begin anew, even after defeat.

126. It is this intertwining of just institutions, credible witnesses and daily fidelity that sustains hope and provides clear direction for technological progress without allowing the heart to regress. For this reason, humanity — in all its grandeur and woundedness — must never be replaced or surpassed. We can embrace the technological progress that alleviates suffering and unlocks new possibilities, provided that we do not abandon the very essence of our humanity, namely the capacity for relationship and love. This leads to a crucial question: if an authentic “more than human” exists, where is it to be found? The Christian faith answers that question by pointing to a fulfilment that does not arise from a technological divinization, but through God’s grace received in Christ.

The authentic “more than human”: grace and Christian humanism

127. The expression “more than human” is not an exclusive domain of technological promise. For centuries, the Christian tradition has maintained that human beings are not confined by the boundaries of their own nature; rather, they are called to self-transcendence, not through an escape from reality or a contempt for their limitations, but through their fulfillment in love. Faith recognizes an openness toward the “beyond,” which originates as a gift from God. This transformation is a work of the Holy Spirit. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, this process of elevation and transformation “surpasses every capability of created nature,” [134] for an infinite disparity separates our finite nature from the life of God. [135] Nevertheless, it remains possible to enter into the heart of that inexhaustible life, even as we journey through the limitations of this world. The one who makes this passage possible can only be the Eternal One who gives of himself. Indeed, it is God himself who overcomes the “infinite” disproportion. [136] In him, the re-creation of the human person happens. “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new” ( 2 Cor 5:17).

128. When we embrace the possibility of transcending ourselves through God’s grace, we do not deny our nature, nor do we become less human. On the contrary, as Pope Francis explained, “We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being.” [137] Herein lies the radical departure from Promethean dreams: what saves humanity is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms. In this light, a technology that merely classifies and optimizes what already exists can, however unintentionally, become an obstacle to change and growth. For an algorithm, an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, however, an error can be a catalyst for profound change. A person’s future is not calculable, but depends on one’s freedom — elevated by the inexhaustible grace of God — and on the relationships cultivated.

Two cities and two loves

129. Christian humanism does not reject science or technology, but embraces them with gratitude and realism, and grounds them within a higher vocation. The creative intelligence of humanity is a gift that can alleviate suffering and open up new possibilities, but it must remain ordered toward the common good, justice, the care of the vulnerable and creation. In this sense, the true alternative is not between enthusiasm and fear, but between two paths of development: a progress that serves individuals and peoples, or a progress that subjects them to the mentality of power. Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI “make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?” [138] If the answer is yes, then we can recognize it as an opportunity to be embraced responsibly, on a path of patient, shared reconstruction, akin to the rebuilding of Jerusalem narrated in the Book of Nehemiah. If, however, power grows while the heart withers and human bonds fray, then we are faced with a new form of Babel — a construction that is grandiose, yet fundamentally dehumanizing.

130. Questioning this alternative path of progress and how we interpret and live it is ultimately a matter of examining our own hearts. The way we understand and shape relationships, work and institutions, in practice reveals our fundamental values. In the end, it all stems from what we hold most dear. This is a love that guides us as to what we truly cherish, both as individuals and as a society, and directs our lives and actions. Saint Augustine described human history as a struggle between two loves, which give rise to two ways of inhabiting the world and living together — or two “cities,” as it were: on the one hand, the love of God and neighbor; on the other, the exclusive love of self. “Two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God even to the contempt of self.” [139] As throughout history, these two loves continue to contend for dominance in our hearts today. The age of AI is no exception: the construction of Babel or the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins within each one of us.

CHAPTER FOUR

SAFEGUARDING HUMANITY AT A TIME OF TRANSFORMATION.

TRUTH, WORK, FREEDOM

131. Having outlined the context in which the challenge of technological transformation is situated, especially those linked to AI and to transhumanist and posthumanist currents, we cannot remain at the level of general analysis alone. When languages and tools change, so do everyday actions and social relationships. For this reason, we must focus on certain areas in which these transformations have particularly concrete, and at times tragic, consequences. In light of the principles of the Church’s Social Doctrine, the digital transformation invites us to rediscover truth as a common good, to protect the dignity of work and to safeguard freedom against all forms of dependence and commercialization.

Truth as a common good

Truth and democracy

132. The use of digital platforms and AI systems is driving profound changes in public and political communication. Tools that could foster dialogue and participation are often used to construct distorted narratives and blur the boundaries between truth and falsehood, mixing facts with opinions. Disinformation did not begin with AI, yet today it finds a powerful amplifier in AI. The ability to manipulate content, images and videos exposes people to biased or misleading perspectives. This problem has both cultural and moral dimensions, since the quality of public communication depends directly on social trust and, in turn, shapes it. At the same time, truthful information does not arise from centralized or automated control. In public discourse, the truth of facts has a rational dimension, as it requires verification, cross-checking of sources and responsible argumentation. Moreover, it is deeply relational, built through bonds of trust and shared practices, as well as an honest exchange with others and with the world. Only the shared pursuit of the veracity of facts, perceived as a common good, can provide a solid foundation for just communication.

133. Those who command powerful technological and economic resources, along with substantial human capital for intervention, possess significant capabilities for influencing cultural change. Ultimately, they can influence a significant number of people concerning the truth about humanity, the world, the meaning of existence, the family and even God. This is pure power detached from truth, which subtly or overtly imposes what it wishes others to accept as true. At its root lies a deeper and often unrecognized “sickness”: the fact that “modern man is wrongly convinced that he is the sole author of himself, his life and society. This is a presumption that follows from being selfishly closed in upon himself.” [140] Consequently, people believe that they can construct reality, and that whatever best suits their claims corresponds to what is true. Saint John Paul II reflected on the consequences of this “crisis of truth,” going so far as to state that “once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes.” [141] In such a context, universally valid truths, which precede us and which conscience must accept, are no longer recognized. This led Pope Francis to ask with realism: “What is law without the conviction, born of age-old reflection and great wisdom, that each human being is sacred and inviolable?” To which he concluded: “If society is to have a future, it must respect the truth of our human dignity and submit to that truth. Murder is not wrong simply because it is socially unacceptable and punished by law, but because of a deeper conviction. This is a non-negotiable truth attained by the use of reason and accepted in conscience. A society is noble and decent, not least for its support of the pursuit of truth and its adherence to the most basic of truths.” [142]

134. The search for truth is an essential element of democracy, which is itself a means of contributing to the common good. When questions about what is true lose their appeal, and a pragmatism takes hold that is content with what appears useful or effective, then democratic life is weakened. After all, democracy does not consist of rules and procedures alone, but above all of a solid concordance with the facts and a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society as a whole. Indifference to the truth leads, slowly but surely, to a descent into totalitarianism. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote, the ideal subjects of such regimes are not so much those who are ideologically convinced, but rather “people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” [143]

Communication and the collective imagination

135. In view of this, it is important to recall that communication “is not only the transmission of information, but it is also the creation of a culture.” [144] The content that circulates within digital environments shapes how people perceive the world and introduces into the collective consciousness images and narratives that direct our desires and influence our daily choices. This is “not a parallel or purely virtual world,” [145] since what originates online now becomes a part of people’s lives, especially of the youngest.

136. For this reason, those who control digital platforms and means of communication have a considerable ability to affect the collective imagination and to present a particular vision of reality as desirable. Such power should be constantly guided by the pursuit of truth and respect for human dignity, so that the culture fostered on the internet does not become an instrument of excessive distraction, homogenization or dominance, but rather a setting in which inner freedom and critical thought can mature.

Toward an ecology of communication

137. Our first task is neither to demonize nor idolize technological tools, but to utilize them on the basis of a fundamental principle, namely that truth is a common good and not the property of those with power or influence. We must therefore promote an ecology of communication. On the level of public policy, this entails establishing norms so that the decision-making behind content selection and its development becomes more transparent and protects personal data. Regarding social and cultural aspects, this requires a strengthening of intermediary organizations, serious journalism and forums for debate, where reasoned argumentation and verification carry greater weight than immediate reaction. For families and schools, there is a growing need for new educational awareness and for formation concerning the proper and critical use of digital tools, AI and online commercial and financial platforms. In universities, the principal challenge lies in the integration of knowledge, cultivating both the capacity to connect and synthesize knowledge in order to grasp complexity, and the skills necessary to verify facts.

138. Christian communities, too, are called to commit themselves to transparency in communication and to the honest pursuit of facts. Sadly, this has not always been the case. We have witnessed with shame the emergence of painful truths concerning even members of the Church and ecclesial realities. In particular, some journalists, driven by a passion for truth, have played a crucial role in bringing injustices and abuses to light. To them, I wish to repeat the words that Pope Francis used in speaking to journalists: “I also thank you for what you tell us about what goes wrong in the Church, for helping us not to sweep it under the carpet, and for the voice you have given to the victims of abuse.” [146] Yet vigilance and transparency remain first and foremost a grave responsibility for the Church herself, and we must not wait for others to compel us to confront uncomfortable truths about ourselves.

An educational alliance for the digital age

139. In an era when truth is often distorted in order to serve particular interests and communication strategies, the field of education assumes decisive importance. Yet rapid technological transformations reveal just how unprepared we are on the educational level. The pervasiveness of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper-stimulation, which gives rise to fatigue, boredom and apathy concerning the effort required for seeking the truth.

140. Education, by contrast, is a long journey requiring patience, and therefore needs time for development and for engagement with reality beyond appearances. This is a fundamental issue because every technology shapes those who use it. Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used. The speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained risk extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which is a process that bears fruit only over time. As Plato wrote, the deepest and most important things are learned only after much time and effort, by engaging in discussion with others, “striking upon” ideas and experiences together like flint until the spark of understanding is kindled within us. [147] We must learn, then, how to exercise restraint in the use of AI and to protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed.

141. In recent years, psychological and psychiatric literature has documented with growing insistence how early and unsupervised exposure to digital devices and social media can negatively impact sleep, attention span, control of emotions and relationships, especially during the most vulnerable stages of life, at times with tragic consequences. This is further aggravated by easy access to violent or degrading content that offends sensibility, to pornographic and hypersexualized material, to messages that trivialize the body and emotions, and to proposals that normalize risky behavior. Online phenomena such as grooming, blackmail and the sexual exploitation of minors are not uncommon, and are made more insidious by the use of fake profiles, algorithms that facilitate dangerous contact, and AI tools capable of manipulating images and videos. Having a personal mobile device at too early an age and using it without adult supervision can exacerbate young people’s vulnerabilities, foster addiction and expose them to isolation, bullying and cyberbullying, as well as to pressures to share intimate images or sensitive information.

142. It is difficult for parents by themselves to resist the influence of business models that monetize attention and time. Therefore, it is essential to form an alliance among policy-makers, educational institutions and families that is capable of concretely supporting adults in this task. Far-sighted public policies are needed to oppose the immediate interests of platforms, concentrated in a few hands, when they conflict with the wellbeing of minors. In this regard, interventions by legislators are appropriate for setting age limits, holding service providers accountable rather than shifting the whole burden of control onto families, and for providing specific protections against all forms of online sexual exploitation and violence. Thus can children and adolescents, who are entrusted to our care, be genuinely protected as a precious treasure. [148] At the same time, it is also necessary to teach children, adolescents and young people how to recognize manipulation, defend their dignity and respect that of others in digital environments. [149]

The central role of schools

143. School is the place where new generations can learn to seek and love the truth, to reflect on the meaning of life and to recognize the dignity of every person. For this reason, many parents, who want their children to grow in the capacity to form relationships, develop critical thinking skills and embrace solid values, place great expectations on schools as valuable partners in their children’s education. Yet parents have the primary and inalienable right to choose the kind of education and formation for their children, in a manner consistent with their moral, cultural and religious convictions. Today, the world of education faces a number of urgent challenges.

144. The first challenge is socio-political. Both within individual nations and across different regions of the world, significant inequalities persist concerning access to basic education and higher studies. In many nations, Governments have not yet invested the necessary resources for guaranteeing a quality education for all, whether by adequately supporting the public school system or by assisting private institutions that offer this essential service. When a substantial portion of education, at various levels, is entrusted to private institutions, access to schooling may become overly dependent on families’ financial means, especially in the absence of adequate public support. In the face of this risk, it is nevertheless important to acknowledge and encourage the contribution of the many private Catholic educational institutions which ensure inclusive access for children and young people of every background, even when families’ economic circumstances would not otherwise allow it.

145. The second major challenge is pedagogical. Many educational systems struggle to keep pace with change and to support the integral development of students. The advance of information technologies and AI is rapidly rendering curricula obsolete that were designed for a different era. Meanwhile, the organization of schools, physical spaces, evaluation methods and the role of teachers themselves must be rethought in order to promote an authentically integral education that addresses every dimension of the person. It is necessary to support the ongoing formation of teachers throughout their professional lives, so that they can engage positively with new technologies, helping students to use them responsibly, critically and creatively, rather than passively succumbing to their influence.

146. The third major challenge is intellectual and concerns knowledge. Without careful attention, an educational system lacking in a love for truth may emerge, in which an incessant flow of information replaces the essential exercise of research, reflection and discernment. As knowledge becomes increasingly fragmented, it becomes difficult to grasp reality as a whole, to ask profound questions about meaning, or to develop authentic, critical and creative thought. Many educators already report signs of dehumanization, where people may “know many things” but struggle to find direction in their lives, partly due to an inability to connect information with deeper knowledge or maintain a sense of purpose. A genuinely healthy attitude is needed, requiring rhythms that incorporate silence, in-depth study, reading and judicious analysis, for without these elements inner freedom may be compromised.

147. The Church’s Social Doctrine invites families, schools, Christian communities and public institutions to form a renewed educational alliance. This takes shape when fundamental principles are translated into educational goals, including teaching students a sense of moderation and limits; recognition of the rights of others and of future generations to enjoy the goods that are either provided for us or made available by human ingenuity; freedom and responsibility; and a sense of transcendence and the common good. Schools are not called to follow the pace of the digital world, but to offer that which the digital sphere by itself cannot provide, namely a shared time for learning and developing trustworthy relationships.

The dignity of work at a time of digital transition

The value of work

148. Since the emergence of her Social Doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, the Church has emphasized the protection of workers and the need to combat all forms of exploitation. Above all, however, the Magisterium has recognized in work “the essential key” [150] to understanding the entire social question, since it is through their work that individuals develop many dimensions of their existence. In view of this, we can understand the great intuition of Saint Benedict of Nursia, who united prayer and work, showing daily activity to be a part of the human response to God’s call. Created in the image of the Creator, our own work in some way continues his, for thereby we contribute to the progress of society and the common good, put to good use the capabilities we have received, improve and beautify the world, support our families, engage in cooperative relationships and, through listening and dialogue, learn to build together something that no one could achieve alone.

149. For these reasons, work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfilment. In this regard, financial assistance to the poor may at times be necessary in emergencies, but it cannot become the sole response, since the goal is to enable each person to live with dignity through his or her own work. [151]

150. Today, the convergence of automation, robotics and AI is rapidly transforming the very structure of work. It is said that this will bring great improvements for everyone. In reality, however, the “new ways” of working are not necessarily better, for “while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, current approaches to technology can paradoxically de-skill workers, subject them to automated surveillance and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks. The need to keep up with the pace of technology can erode workers’ sense of agency and stifle the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work.” [152] Precisely in order to avoid this drift, it is necessary to design systems that are centered on the human person and not solely on performance.

The problem of unemployment

151. Saint John Paul II recognized that unemployment is a grave evil. Indeed, when it reaches massive proportions, it becomes a true social calamity that especially requires the State to exercise responsibility. [153] Today, amid the “fourth industrial revolution,” this concern is even more acute, as innovation is often pursued solely for reducing costs and increasing profits. [154] In some contexts, there is a legitimate fear of a significant and rapid contraction in available jobs that would create a chain reaction deeply impacting families, young people and local economies. In many sectors, this can already be seen in new forms of job insecurity and inequality, characterized by outsized remuneration for a highly specialized minority alongside declining wages for a large portion of the workforce.

152. It is certainly desirable for technology to relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks and to provide intelligent support for human activity. Yet, the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule. The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good.

153. At the same time, we must acknowledge that every real transition involves discontinuities, for it is uneven, fragmented and sometimes conflictual. Consequently, no single model of change or universal solution exists, since there are places and situations that require different responses. Given the inequality that characterizes our world, the spread of AI and computational systems produces varied effects in different places. Wealthy societies automate rapidly and chaotically, reducing the need for a workforce and creating room for unemployment and institutional friction. Vast regions of the world, by contrast, remain trapped in hybrid economies, where underpaid human labor and partial technologies coexist without achieving genuine transformation. These areas become places of precarious labor, and hotbeds of instability and forced migration. Therefore, solutions must be sought at national and local levels through the involvement of intermediary communities. We need adaptive tools, including well-structured models, local initiatives, progressive redistribution and new rights of access to essential goods. While not pursuing an abstract harmony, we must build concrete forms of human coexistence at this time of transformation.

154. Work remains a fundamental dimension of the human experience, for not only is it a means of sustenance, but it is also a context for expression, relationships and contributing to the community. Therefore, the problems related to work extend beyond the income necessary for family survival. A society that guarantees employment to only a small fraction of the population, despite having a high level of technical development, risks exposing many to forced inactivity, a lack of responsibility and the absence of daily tasks and stimuli, resulting in human and cultural impoverishment. This creates a paradox of material progress and anthropological regression that undermines the foundations of a just and stable social peace. For this reason, the Church’s Social Doctrine insists that access to work for all must be a high priority for public policies and economic processes, serving as a criterion for evaluating the human quality of any development model. [155] Moreover, in those parts of the world where work tends to diminish or change radically due to technological and organizational processes outside of democratic control, we must rethink the nature of work and its connection to citizenship, ensuring that unemployment does not jeopardize social participation.

155. In light of this conviction, we can better appreciate the history of the Church’s Social Doctrine after Rerum Novarum. The initiatives which emerged from that tradition, including associations, trade unions, cooperatives and welfare organizations, have contributed decisively to improving labor legislation, protecting the most vulnerable and promoting more humane conditions. [156] Today, however, these instruments are no longer sufficient by themselves in the face of the transformations driven by AI, the new organization of markets and the competitiveness that is rarely concerned with social sustainability. New collaborative efforts are needed among political leaders, labor organizations, the business world and the scientific community in order to develop rapidly adequate shared regulations and protections, including at the international level. [157] Labor unions, which the Church has consistently supported, are called upon to be open to new types of employment and the corresponding needs of workers, in order to represent and defend them. In this context, without bold decisions, the prospect of greater poverty and inequality looms large, which would leave many individuals marginalized, stranded and surrounded by the machines and automated systems that have replaced them.

156. At this time of transition, it is not enough to react only when jobs disappear; we must oversee the transformation in advance. One viable path is, first of all, to establish social criteria for innovation. Here, every introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining and participation of workers. In this way, technology will be oriented toward freeing up human time and capabilities, rather than producing exclusion. Second, we need proactive policies that make continuous training and professional transitions accessible to all, ensuring that the cost of adaptation does not fall solely on individuals. Finally, there needs to be a corporate commitment to include quality and dignity of work among its indicators of success. When these conditions are present, innovation can serve as an ally of safer, more creative and dignified work; without them, innovation tends to become an accelerator of injustice.

An economy that values dignity

157. The labor market is one area in which the risks associated with new technologies more clearly emerge. It is thus necessary to remember that economic freedom is not absolute; it must always be measured against the common good and the dignity of every person. Entrepreneurial initiative can indeed be a true vocation, generating wealth and improving lives, rather than a variable that is dependent only on profit. This is possible when it recognizes that the creation of dignified, valuable jobs are an essential part of its proper service to society. [158]

158. With prophetic spirit, Pope Francis warned against an economic freedom proclaimed in words alone, while actual conditions prevent many from benefiting from it. [159] Economic models that exalt efficiency and individual success often view investment in disadvantaged people or in those with slower development paths as useless or inconvenient, as if their futures depended solely on their ability to keep pace with the “winners.” In reality, a just society requires a vigilant State and civil institutions that are capable of overcoming the singular mentality of efficiency, and of ensuring that resources, creative solutions and regulations favor the most vulnerable. [160] Instead of waiting for the benefits of growth to reach the poor “eventually,” decisions need to be taken to ensure that growth becomes inclusive from the outset. The experience of recent decades shows that in economic and financial crises, it is always the poor who pay the highest price, while the theories that promise automatic general prosperity often prove to be illusory.

159. It is important to move beyond the current metrics of development — which for more than eighty years have been tied to the concept of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — since these metrics almost systematically neglect aspects essential to the overall wellbeing of people and the environment. The development of parameters and metrics complementary to GDP is crucial for improving the databases used for conducting analyses, political and economic decision-making and establishing regional, national and international priorities. The introduction of new parameters will allow for a comprehensive and timely assessment of how legislative and regulatory decisions impact the dignity of work, shared prosperity, inequality reduction and environmental protection. It will also affect the concept of development, educational processes, mindsets and public opinion, as well as peace, which is only authentic when based on justice.

160. In recent years, finance has increased in importance and has undergone significant innovation, driven partly by the introduction of cryptocurrencies. The reflections and observations contained in the teaching of my predecessors, particularly in their Encyclicals, have highlighted how the financial intermediation sector, “when operating without the necessary anthropological and moral foundations, has not only produced manifest abuses and injustice, but also demonstrated a capacity to create systemic and worldwide economic crisis.” [161] It is likewise the case that income from capital risks replacing income from labor, which is often confined to the margins of the economic system’s primary interests. Yet savings transformed into credit for the real economy, thereby creating both jobs and self-employed work, remain central for development and the investments that must accompany ongoing transitions. The social function of credit remains irreplaceable. Finance for its own sake is fundamentally different from finance aimed at the development, creation and evolution of work.

161. This perspective needs to become part of a broader view of global dynamics. While the world’s wealth has grown in absolute terms, it is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands, widening inequalities both within and between countries. “There are a few who have too much, and too many who have little, that is the logic of today.” [162] Scientific and technological advances, even in the medical field, are not easily accessible to the vast majority of people, as was dramatically demonstrated during the recent pandemic. While some regions spend heavily on superfluous interventions or dreams of individual enhancement accessible only to a select few, other parts of the world lack the essential equipment needed to save millions of human lives. To think that new technologies will automatically benefit everyone is to ignore the evidence. Unless transformations at the design stage prioritize the prevention of new and further disparities, technological progress will inevitably produce structural inequalities. Today, justice requires access to the benefits of innovation, including care, knowledge, tools and opportunities.

162. Just laws and methods of redistribution are certainly necessary for correcting imbalances, including tax systems that lighten the burden on the weakest and ask for more from those with greater resources. However, the pursuit of social justice should not be considered a separate issue that follows only after the production of wealth, as if the economy existed solely to create wealth, with politicians only intervening afterwards in order to distribute it. Indeed, justice concerns every phase of economic activity, from resource acquisition to financing, and from production to consumption; every choice has moral consequences. [163]

163. More than ever, in the age of AI and robotics, it is no longer possible to rely solely on the “invisible hand” of the market. [164] Politics has the task of orientating economies and technologies to the common good, promoting dignified work, social inclusion and an equitable distribution of the benefits of innovation. Since many economic decisions transcend national borders, there is also a need for international cooperation capable of defining common strategies, especially in favor of the most vulnerable countries and people, in order to promote development and overcome welfare dependency. The thinking behind these choices is the immeasurable dignity of every person, the common good and a world truly governed for everyone. The interdependence between peace and development, as Saint Paul VI prophetically wrote in 1967, [165] remains applicable today, for prosperity contributes to building and reinforcing peace only if it is widespread, inclusive and sustainable.

164. In practical terms, in the age of AI and robotics, ensuring that the economy favors human dignity means adopting certain criteria for firm action. First, transparency and accountability: when data and algorithms influence credit distribution, personnel selection or access to services and opportunities, it is necessary that decisions be understandable, contestable and subject to oversight, so that individuals are not reduced to mere profiles. Second, inclusion and access: the benefits of innovation must be paired with investments in skills, infrastructure and essential services to ensure that technology does not widen the gap between those who have and those who have not. Finally, measures to ensure equity: taxation, social protection and industrial policies must correct the imbalances created by the concentration of wealth and power. Indeed, these criteria do not constitute a curb on innovation; instead they make it civilized and humane.

Families and young people: the social conditions for hope

165. The family is a primary social good. Founded on the enduring union between a man and a woman, it is the first environment in which all persons develop their potential, become aware of their dignity and learn the earliest forms of truth and goodness, internalizing the habits that prepare them for life in society. [166] As the first natural society, endowed with foundational rights, the family is the fundamental and irreplaceable cell of every community organization. [167] Consequently, when political projects and major economic decisions relegate the family to a marginal or secondary role, the authentic growth of the entire social body is compromised. [168]

166. The family, however, is a fragile social good immediately affected by the economic and technological transformations reshaping the nature of work. It thus requires cultural, juridical and economic support. The devastating impact of unemployment and job insecurity on family structures is well known. In the short term, it may seem advantageous to reduce labor costs or maximize financial efficiency, but in the long term this undermines the very foundations of social coexistence. While technological successes are celebrated, the social fabric is progressively eroded, as if by a silent virus.

167. For young people, job insecurity is particularly devastating. As the Bishops of the United States of America have recalled, work is not merely a source of income but a crucial sphere in which identity is formed, friendships and relationships are forged, practical responsibilities are learned and one’s vocation is discerned. [169] When access to work is hindered by high levels of unemployment, inadequate systems of training or structural barriers, many young people find the path to their human and professional fulfilment blocked. The need to change jobs several times over the course of life requires that continuous updating and retraining be provided, so that new generations can competently and independently face the risks of an economic environment that is both changing and often unpredictable. [170]

168. This gives rise to a specific public responsibility. The State has the duty to support business activity by fostering conditions favorable to employment, promoting work where it is lacking and defending it in times of crisis, since it is a primary good for families and for society. [171] Particularly in an age of continuous technological transformation, we need a political creativity that will promote “work” and place the family and coming generations at the center; otherwise our economic progress will translate into new forms of insecurity and exclusion.

169. Supporting families and young people in this transition requires choices that make stability feasible. As has been noted above, labor policies need to promote continuity and the quality of employment, countering insecurity as a normal condition of life and encouraging realistic paths for entry into the workforce and for professional growth. Second, measures are needed to ensure a healthy way of living, for without a proper balance between work, leisure and rest, families are weakened and young people struggle to develop a sense of responsibility. Furthermore, it is essential to invest in accessible education and retraining, so that the professional mobility demanded by the digital economy does not become a harsh selection between those who are able to update their skills and those who cannot. Finally, social ties must be supported, with networks and educational communities that accompany life choices and prevent uncertainty from giving rise to loneliness or addictions. If implemented, these technological transformations can be navigated without undermining the capacity to build the future, which is what makes a society prosperous.

Protecting freedom against dependencies and commercialization

Dependencies and societal control

170. Having reflected on truth and education, work and families, we must now consider the impact of the digital revolution on human freedom, addressing risks to both the mental health of individuals and broader social challenges. The subtler forms of addiction linked to the “digital attention economy” should not be underestimated, since platforms and services are often designed to capture users’ time and attention, exploiting their vulnerabilities and weakening their inner freedom. When business models thrive on human weakness, the person is treated as a means rather than as an end; those who design or finance such systems bear a moral responsibility that cannot be ignored. There is an urgent need to promote technologies that strengthen interior freedom by fostering education in digital sobriety and the protection of minors, thus countering models that exploit vulnerability.

171. A further risk, less visible but no less serious, is that of social control made possible by the massive collection of data and use of algorithmic systems. When every action—movements, purchases, relationships and preferences—leaves a trace, a new form of power emerges, namely the power to profile, predict and influence behavior, often without individuals being fully aware of it. If such kinds of data are used to make decisions affecting concrete opportunities — such as access to credit, employment or essential services — there is a risk of undermining freedom and discriminating against the most vulnerable. Furthermore, control is exercised not only through explicit prohibitions, but also through the architecture of visibility: what is amplified or rendered invisible, what is rewarded or penalized, ultimately shapes opinions and choices, fostering conformity and self-censorship. For this reason, freedom in the digital age is not merely a matter of interiority but also a public concern. It calls for clear rules, transparency, the possibility of recourse and proportionate limits on the use of intrusive technologies, so that technology will remain at the service of the human person and not become a form of control over consciences.

172. At the root of these problems lies a technocratic and post-humanist mentality that tends to regard the human person as an object to be manipulated or a resource to be optimized, [172] removing all safeguards against the unchecked pursuit of profit. What prevails is efficiency, rather than respect for freedom and human dignity. Some post-humanist currents even go so far as to envision “second-class” human beings, subordinate to the interests of elites who consider themselves superior. This troubling prospect becomes all the more serious when combined with technological tools that exponentially increase the capacity for control and selection. Even certain forms of structural indebtedness, which keep entire peoples in conditions of dependence, reflect the same mentality, in new forms, that tolerates relationships of subordination akin to slavery.

Breaking the chains of new forms of slavery

173. This distorted view of the human person is reflected today in various forms of servitude directly linked to the digital economy. Nothing in the world of AI is immaterial or magical. 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. A significant part of the digital economy’s functioning relies on the silent work of millions of people engaged in essential yet largely unseen activities, such as data labeling, model training and content moderation, often involving disturbing material. In many cases, these workers are young people, predominantly women, working under demanding conditions for minimal wages. Added to this invisible labor is the even harsher work of extracting the resources required for the production of the devices and microprocessors on which AI depends. In some regions of the world, children and adolescents work in dangerous conditions, crushing the materials from which rare earth elements are extracted. The bodies of these people are scarred, injured and worn down so that computational flow may continue uninterruptedly. Furthermore, criminal networks use online platforms, messaging systems, anonymous payment methods and profiling techniques in order to recruit, control and transport victims of trafficking — very often minors — reducing men and women to “data” to be tracked and “packages” to be moved around within the same digital circuits that support much of the global economy. This reality deeply challenges the moral conscience of our time. It is not enough to invoke efficiency, nor to celebrate the benefits of innovation, if they are built on a chain of exploitation that remains deliberately hidden. If technology promises emancipation, yet produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity.

174. The fight against new forms of slavery is a decisive test for the ethical discernment of AI and digital transformation. In continuity with the tradition inaugurated by Leo XIII, the Church renews her firm condemnation of all forms of slavery, trafficking and the commodification of persons. She likewise highlights the urgent need for reflection and action that keep the inalienable dignity of every human being and the common good, as both the focus and goal of society, as well as the guiding criteria for every personal, social and political choice. Without this ethical and humanizing reflection, the growing power of digital systems could lead us toward new atrocities that are no less shameful than those of the past that we now deplore, while we continue to present ourselves as “advanced” and “civilized” societies.

175. Human trafficking must be recognized as a contemporary form of slavery and a grave violation of human dignity. Failing to respond firmly, or tolerating these practices in any way, is in some way to become complicit in today’s sins, which are akin to those of the past when slavery was being concealed and justified. [173]

176. In the development of her doctrine, the Church has gradually come to a deeper awareness of the gravity of these issues. It is true that past events cannot be judged anachronistically, as though the moral criteria that matured over time had always been available. Yet neither can we deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce the scourge of slavery. In antiquity and the Middle Ages many individuals and even ecclesiastical institutions had slaves. Already in the early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to requests from Sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, the enslavement of “infidels.” [174] It was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated, notably under Pope Leo XIII. [175] This development offers a clear example of the Church’s growth in understanding the perennial truths of Revelation that she safeguards. Although there was not always consistency in practice — given that slavery was long tolerated before being unequivocally condemned — there has been a continuous affirmation throughout history of the dignity of every human being, created in the image of God, even if it took eighteen centuries for its full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly recognized. This constitutes a wound in Christian memory, one from which we cannot consider ourselves detached. [176] It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord. For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon.

177. This is why the memory of past complicity and blindness in the face of the injustice of slavery becomes a call to vigilance. What we have learned must be translated into discernment and responsibility in the present. If we want to avoid the need to ask for pardon again in the future for having failed to respect the treasure of human dignity that is required by our faith, it falls to us today to denounce, clearly and firmly, trafficking in its many forms and, together with all who are committed to this cause, to support concrete efforts of prevention, protection, liberation and rehabilitation.

178. Even today, colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data, transforming personal lives into exploitable information. Entire regions, especially those marked by structural fragility and limited geopolitical relevance, are currently subjected to a new mindset of extraction: that of health data, epidemiological profiles, genetic maps and demographic information. These have become the new “rare earths” of power: vital data which, once aggregated and analyzed, can be used to train predictive models, guide investment strategies, anticipate crises and, above all, determine who and what is deemed to matter. Those who control the health data of entire peoples — often collected under the pretext of aid, research or innovation — possess a structural leverage over the future, for they can shape needs and markets. They can also decide, before others, to whom medicines, investments and protections will be allocated. Here lies one of the most urgent moral challenges of our time: to ensure that shared knowledge becomes a true common good rather than an instrument of dominance. This requires restoring to individuals not only the data that describes them, but also the ability to decide how it is used, by whom and for whose benefit. Otherwise, the digital age will not be post-colonial, but colonial in another form.

179. New forms of slavery are fueled by economic chains and digital infrastructures. Therefore, action is required on several fronts. First, the supply chains that underpin the technological industry and the digital economy need to become more transparent, so that no competitive advantage is built upon hidden exploitation. Second, companies and investors need to adopt clear criteria for preventive ethical verification (due diligence), placing among their priorities the protection of workers, the fight against forced labor and the assessment of the social impact of data-driven business models. Furthermore, digital platforms must cooperate responsibly with authorities and civil society to prevent communication, payment and profiling tools from becoming channels for the recruitment and control of victims. When such efforts converge, the digital environment can be transformed from a space of exploitation into one of protection, prevention and the promotion of human dignity.

A shared responsibility

180. 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.

181. From this perspective, the Social Doctrine of the Church calls for a shared responsibility. It asks that these processes be guided with foresight: by institutions capable of regulating without stifling, and protecting without taking over; by businesses that recognize work and dignity as measures of success; by intermediary organizations and educational communities that rebuild trust and relationships; and by citizens who cultivate responsibility, moderation, discernment and a sense of truth. Only in this way can innovation genuinely serve integral human development, rather than becoming a source of exclusion and dominance. And only in this way can the promise of progress be recognized as authentic, because it is measured against the inviolable dignity of every man and woman.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE CULTURE OF POWER AND THE CIVILIZATION OF LOVE

182. Having considered how AI is transforming certain aspects of life and society, in particular the serious implications for human dignity, we must now turn our attention to the yet more tragic issue of war. Here the question is not merely the efficiency of new tools, but also the risk that technology, detached from ethics and responsibility, will render decisions about life and death more rapid and impersonal, and will present the use of force as an immediate and viable option. In an increasingly interdependent world, peace is not simply one issue among others, but a prerequisite for the universal common good and a test of the moral maturity of peoples, especially of those who bear responsibility for governing.

183. The digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict. Alongside conventional warfare, there are hybrid forms such as cyberattacks, information manipulation, campaigns of influence and the automation of strategic decisions. AI acts as an accelerating factor in these processes, particularly within a context where many technologies are intrinsically ambivalent. Consequently, what is created for defense can be rapidly repurposed for offense, and the fine line between protection and aggression becomes blurred. While AI can enhance the defense and protection of civilians, it can also lower the threshold for the use of force, shield people from responsibility and foster a culture in which the enemy is reduced to a statistic and the victim to “collateral damage.” Faced with these transformations, we must recall the principles of Social Doctrine — the dignity of the person, the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and justice — for they are criteria for judging whether technologies truly serve humanity or are subjugating it. We should, therefore, consider these principles as guidelines for our decision-making.

184. In this chapter, therefore, I will compare two opposing approaches, which I have already evoked through biblical imagery in the Introduction. On the one hand, there is the temptation of constructing the Tower of Babel, relying on power and pride. On the other hand, patience is required in order to rebuild Jerusalem “piece by piece,” as in the time of Nehemiah, by safeguarding humanity and the common good.

185. If we examine global dynamics, we can recognize more clearly the spread of a culture of power characterized by polarization and violence. The modern Babel can be seen not only in the globalized technocratic paradigm, but also in the remote clash between opposing imperialisms, between powers that wish to preserve their supremacy, and those that aspire to seize that supremacy, resulting in a multiplicity of local conflicts. Moreover, there seems to be no limit to the race — driven by a dehumanizing ambition — to develop evermore powerful technologies or to secure control over them. Yet, despite this downward spiral, we can also glimpse a great part of humanity that is striving to remain human and working to build the holy city of coexistence and peace. All too often, we are unwitting builders and clumsy architects of this city, capable of generous gestures but lacking an overall vision. This building project is slower, less visible and less spectacular, and awaits a better understanding and greater coordination so that it may become the conscious and clear responsibility of every community, from families to States, and the relations between Nations. It is this prospect of commitment, this construction site of hope, that we call the “civilization of love.”

The civilization of love in the digital age

186. When Saint Paul VI coined the phrase “the civilization of love,” [177] the world was in the midst of the Cold War, an arms race and severe economic instability. In that context, the Church proposed an alternative path to that of ideological opposition between systems, and envisioned a social order in which justice and charity are intertwined and love becomes the guiding principle of economic, political and cultural life. Today, we must resolutely recover this vision, for the civilization of love is no naïve utopia, but a demanding project, which consists in translating charity into structures of justice, giving institutional form to fraternity and regarding others — whether individuals or peoples — as allies necessary for building the common good. As the Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti reminded us, only this social love is capable of becoming a culture and a norm, and thereby of bringing about a stable international order, transforming mere armed coexistence into a community with a shared future. [178]

187. This insight proves even more fundamental in the current context of digital transformation. Digital networks, the globalized economy and the development of AI create increasingly tighter bonds, linking — in real time — decisions made in one place to the effects they produce elsewhere. In this sense, the words of the Second Vatican Council on the growing interdependence between peoples remain timely, for the common good is taking on an increasingly universal dimension, with rights and duties concerning the entire human family. [179] The project for a civilization of love, therefore, must undertake the task of transforming this imposed interdependence into a willed and chosen solidarity. This is the guiding principle for technological processes: it is not enough for artificial intelligence to make us more efficient or connected; it must also serve to build a universal human family, with shared rights and duties, where digital proximity becomes a real opportunity for encounter and mutual care.

The culture of power

188. In our time, a culture of power is taking hold, in which the availability of resources and the ability to dominate tend to dictate the agenda and criteria for decision-making. In this way, the common good of humanity is relegated to the background and the concrete tragedy of peoples at war is reduced to a secondary consideration in relation to strategic interests. This culture of power infiltrates society, changes relationships and behaviors, and grows by normalizing war, pursuing ever-greater military power, taking advantage of the crisis of multilateralism and fueling a false realism that insists that there is no alternative.

The normalization of war

189. In 1965, the words of Saint Paul VI resounded powerfully at the UN General Assembly: “Never again war, never again war!” [180] We must acknowledge that, despite the desires and declarations for peace, the past sixty years have been marked by conflicts of astonishing brutality, often affecting civilian populations on a massive scale, leading to the death of innocent victims, mass displacement, social destabilization and long-lasting wounds. Nevertheless, in public discourse, there was a widespread conviction that war should remain a last resort, subject to strict ethical and legal limits, and always oriented toward a political vision of peace. Following developments in the immediate post-First World War period, a turning point occurred after the Second World War: peace was made the focus of the international order, as attested in particular by the United Nations Charter, with the intention to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” [181] Likewise, many national constitutions restricted the use of force to extreme and strictly limited circumstances. Even during the Cold War, despite the existence of serious conflicts, there remained the awareness that a new world war had to be avoided at all costs.

190. Today, however, we are witnessing a real paradigm shift in public discourse and in decisions regarding rearmament, with a troubling revival of war as an instrument of international politics, while the very ethical principles that had previously limited its use are being eroded. Regional conflicts that drag on over time, escalating tensions and reciprocal threats are becoming almost commonplace, and forms of conflict driven by the desire for territorial expansion that were thought to be overcome are re-emerging. Public opinion is gradually being shaped and conditioned by polarizing media narratives, which are often amplified by algorithms that prioritize conflict and confrontation.

191. We are also witnessing a disconcerting loss of historical memory, as first-hand accounts of the Holocaust and the two World Wars are disappearing. This leads to a selective or distorted rewriting of the past, in a context where fake news and the manipulation of narratives obscure the lessons that have been learned. Without a living memory of the horrors of war, political decisions risk being made on the basis of power alone, without any consideration for the long-term consequences.

192. To all of this, the media and digital dimensions are adding new and decisive elements. Communication networks, fragmented information environments and algorithms that reward conflict can magnify polarization and resentment, increase propaganda and make shared discernment more difficult. Thus, war is not only fought, but also culturally conditioned through simplistic narratives, a friend-or-foe mentality, disinformation and fear. When historical memory fades and the ethical principles that protect civilians and the most vulnerable are weakened, it becomes easier to justify violence as necessary, inevitable or even “sanitized.” It is in this context that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts. Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. [182] Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.

Force without limits

193. The growth of the military-industrial complex has become a defining feature of the current political landscape and has become a key sector in the economy of various countries. The close link between economic interests, the military apparatus and political decisions produces an “armed nation,” in which war appears as a natural extension of politics, and the arms market becomes an autonomous driving force behind military decisions. Nor can we ignore the enormous economic interests behind war. The armaments industry, and countries that supply weapons, profit from a market that thrives precisely on conflicts. In this sense, there are also financial interests that contribute to fueling tensions in various regions of the world.

194. Military arsenals are receiving renewed attention. In the past, recognition of the threat posed by weapons capable of destroying all of humanity had promoted paths toward détente and disarmament negotiations. Unfortunately, this approach has been left behind, and the evolution of nuclear arsenals — including the prospect of its “tactical” use — makes the use of such weapons seem less improbable. In this context, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force in 2021 with the support of over seventy countries, is an important step. However, it risks remaining largely symbolic since the major nuclear powers have not agreed to it. This has led to the widespread yet erroneous belief that nuclear deterrence is an indispensable prerequisite for security. This has also contributed to a new arms race, which is hard to control and accompanied by the gradual dismantling of nuclear reduction agreements, as well as the development of “miniaturized” weapons, that make their use seem like a more viable option.

195. The same logic applies to conventional warfare. Military force, weak diplomatic initiatives and the complexity of the interests at stake contribute to conflicts that tend to become protracted, with extremely high human and environmental costs. It is much easier to start a war than to stop it, and yet, discussion on conflict prevention remains tragically marginal.

196. The situation is further destabilized by the presence of new armed operatives, such as jihadist groups, private militias and criminal networks that mark the end of the State’s monopoly on the use of force. Often these groups intertwine vague ideological motivations with concrete economic interests, transforming war into a “way of life” for entire generations of young people and children. Here, the objective is no longer a definitive victory, but the perpetuation of conflict as a source of power and income.

Weapons and artificial intelligence

197. The above-mentioned scenario is linked to the unceasing development of weapons systems, particularly those involving AI. The Holy See has recently observed that the growing ease with which autonomous weapons systems can be deployed makes war more “feasible” and less subject to human control. This violates the principle that armed force should be used only as a last resort in cases of legitimate self-defense. [183] For this reason, the development and use of AI in warfare must be subject to the most rigorous ethical constraints, to guarantee respect for human dignity and the sanctity of life and to avoid a race to develop such arms. [184]

198. Sometimes there is talk of “artificial moral agents,” as if machines were able to distinguish between right and wrong with greater consistency than a human being. Yet moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the recognition of the other as a person. Therefore, it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems. No algorithm can make war morally acceptable. AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; indeed it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence, transforming defense into threat prediction and thus reducing victims to data. In this way, it will accustom us to the idea that violence is inevitable and needs only to be optimized. This does not diminish the importance of instilling, as far as possible, values and sound judgment into the artificial systems we build, so that they can contribute to a moral ecosystem in which humans are better able to listen to their own consciences, as well as allowing AI models to establish appropriate boundaries.

199. It is not enough to invoke a generic type of ethics. Concrete criteria for discernment must be established. The first such criterion concerns personal responsibility. When a decision to strike becomes automated or opaque, the risk of abdicating responsibility increases. For this reason, the chain of responsibility must be identifiable and verifiable; those who design, train, authorize and employ technology must be held accountable for their decisions. The second criterion pertains to the moral timeframe for making judgments. While AI tends to expedite the decision-making processes, speed and efficiency should never be the supreme motivating force for the irreversible decisions made in the context of war. The third criterion is the identification and protection of civilians. Any technology that facilitates attacks without seeing the face of human beings lowers the moral threshold of conflict. Target selection and the use of force must not confuse combatants and non-combatants, nor ignore the impact on defenseless populations.

200. These criteria give rise to certain non-negotiable requirements. First, all systems used in a war setting must guarantee the possibility of retracing and reconstructing decision-making processes, so that accountability and blame are not collapsed into “the machine.” Second, the decision to use lethal force cannot be delegated to opaque or automated processes, but must remain under effective, self-aware and responsible human control. Finally, it is imperative to establish a shared framework — also at the international level — in order to curb the technological arms race and ensure robust protection for civilians and the infrastructures necessary for their survival.

The crisis of multilateralism

201. The culture of power also stems from the crisis of the multilateral system. The institutions established to safeguard the concept of a common future for all peoples and a global common good appear to have been weakened. This is due not only to structural limitations, but also to a frequent lack of shared will to support and reform them, or to recognize their moral authority. Instead of making progress, we are regressing from the significant turning point of the twentieth century. After 1989, the collapse of communist regimes in Europe was followed by a predominantly economic globalization, which lacked an adequate political framework capable of sustaining dialogue and peace. An almost blind faith was placed in the ability of the markets to generate prosperity, democracy and stability. In reality, rather than automatically generating unity and peace, globalization has provoked fundamentalist, identity-based and nationalistic reactions. The result is a far cry from genuine multilateralism; instead, what has appeared is a disorderly and conflict-ridden multipolarism with a prevailing sense of mistrust.

202. What has also re-emerged is the temptation to forge a collective identity in opposition to an enemy, fueled by narratives in which each party portrays itself as a victim entitled to retribution. The reduction of complex issues into simplistic categories — “me first,” “friend or foe,” “us or them” — facilitates decisions that are often irresponsible and undermine mutual trust among nations. The force of international law is thus replaced by the claim that “might makes right.” Consequently, tribunals that are competent for settling disputes between States or dealing with war crimes are often weakened or bypassed, with devastating ramifications for political culture and social cohesion. [185]

203. In this context, peacebuilding has been relegated to a secondary role. Cooperation for development, disarmament, conflict prevention and the establishment of mutual trust are neglected in the name of power politics. The achievements of humanitarian law are also being compromised. Indeed, the principle of proportionality in responding to aggression, the protection of access to water, food and essential goods, and respect for the lives of civilians, especially children, come to be regarded as naïve relics of the past.

A supposed political realism

204. We live at a time of significant spiritual and cultural blindness. A false pragmatism urges us to sever the roots of our history, as if it were possible to inaugurate a kind of “new creation” detached from the past. Even those who cite important moral principles can fall into this historical nihilism, mistakenly believing that the atrocities of the twentieth century can never happen again. Yet, in reality, the same dynamics are re-emerging under new guises. The mentality of armed equilibrium and deterrence appears to be reasserting itself. Today, however, in contrast to the two-sided dynamic of the Cold War, the proliferation of operatives and battlefields makes this mentality increasingly fragile. Escalating conflicts lead to asymmetric and “hybrid” wars, fought not only on the battleground but also on the economic, financial and cyber fronts, where disinformation and campaigns that feed people’s fears are used to manipulate public opinion. In many countries, including those in the Global South, increased military spending is presented as the only response to an uncertain future or perceived threats. Meanwhile, the real cost falls on the poorest, who see resources for healthcare, education and social services being reduced.

205. At the core of these issues is a false realism, based not only on the prevailing mentality of force, but on the cultural and anthropological belief that war is an inevitable part of human nature. It is said that things have always been this way, except for occasional pauses, and that it will always be so! As a result, the concern is no longer the search for peace — which has been lost as a point of reference on the international stage — but rather how and when to take military action. This same argument maintains that it would be irresponsible not to prepare for conflict. I would argue, however, that what is truly irresponsible is Realpolitik, the form of political “realism” that sows in consciences and in society an attitude of resignation to the inevitability of war, and dismisses peace and dialogue as utopian or irrational positions that ignore the risks at stake. In fact, peace is neither a naïve hope nor merely the absence of war; instead, it is always possible as the fruit of justice and charity.

206. In such a climate, nihilism and pragmatism become intertwined and end up normalizing grave errors. Religious extremism and identity-based fanaticism ally themselves with irrational economic policies, while politics often turns to misinformation and ridiculing opponents, and systematically cultivating fears and resentments. Thus, diversity is increasingly perceived as a threat, which fuels a desire for possession, a will to dominate, hegemonic ambitions, abuses of power and a fear of those who are different, thereby creating an environment in which new conflicts can develop almost imperceptibly. [186]

207. This, then, is the fertile ground for new wars that are perhaps even more dangerous than those of the past, since they tend to disregard all ethical limits. What was once considered unacceptable can now be carried out almost without hesitation, while the international response is increasingly influenced more by the interests of individual Governments than by the objective gravity of situations. Decisions now seem to be driven almost exclusively by economic calculations, justified through media distortions, manufactured enthusiasm and “dreams” that inevitably shatter, generating frustration and further violence. When people come to believe that nothing is genuinely true and that principles are hollow words, then the fuse in their hearts is lit for new eruptions of intolerance and aggression.

208. In these situations, the issue of concrete safeguards to prevent future violence remains an open question. When a culture normalizes and justifies conflict, a dangerous pathway opens up, in that what seems unthinkable today may become acceptable tomorrow in the name of utility or security. In countries marked by serious social tensions, we cannot rule out the possibility that some leaders may consider armed conflict as an effective way of diverting attention from domestic problems and a cynical tool for managing difficulties.

209. A particular responsibility rests on the shoulders of those who work in the field of research. All the key players in this field — scientists, business owners, investors, academic authorities, politicians and others — must work with a transparent and responsible mindset, while maintaining an acute awareness of the broader context of the technological advancements they help to cultivate, including those related to AI. When people limit themselves to looking only at their own sector, they may deceive themselves into believing they are performing actions that are morally neutral and avoid questions about the ultimate ends that guide certain experiments. In this way, they risk cooperating — perhaps unknowingly — with questionable projects that fuel new forms of violence, manipulation and dominance.

Building the civilization of love

210. The construction of a world in a state of perpetual conflict is an evil and must be named for what it is. This way of portraying our current situation may seem bleak or pessimistic, yet I consider it necessary to do so. The Christian perspective, however, is not limited to denouncing evil. We view history in the light of the crucified and risen Lord, to whom the Father has given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18). We do not consider the present as a predetermined fate, but an opportunity for personal and collective conversion. Moreover, we believe in the power of the Kingdom, which grows from the tiny size of a mustard seed, which, once sown, sprouts and grows (cf. Mk 4:26-32). While the tumult of confusion is all around us, goodness grows silently from the earth. In the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?” (Is 43:19).

211. A closer analysis of history confirms this. Even in the darkest nights, the Lord raises up men and women who refuse to give up, who persevere in doing good, who protect the vulnerable and open pathways to reconciliation. The memory of the saints, righteous people and the oft-forgotten peacemakers, show us that grace does not magically eliminate conflict, but instead it inspires active resistance to evil and an astonishing creativity in doing good. Christians see the darkness and acknowledge it for what it is, yet they do not merely gaze upon it passively, for they know the light and understand that the darkness has not overcome it and cannot defeat it (cf. Jn 1:5). For this reason, even when suffering seems to have the last word, Christians serve the good and are sustained by a theological hope that gives reality both meaning and direction.

We can all do our part

212. At this point, however, a subtle temptation may emerge, namely the thought that the problems are too big and we are too small, and that our choices, therefore, cannot make a difference. This is a polite form of resignation, often disguised as realism. Certainly, not everyone has the same power to make a difference. There are those who govern, make investment decisions, lead institutions, conduct research, educate, produce or provide information, and then there are those who only seem to live their daily lives. Yet, no one is without responsibility. We all have our own areas for action, and it is precisely there — and nowhere else — that we must choose whether to fuel the mentality of force (even if only through indifference, cynicism, lies or hatred), or to preserve the mindset of peace (with truth, moderation, closeness and care).

213. The twentieth-century Catholic author J.R.R. Tolkien, in the words of a protagonist in one of his novels, described our responsibility in this way: “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.” [187] The civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization. For this reason, it is worthwhile pausing to reflect on some aspects of how we, each in our own way, can cooperate in building the civilization of love. Without presuming to exhaust this theme, I would like to propose five paths toward daily and public responsibility: the need to disarm words, building peace through justice, adopting the perspective of victims, cultivating a healthy realism and reviving dialogue and multilateralism.

The need to disarm words

214. The first contribution we can make toward a more humane civilization is to be mindful of our words. “Let us disarm words and we will help to disarm the world.” [188] Words have enormous power, something we experience in our daily interactions; for example, spoken words can change our mood for better or for worse. “Peace begins with each one of us: in the way we look at others, listen to others and speak about others. In this sense, the way we communicate is of fundamental importance: we must say ‘no’ to the war of words and images, we must reject the paradigm of war.” [189] We must all, therefore, examine our conscience regarding the words we use, the prejudices we have and the explicit or implicit aggression that lies within them. We have a real opportunity to contribute to the common good each time we speak the truth, offer wise advice, support those in need of comfort, denounce injustice and give a voice to the voiceless.

Building peace through justice

215. All of us, at every level, can contribute to building the foundation of peace, which is justice. We do not merely seek any kind of peace — such as an absence of conflict at any cost — but instead, the true peace born of justice. “There exists a very close connection between the justice of the individual and the peace of everyone.” [190] Commenting on the psalm verse “justice and peace have embraced” ( Ps 84:11), Saint Augustine wrote: “There is no one who shuns the desire for peace, yet not everyone is willing to practice justice… But perform the works of justice, keeping in mind that justice and peace have embraced; they are not at odds with one another. Why do you set yourself against justice? Here, for example, is justice telling you not to steal, but you pay no heed; not to commit adultery, and you turn a deaf ear; not to do to others what you would not want done to yourself; not to say about your neighbor the things you would not want said about yourself… Do you therefore wish to attain peace? Then practice justice!” [191] Let us never grow weary of seeking justice!

Adopting the perspective of victims

216. There are times when, in order to remain human, we must set aside our reservations and take a stand. In some conflicts, it is unjust to remain neutral, nor is it enough merely to claim that we are not complicit. [192] When we witness the bombing of civilians, attacks on hospitals, schools or vital infrastructure, and violence that affects children, we are confronted with scandals that wound humanity itself. For this reason, we cannot limit ourselves to the level of abstract analysis. Pope Francis encouraged us to “touch the wounded flesh” [193] of those who suffer, look at their faces, listen to their stories and acknowledge their wounds. Painful events require both history and memory, the former to recount the facts, the latter to bear witness to lived experiences.

217. Giving space to the perspectives and voices of victims through communication and education helps us to become aware of the abyss of evil inherent in war, and generally in all forms of violence. It helps us to reject the normalization of conflict; not to turn away when human dignity is violated; and to restore to victims the dignity of being recognized and heard. [194] Paying attention to these voices strengthens the conviction that, apart from violent minorities, humanity does not desire war. In a particular way, the Church can be a place of living memory for victims. As Saint Paul VI recalled, the Church feels she must make her own both the voice of those who died in past wars and the voice of the living who still bear wounds today, so that their cries may become an appeal for peace and harmony and not a prelude to new conflicts. [195]

Cultivating a healthy realism

218. We are in need of a healthy realism that avoids both political idealism and cynicism. There is a kind of idealism that, in order to preserve its own worldview, tends to choose facts selectively, distorting and renaming them. Its proponents eventually, inhabit a reality constructed to fit their own convictions. Conversely, there is also a debased form of realism that confuses observation with resignation, arguing that since force prevails, it will always prevail. Authentic realism does not give up on changing the world; indeed, it starts by clearly identifying interests, fears, constraints and power dynamics, precisely in order to determine what can be achieved, and the measures needed to achieve it. It does not reduce politics to morality; neither does it surrender to violence. Instead, it seeks viable paths for making peace more than a mere word, through credible institutions, verifiable guarantees, patient negotiations, conflict prevention and the protection of civilians.

Reviving dialogue

219. In order to build the civilization of love, we must engage in dialogue, for this is the primary means of coexistence between people and nations, and it is the alternative to open conflict. On the eve of the Second World War, Pius XII affirmed that nothing is lost with peace, whereas with war everything can be lost. He insisted that people must return to speaking with one another, because a sincere and persevering dialogue always opens up the possibility of an honorable solution. [196]

220. Indeed, dialogue is an ordinary part of human life and does not only concern relations between States. It involves acquiring an attitude that seeks to forge bonds of fraternity built on listening, an open demeanor, making time for each other and even wasting time together. For if we experience authentic encounters with others, with those who are different, strangers and migrants, it becomes much more difficult even to imagine war.

221. At the political level, there is an urgent need to shift from the “culture of power” to a genuine “culture of negotiation,” in which dialogue and diplomacy become the standard means of resolving conflicts. Giorgio La Pira expressed the hope that “the method of war be replaced by the method of peace: the method of negotiation, of encounter, of convergence, that is, the authentically human method!” [197] The awareness that all peoples share a common future demands that the “culture of negotiation” become an increasingly shared political and cultural commitment, capable of gradually leading humanity away from the cycle of violence.

222. To those who have the honor and responsibility of governing, I would like to repeat the words that I spoke at the start of my Pontificate: “The peoples of our world desire peace, and to their leaders I appeal with all my heart: Let us meet, let us talk, let us negotiate! War is never inevitable. Weapons can and must be silenced, for they do not resolve problems but only increase them. Those who make history are the peacemakers, not those who sow seeds of suffering. Our neighbors are not first our enemies, but our fellow human beings; not criminals to be hated, but other men and women with whom we can speak. Let us reject the Manichean notions so typical of that mindset of violence that divides the world into those who are good and those who are evil.” [198]

223. In rejecting the mindset of violence, interreligious dialogue plays a decisive role, because at the heart of the great spiritual paths lies a message of peace. [199] Whereas those who use the name of God to legitimize terrorism, violence or war betray his true nature, for to fight in the name of religion means attacking religion itself. [200] The “spirit of Assisi,” evoked by Saint John Paul II and carried forward by Pope Francis — for example, through his dialogue with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar — shows that believers can draw upon the most authentic sources of their particular spiritual traditions, where there is no room for “sanctified hatred.”

The necessity of diplomacy and multilateralism

224. In international relations, dialogue is an irreplaceable diplomatic tool for preventing conflicts and rebuilding bonds of trust. Faced with the impulsive broadcasts, aggressive rhetoric and power politics that characterize our time, “the vocation of diplomacy is to foster dialogue with all parties, including those interlocutors considered less ‘convenient’ or not considered legitimized to negotiate.” [201] Therefore, every ounce of humility and patience should be employed in order to nurture even the faintest signs of goodwill among parties in conflict, so as to advance the process of peace.

225. Cyberspace too has become a battleground. Cyberattacks, data manipulation and campaigns of influence, orchestrated with the help of AI, can destabilize entire countries even before open armed conflict erupts. Moreover, in this area, the attribution of responsibility is often uncertain. When it is unclear who carried out an attack, the risk of disproportionate reaction, miscalculation and escalation increases. For this reason, diplomacy must be capable of operating effectively in this new environment, negotiating shared regulations on the use of digital technologies, in order to protect civilians and the most vulnerable from “invisible” yet real forms of violence.

226. International organizations, particularly the United Nations, are essential instruments for promoting a civilization of love, for they can foster dialogue among nations and promote the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the integral development of peoples, the protection of the most vulnerable, disarmament and the care of creation. Through such efforts, the international community can work to reduce inequalities, defend the rights of refugees and minorities, reallocate resources from military spending to human development and protect our common home. The Holy See supports and accompanies these endeavors, while also recognizing that the current weaknesses of the UN and the international political system reveal the need for profound reforms. This is not simply a question of technical adjustments, for the crisis of convictions and values that also concerns the ethical foundations of nations makes it more difficult to direct multilateralism toward the true common good. [202]

227. In the international context, the Holy See’s diplomacy adopts the Gospel’s principle of mercy as a concrete criterion for political action. This is one of the ways in which the Holy See places itself at the service of humanity, thereby appealing to consciences in the name of charity and truth, defending the dignity of every person and speaking up on behalf of the poor, migrants and victims of war. In this way, papal diplomacy expresses the catholicity of the Church and contributes to the building of a civilization of love, where even new technologies can be oriented toward the common good.

Praying and hoping

228. These avenues for exercising responsibility are sustained by prayer, and in turn nourish prayer. Indeed, for each of us, peace primarily comes “from God, God who loves us all, unconditionally.” [203] It is a gift given by Jesus to his disciples on the day of Easter: “Peace be with you! It is the peace of the risen Christ. A peace that is unarmed and disarming, humble and persevering.” [204] With these words, I greeted the Church and the world on the day of my election to the See of Peter. I wish to repeat them now, and to invite everyone to pray for this gift. Let us never tire of praying for peace and of committing ourselves to achieving it in our relationships and in society.

CONCLUSION

229. “Let each builder choose with care how to build” (1 Cor 3:10). With these words, Saint Paul encouraged the Christians of Corinth to preserve unity. Dear brothers and sisters, we have reflected on the world we are building, and we asked ourselves what it means to safeguard the human person in the era of artificial intelligence. At the end of this reflection, I would like to propose a sober yet demanding program of Christian life with which we can navigate this epochal change in the light of the Gospel. This avenue emerges through contemplating God’s plan, living ecclesial unity by partaking of the Eucharist, building a world centered on the common good and praying in union with the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Word became flesh

230. Our world is filled with attempts to seize control of markets and spheres of influence, often shrouded in reassuring rhetoric and seductive ideologies. Yet our hearts yearn for an approach that is wise and benevolent, akin to that which Mary praises in her Magnificat, when she proclaims that God’s mercy extends in every generation to those who fear him. [205] This plan of mercy continues to unfold throughout history today, even amid the rapid and unsettling changes brought by algorithms and global networks, and it becomes a compass in the digital era for living our lives according to the Gospel.

231. At the heart of everything is the mystery of the Incarnation, the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us. The flesh of the Son, poor and vulnerable, evokes the flesh of so many brothers and sisters stripped of their dignity and reduced to silence. [206] Through the Lord’s closeness, the gift of peace enters into the world in a paradoxical way. It does so through the power to become children of God, and is awakened when we allow ourselves to be moved by the tears of the little ones, the fragility of the elderly, the silence of victims and the struggle of those who fight against the evil they do not wish to commit. [207] In this wounded yet beloved flesh, the Father shows us the true humanity of a life fulfilled through openness and communion, which leads us to desire that his will be done on earth as it is in heaven. [208]

232. In the promises of transhumanism and some posthumanist currents of thought, which seek an enhanced and almost disembodied humanity, we recognize a yearning that is of concern to us, namely the need for a fuller life, less exposed to limitations and suffering. Yet the Incarnation opens a different pathway. On the one hand, old and new ideologies alike urge humanity to overcome limitations through technology, and to rise above others by asserting dominance. Contrary to this, the mystery of the Son of God entering into our human condition promises something quite different. The living God descends into our history in order to free us from all forms of slavery. [209] He takes upon himself our weakness and transforms it into a setting for salvation. There is no moment or human situation that is not worthy of God. “According to the teaching of our faith, we have and adore, in our mysteries, a God who is born in a manger, a God who lives and travels in Judea, a God who dies on the cross, a dead God who lies in the tomb.” [210] The future of humanity, therefore, finds its standard in the ability to welcome this divine way of drawing near, of sharing the burden of the world, of transforming relationships from within. “O wonder... man is God and this God-Man passes through all those stages, endures all those states and ennobles them, sanctifies them, deifies them in himself!” [211] What saves humanity is the divine love that descends into the most fragile point of our history and renews it from within.

233. For this reason, as a believer among believers, I invite everyone to contemplate, in the face of the Son of God, the grandeur of humanity that shines a light also on the era of AI. In Christ, we are called to cooperate in the work of creation, rather than be disinterested observers of technological processes that limit our freedom and responsibility. [212] The dignity inscribed in each of us by the Holy Spirit can also be seen in our capacity to reflect critically, choose and love freely, and form authentic relationships. No computational system, however sophisticated, can create a heart that gives itself, or a conscience that discerns good from evil. Even when machines excel in efficiency, a human face that asks to be gazed upon remains the center of our history. This human face is the fullness toward which history is moving. It is the mystery of “recapitulation”: the certainty that the Father has decreed to bring all things, those in heaven and those on earth, back to Christ, the one Head (cf. Eph 1:10). In this plan, nothing will be lost that is authentically human. Indeed, everything will be purified and reunited in the One, who gathers every fragment of life, every tear and every authentically human achievement, rescuing them from nothingness and delivering them, redeemed, to the Father.

One body in Christ

234. The spirituality that we need is a Eucharistic spirituality, that is, a spirituality of ecclesial unity in love. The Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery reveal God entering into our human condition and transforming it through the gift of himself. This gift remains present and active in the Eucharist, in which the Lord gives himself and gathers the Church together, so that his offering becomes the principle of unity and source of new life. It is from this communion that Christian solidarity also arises, since “union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself.” [213] As Saint Augustine explained to the new Christians of his local Church, the bread and wine on the altar are the sacrament of the unity of the faithful in Christ: “What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: together you are the body of Christ ( 1 Cor 12:27). If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. You respond ‘Amen,’ and by responding in this way you assent to it. For you hear the words, ‘the Body of Christ’ and respond ‘Amen.’ Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true!” [214]

235. The “Amen” that we say in the liturgy, the Body we eat and the Blood we drink shape our entire lives. The Eucharist “is an extremely personal encounter with the Lord and yet never simply an act of individual piety.” [215] In the Eucharist we find a visible manifestation of the reality that we “are the Church of Christ, his members, his body. We are brothers and sisters in him. And in Christ, though many and diverse, we are one: In Illo uno unum.” [216] The Eucharist opens us to justice and sharing, with a preferential concern for those who are burdened by poverty or marginalization. And while new economic and technological networks can generate exclusion, isolation and dependencies, the Church — nourished by the Eucharist — is called to make visible a different paradigm, one that preserves human connections, gives a voice to the invisible and ensures that processes are aimed at respecting people’s dignity.

The construction site of our time

236. The spirituality I wish to commend is that of the “wise architect” who, driven by hope for the Kingdom of God, is committed to building the world for the common good (cf. 1 Cor 3:10). As I mentioned at the beginning of this reflection, [217] the task of building in our time must place our relationship with God at its center. Our rule must be the acceptance of human limitations as a natural and positive reality, and should be characterized by shared responsibility and a language characterized by the Gospel. At the end of this reflection, the plan for a civilization of love can be seen more clearly, and the construction site appears to be already up and running, thanks especially to the many living stones solidly united to Christ the cornerstone (cf. 1 Pet 2:4-6). In this task, we are called to assume an active role, without taking refuge in spiritual sentimentality or retreating into our own little worlds. We must be faithful to the truth, invest in education, cultivate relationships and love justice and peace.

237. Let us remain faithful to the truth! Living amid incessant flows of information, opinions and images, we know how easy it can be to influence decisions and preferences through increasingly sophisticated algorithms. [218] In this context, it is imperative to cultivate hearts that love the truth, prefer what is right despite the most appealing content and pursue wisdom rather than immediate results. We must always keep before us the truth about God and humanity, just as Christ has revealed them to us. We must lay aside an individualistic and technical view of humanity, as if reality were mere matter to be shaped according to selfish interests, whether individual or collective. [219] Instead, let us cultivate what Pope Francis called a “situated anthropocentrism,” [220] which recognizes the human being as a creature embedded in a network of relationships with other living beings and with all of creation. Fidelity to the truth requires integrating the possibilities offered by technology within a framework marked by wisdom, which is capable of safeguarding both the dignity of each person and the future of our common home.

238. 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.

239. Let us cultivate relationships! In an era that favors speed and fragmentation, the human person still yearns to receive care and recognition from attentive minds, kind words and hands capable of tenderness. The digital culture multiplies connections and offers new opportunities for interaction; yet, the human heart retains an irrevocable need for genuine closeness. I invite everyone to cherish places and times where physical presence remains crucial, such as shared meals, Christian community gatherings, time spent with the lonely and serving the poor. These are signs of a humanity that continues to believe that every person’s body is a dwelling place of God and a temple of the Holy Spirit. It is precisely this covenant between glory and fragility that becomes the criterion for evaluating the anthropological models offered by contemporary culture.

240. Let us love justice and peace! The same technologies that facilitate communication and access to resources can also support models that exploit the most vulnerable, create new forms of slavery and derive profit from conflict. Every technical or economic decision should include spiritual discernment and be an opportunity for assessing whether the advances in AI are promoting justice and participation or concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a select few. I would encourage a careful examination of the supply chains of digital production, the working conditions hidden behind our devices and the mechanisms that profit from manipulation and war. At the same time, practical ways of fostering fairness, participation and care for creation must be found. We proclaim a hope rooted in the One who came down from heaven to “create a new story here below.” For this reason, those who believe are committed to ensuring that a greater justice will take the place of inequality, and that the industry of war will be replaced by the craft of peace. [221]

241. As we look to the future, I would like to recall the image of Nehemiah whom we chose as our companion and guide at the outset. Nehemiah heard the cry of a devastated city, brought that pain to prayer, discerned before God, asked for help, received permission to return, organized the work, confronted internal and external resistance and rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem with the assistance of the people, brick by brick. In this era of digital transformation, I see in him a striking parable of our own vocation, which is not to be passive spectators of social and cultural fractures, nor mere commentators on what is crumbling, but men and women prepared to enter the construction sites of history — research laboratories, technology companies, schools, the media, institutions and local communities — in order to rebuild what has collapsed and protect what is threatened. Like Nehemiah, we too are called to unite listening and courage, prayer and responsibility, so that, even when a technocratic mentality or partisan interests seem to prevail, the human city may become a more fitting place to live.

242. The image of rebuilding Jerusalem evokes the New Testament promise of the holy city, which is given to us first and foremost as a gift. In the Book of Revelation, the new Jerusalem descends as a gift for all God’s people, “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 21:2). The walls of Jerusalem are no longer defensive fortifications, but the precious adornments of the Bride of the Lamb. Its gates, which Nehemiah guarded so diligently, remain permanently open to all nations. God’s presence offers light and life to all. The city is a new Eden, with its living water offered to the thirsty, and its tree of life whose leaves “are for the healing of the nations” (Rev 22:2). As we await its fulfillment, this vision is set before us as an encouragement — a call to overcome our divisions and to work together — for this is the way of Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and forever.

The song of hope: the Magnificat

243. After having considered faith, which contemplates the Father’s loving plan; love, which unites us in one ecclesial body; and hope, which sustains our actions in the world, the fourth pillar of this program for Christian life is prayer. Mary’s song accompanies our commitment. Before Elizabeth who announces to her that she has become the mother of the Lord, Mary bursts into a hymn of praise and joy. Her soul magnifies the Lord, and her spirit rejoices in God her Savior, for he chose a young, poor and humble girl for his plan of salvation. Mary suddenly sees all of history through the lens of this revelation. Nothing has changed around her; the socio-political situation of her time remains the same. The Romans continue to control her land, and her people are still subjugated and humiliated. Yet, everything has changed within her, and this allows her to see what is invisible. God has already shown the strength of his arm; he has already scattered the proud, cast down the mighty, lifted up the lowly, filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty-handed. He has already helped Israel, his servant. God “takes the part of the lowly. His plan is one that is often hidden beneath the opaque context of human events that see ‘the proud, the mighty and the rich’ triumph. Yet his secret strength is destined in the end to be revealed.” [222]

244. The Blessed Virgin Mary not only teaches us to recognize God’s invisible work, but also directs our gaze to “the points at which humanity is broken and the world becomes distorted: the contrast between the humble and the powerful, the poor and the rich, the satiated and the hungry,” teaching us “to look at the world from a lower position: through the eyes of those who suffer rather than the mighty; to view history through the eyes of the little ones, rather than through the perspective of the powerful; to interpret the events of history from the viewpoint of the widow, the orphan, the stranger, the wounded child, the exile and the fugitive.” [223] The Blessed Virgin thus becomes “poet and prophetess of Redemption,” because on her lips is proclaimed “the strongest and most innovative hymn ever articulated, the Magnificat; it is she who reveals the transformative vision of the Christian economy, the historical and social result that still draws its origin and strength from Christianity.” [224]

245. With the same faith as Mary, let us become “weavers of hope” in our world, sharing who we are and what we have, so that the presence of Jesus may grow among us and his Kingdom take shape. In the humble fidelity of daily life, even the era of AI can become a time in which the Holy Spirit brings about the civilization of love in our lives. Indeed, the Lord continues to make all things new and offers every era the possibility of becoming part of salvation history in the light of the Incarnation. I entrust our desire to the Mother of Christ, to the Woman of the Magnificat, that she may guide our steps through this time of change and preserve in each of us true faith in the Gospel, so that we may bear witness to the grandeur of humanity, in which God has made his dwelling.

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 15 May, in the year 2026, the second of my Pontificate.

LEO PP. XIV

[1] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 22: AAS 58 (1966), 1042.

[2] Cf. ibid., 11: AAS 58 (1966), 1033-1034.

[3] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 1: AAS 57 (1965), 5.

[4] Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), 22: ASS 23 (1890-1891), 653.

[5] Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), 69: AAS 101 (2009), 702.

[6] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ’ (24 May 2015), 104: AAS 107 (2015), 888.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Saint Augustine, Confessions, I, 1, 1: CCSL 27, Turnhout 1981, 1.

[9] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 183: AAS 105 (2013), 1097.

[10] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 36: AAS 58 (1966), 1054; cf. Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem, 7: AAS 58 (1966), 843-844.

[11] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 44: AAS 58 (1966), 1065.

[12] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 257; AAS 105 (2013), 1123.

[13] Saint John Paul II, Apostolic Letter issued “Motu Proprio” Socialium Scientiarum (1 January 1994): AAS 86 (1994), 209.

[14] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ’ (24 May 2015), 61: AAS 107 (2015), 871.

[15] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), 41: AAS 80 (1988), 570-572.

[16] Saint John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente (10 November 1994), 35: AAS 87 (1995), 27.

[17] Address to the Members of the “Centesimus Annus Pro Pontifice” Foundation (17 May 2025): AAS 117 (2025), 696.

[18] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 222: AAS 105 (2013), 1111.

[19] Cf. ibid., 236: AAS 105 (2013), 1115; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 215: AAS 112 (2020), 1045-1046.

[20] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 13: AAS 57 (1965), 17.

[21] Cf. Saint Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (14 May 1971), 4: AAS 63 (1971), 403.

[22] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 243: AAS 105 (2013), 1118.

[23] Cf. Pius XII, Apostolic Exhortation Menti Nostrae (23 September 1950): AAS 42 (1950), 657-702.

[24] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), 5: AAS 83 (1991), 799.

[25] Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno (15 May 1931), 39: AAS 23 (1931), 189; cf. Pius XII, Radio Message on the 50^th Anniversary of “Rerum Novarum”: AAS 33 (1941), 198.

[26] Cf. Pius XII, Address to the Sacred College of Cardinals and the Roman Prelature (24 December 1940): AAS 33 (1941), 13.

[27] Cf. Saint John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), 2-3: AAS 53 (1961), 402.

[28] Cf. Saint John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris (11 April 1963), 87: AAS 55 (1963), 301.

[29] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes , 26: AAS 58 (1966), 1046-1047.

[30] Cfr. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, 2: AAS 58 (1966), 930-931.

[31] Saint Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio (26 March 1967), 14: AAS 59 (1967), 264.

[32] Ibid ., 76: AAS 59 (1967), 299.

[33] Cf. Saint Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (14 May 1971), 4-7: AAS 63 (1971); 404-406.

[34] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), 36: AAS 80 (1988), 561.

[35] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), 19: AAS 73 (1981), 625-629.

[36] Cf. ibid, 10: AAS 73 (1981), 600-602.

[37] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), 14: AAS 80 (1988), 526-528.

[38] Cf. ibid., 16: AAS 80 (1988), 531.

[39] Cf. ibid., 31-33: AAS 80 (1988), 555-559.

[40] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), 46: AAS 83 (1991), 850-851.

[41] Cf. ibid., 42: AAS 83 (1991), 844-846.

[42] Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), 21: AAS 101 (2009), 656.

[43] Cf. ibid., 22: AAS 101 (2009), 657.

[44] Cf. ibid., 24: AAS 101 (2009), 658-659.

[45] Cf. ibid., 36: AAS 101 (2009), 671-672.

[46] Ibid., 2: AAS 101 (2009), 642.

[47] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 198: AAS 105 (2013), 1103.

[48] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ’ (24 May 2015), 49: AAS 107 (2015), 866.

[49] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 127: AAS 112 (2020), 1013.

[50] Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), 167: AAS 116 (2024), 1421.

[51] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Vatican City 2004, 32.

[52] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 24: AAS 58 (1966), 1045.

[53] Ibid., 22: AAS 58 (1966), 1042.

[54] Cf. Pontifical Council For Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 38.

[55] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), 14: AAS 71 (1979), 284.

[56] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), 11: AAS 101 (2009), 647-648.

[57] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), 31: AAS 85 (1993), 1159.

[58] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 26: AAS 58 (1966), 1046-1047.

[59] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), 11: AAS 83 (1991), 806-807.

[60] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita (2 April 2024), 7: AAS 116 (2024), 592-593.

[61] Cf. ibid., 8: AAS 116 (2024), 593-594.

[62] Ibid., 1: AAS 116 (2024), 589-590.

[63] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Angelus with disabled people in the Cathedral of Osnabrück (16 November 1980): Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, vol. III/2, Vatican City 1980, 1232.

[64] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 152.

[65] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Address to the 50^th General Assembly of the United Nations (5 October 1995), 2: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, vol. XVIII/2, Vatican City 1998, 731.

[66] Saint John Paul II, Address to the 34^th General Assembly of the United Nations (2 October 1979), 7: AAS 71 (1979), 1148.

[67] Saint John Paul II, Message for the 32^nd World Day of Peace (1 January 1999), 3: AAS 91 (1999), 379.

[68] Cf. Saint John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris (11 April 1963), 5: AAS 55 (1963), 259.

[69] Saint Paul VI, Message to the International Conference on Human Rights (15 April 1968): AAS 60 (1968), 285.

[70] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), 2: AAS 87 (1995), 402.

[71] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 27: AAS 58 (1966), 1047-1048; cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), 80: AAS 85 (1993), 1197-1198; cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), 7-28: AAS 87 (1995), 408-427.

[72] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 208: AAS 112 (2020), 1043.

[73] Cf. ibid., 209: AAS 112 (2020), 1043-1044.

[74] Ibid., 23: AAS 112 (2020), 977. Cf. Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 212: AAS 105 (2013), 1108.

[75] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (22 February 2007), 83: AAS 99 (2007), 169.

[76] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes , 26, AAS 58 (1966), 1046-1047.

[77] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church , 164.

[78] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 235: AAS 105 (2013), 1115.

[79] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 105: AAS 112 (2020), 1005.

[80] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), 38: AAS 80 (1988), 564.

[81] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 220: AAS 105 (2013), 1110.

[82] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church , 169.

[83] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 16: AAS 112 (2020), 974.

[84] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Address to the 50^th General Assembly of the United Nations (5 October 1995), 8: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, vol. XVIII/2, 735.

[85] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 171.

[86] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), 31: AAS 83 (1991), 831.

[87] Saint John Paul II, Homily during the Mass celebrated for farmers at Recife (7 July 1980), 4: AAS 72 (1980), 926.

[88] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), 19: AAS 73 (1981), 626.

[89] Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ’ (24 May 2015), 93: AAS 107 (2015), 884; cf. Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 120: AAS 112 (2020), 1010.

[90] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 189: AAS 105 (2013), 1099.

[91] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 187.

[92] Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), 26: ASS 23 (1890-1891), 656.

[93] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), 11: AAS 83 (1991), 806-807.

[94] Cf. ibid.

[95] Cf. ibid., 48: AAS 83 (1991), 852-854.

[96] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 169: AAS 112 (2020), 1028.

[97] Cf. ibid., 168: AAS 112 (2020), 1027-1028.

[98] Cf. Saint Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio (26 March 1967), 17: AAS 59 (1967), 265-266.

[99] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 32 and 54: AAS 112 (2020), 980 and 988.

[100] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), 58: AAS 101 (2009), 693-694.

[101] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 116: AAS 112 (2020), 1009.

[102] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), 38: AAS 80 (1988), 564.

[103] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 116: AAS 112 (2020), 1009.

[104] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), 48: AAS 101 (2009), 685.

[105] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 25: AAS 58 (1966), 1045-1046.

[106] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), 42: AAS 80 (1988), 572-574.

[107] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 53: AAS 105 (2013), 1042.

[108] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), 36-37: AAS 80 (1988), 561-564.

[109] Cf. Francis, Message for the 110^th World Day of Migrants and Refugees (29 September 2024): AAS 116 (2024), 735.

[110] Saint Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio (26 March 1967), 14: AAS 59 (1967), 264.

[111] Cf. ibid., 17: AAS 59 (1967), 265-266; Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 125-127: AAS 112 (2020), 1012-1013.

[112] Cf. Saint Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio (26 March 1967), 14: AAS 59 (1967), 264; Benedict XVI, Address to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See (8 January 2007): AAS 99 (2007), 73; Francis, Address to Participants of the 3^rd Global Meeting of the Indigenous Peoples’ Forum of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (15 February 2017): AAS 109 (2017), 244-245.

[113] Final Document of the Second Session of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (26 October 2024), 17.

[114] Cf. ibid. , 11.

[115] Cf. ibid. , 103-108.

[116] Cf. ibid., 100-101.

[117] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 94: AAS 112 (2020), 1001.

[118] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 53.

[119] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ’, (24 May 2015), 106-109: AAS 107 (2015), 889-891.

[120] R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Würzburg 1951, 89.

[121] Saint Paul VI, Address on the occasion of the 25^th Anniversary of the FAO (16 November 1970): AAS 62 (1970), 833.

[122] Cf. Francis, Address to the Council for an Inclusive Capitalism (11 November 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 11-12 November 2019, 8.

[123] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith – Dicastery for Culture and Education, Note Antiqua et Nova (14 January 2025): AAS 117 (2025), 159-210; Francis, Message for the 57^th World Day of Peace (8 December 2023): AAS 116 (2024), 54-64; Francis, Message for the 58^th World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2024): AAS 116 (2024), 261-266; Francis, Address to the G7 Session on Artificial Intelligence: “An exciting and fearsome tool” (14 June 2024): AAS 116 (2024), 866-875; International Theological Commission, Quo vadis, humanitas? Thinking about Christian anthropology in the face of some scenarios on the future of humanity (9 February 2026); Message for the 60^th World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2026): L’Osservatore Romano, 24 January 2026, 2-3.

[124] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith – Dicastery for Culture and Education, Note Antiqua et Nova (14 January 2025), 96: AAS 117 (2025), 201.

[125] Francis, Address to Participants at the Meeting of the “Minerva Dialogues” promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education (27 March 2023): AAS 115 (2023), 465.

[126] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith – Dicastery for Culture and Education, Note Antiqua et Nova (14 January 2025), 41: AAS 117 (2025), 178.

[127] Cf. ibid., 44-45: AAS 117 (2025), 179-180.

[128] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), 40: AAS 83 (1991), 843.

[129] Cf. International Theological Commission, Quo vadis, humanitas? Thinking about Christian anthropology in the face of some scenarios on the future of humanity (9 February 2026), 63.

[130] Cf. Saint Paul VI, Discourse on the occasion of the 25^th anniversary of the FAO (16 November 1970): AAS 62 (1970), 833.

[131] International Theological Commission, Quo vadis, humanitas? Thinking about Christian anthropology in the face of some scenarios on the future of humanity (9 February 2026), 3.

[132] “If we devalue the heart, we also devalue what it means to speak from the heart, to act with the heart, to cultivate and heal the heart. If we fail to appreciate the specificity of the heart, we miss the messages that the mind alone cannot communicate; we miss out on the richness of our encounters with others; we miss out on poetry. We also lose track of history and our own past, since our real personal history is built with the heart. At the end of our lives, that alone will matter.” Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), 11: AAS 116 (2024), 1372.

[133] V. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning. An Introduction to Logotherapy, Boston 1963, 213.

[134] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 112, a. 1, co; q. 114, a, 5, co.: ed. Leonina, VII, Rome 1892, 323 and 349.

[135] Cf. ibid., q. 114, a. 1, co.: ed. Leonina, VII, 344.

[136] Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Super Boetium de Trinitate, q. 1, a. 2, ad 3: ed. Leonina, L, Rome 1992, 96; Summa Theologiae, I, q. 7, a. 1, ad 3: ed. Leonina, IV, Rome 1888, 72.

[137] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, (24 November 2013), 8: AAS 105 (2013), 1022.

[138] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), 15: AAS 71 (1979), 286-287.

[139] Saint Augustine, De civitate Dei, XIV, 28: CCSL 48, Turnhout 1955, 451.

[140] Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), 34: AAS 101 (2009), 668-669.

[141] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), 32: AAS 85 (1993), 1159.

[142] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 207: AAS 112 (2020), 1043.

[143] H. Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, III , New York 1962, 474 .

[144] Address to Representatives of the Media (12 May 2025): AAS 117 (2025), 681-682.

[145] Benedict XVI, Message for the 47^th World Day of Social Communications (24 January 2013): AAS 105 (2013), 183.

[146] Francis, Address on the occasion of the Conferral of the rank of Knight and Dame of the Grand Cross of the Pian Order to Mr Philip Pullella and Ms Valentina Alazraki (13 November 2021): L’Osservatore Romano, 13 November 2021, 12.

[147] Cf. Plato, Letter VII, 344b-c: ed. Souilhé, XIII/1, Paris 1931 ( CUF, Série grecque 63), 54.

[148] Cf. Address to the Participants in the Conference “The Dignity of Children and Adolescents in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” (13 November 2025): L’Osservatore Romano, 13 November 2025, 3.

[149] Cf. Address to the members of the Advisory Board of the RCS Academy (7 November 2025): L’Osservatore Romano 7 November 2025, 4.

[150] Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981), 3: AAS 73 (1981), 584.

[151] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ’ (24 May 2015), 128: AAS 107 (2015), 898.

[152] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — Dicastery for Culture and Education, Note Antiqua et Nova (14 January 2025), 67: AAS 117 (2025), 188-189.

[153] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens, (14 September 1981), 18: AAS 73 (1981), 622-625.

[154] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ’ (24 May 2015), 109: AAS 107 (2015), 891.

[155] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), 32: AAS 101 (2009), 666.

[156] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 268.

[157] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), 64: AAS 101 (2009), 698.

[158]Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si ’ (24 May 2015), 129: AAS 107 (2015), 899.

[159] Cf. ibid.

[160] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 108: AAS 112 (2020), 1006.

[161] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development, Oeconomicae et Pecuniariae Quaestiones. Considerations for an Ethical Discernment Regarding some Aspects of the Present Economic-Financial System (6 January 2018), 6: AAS 110 (2018), 772.

[162] Francis, Greeting to the staff of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (14 February 2019): AAS 111 (2019), 309. Cfr. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), 22: AAS 101 (2009), 657.

[163] Cf . ibid., 36: AAS 101 (2009), 671-672.

[164] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 204: AAS 105 (2013), 1105-1106.

[165] Cf. Saint Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio (26 March 1967), 87: AAS 59 (1967), 299.

[166] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), 39: AAS 83 (1991), 841.

[167] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 211.

[168] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Letter to Families Gratissimam Sane (2 February 1994), 17: AAS 86 (1994), 903-906.

[169] Cf. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Sons and Daughters of the Light: A Pastoral Plan for Ministry with Young Adults (12 November 1996), Washington D.C., 1996, I, 3.

[170] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 290.

[171] Cf. ibid., 214.

[172] Cf. Francis, Message for the Celebration of the 48^th World Day of Youth for Peace (8 December 2014), 4: AAS 107 (2015), 70-71.

[173] Cf. International Theological Commission, Memory and Reconciliation the Church and the Faults of the Past , Vatican City 2000, 5.3.

[174] As in the Papal Bulls Sicut Dudum (13 January 1435) and Etsi Suscepti (9 January 1442) of Eugenius IV, and in the Papal Bulls Dum Diversas (18 June 1452) and Romanus Pontifex (8 January 1455) of Nicholas V. Political and, at times, even economic needs overcame the demands of the Gospel. The need for evangelization was frequently compromised or at least misunderstood with regard to the needs of worldly powers, thus relativizing the problematic incompatibility of slavery with the Christian conscience.

[175] Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter In Plurimis (5 May 1888), Acta Leonis XIII, VIII, Rome, 1889, 169-192. Consider that, as late as 1866, the Holy Office distinguished between the immoral and moral aspects of slavery, without fully condemning it: Instruction of the Holy Office on various doubts of Monsignor Massaia, Vicar Apostolic in the country of the Galla, April 1866, response to question no. 15.

[176] Cf. Saint John Paul II, Bull Incarnationis Mysterium (29 November 1998), 11: AAS 91 (1999), 139-141.

[177] Cf. Saint Paul VI, Regina Caeli (17 May 1970): Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. VIII, 506.

[178] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 183: AAS 112 (2020), 1033-1034.

[179] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 26: AAS 58 (1966), 1046-1047.

[180] Saint Paul VI, Address to the 20^th General Assembly of the United Nations (4 October 1965): AAS 57 (1965), 881.

[181] United Nations, United Nations Charter, San Francisco (26 June 1945), Preamble.

[182] Cf. Francis , Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 258: AAS 112 (2020), 1061: “In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly ‘justified.’ The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the possibility of legitimate defense by means of military force, which involves demonstrating that certain ‘rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy’ have been met. Yet it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even ‘preventive’ attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing ‘evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.’”

[183] Cf. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — Dicastery for Culture and Education, Note Antiqua et Nova (14 January 2025), 99: AAS 117 (2025), 202-203.

[184] Cf. ibid., 103: AAS 117 (2025), 204.

[185] Cf. Address to the Participants in the Plenary Session of the “Reunion of Aid Agencies for the Oriental Churches (ROACO)” (26 June 2025): AAS 117 (2025), 847-849.

[186] Cf. Francis, Message for the 53^rd World Day of Peace (8 December 2019): AAS 112 (2020), 54-61.

[187] J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings. The Return of the King, Part III, Book Five, Chapter IX, New York 1965, 190.

[188] Address to Representatives of the Media, (12 May 2025): AAS 117 (2025), 682.

[189] Ibid.

[190] Saint John Paul II, Message for the 31^st World Day of Peace, (1 January 1998), 1: AAS 90 (1988), 147.

[191] Saint Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, 84, 12: CCSL 39, Turnhout 1956, 1172-1173.

[192] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Dilexit Nos (24 October 2024), 22: AAS 116 (2024), 1375-1376.

[193] Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 115: AAS 112 (2020), 1008-1009.

[194] Cf. ibid., 261: AAS 112 (2020), 1062.

[195] Cf. Saint Paul VI, Address to the 20^th General Assembly of the United Nations (4 October 1965): AAS 57 (1965), 878-879.

[196] Cf. Pius XII, Radio Message A Grave Hour (24 August 1939): AAS 31 (1939), 334.

[197] Giorgio La Pira, Riflessioni sul Concilio. Address of Professor Giorgio La Pira, Mayor of Florence, to the “Guides de France”(Rome, 4 September 1962), Florence 1962, 6.

[198] Address to Participants in the Jubilee of Oriental Churches (14 May 2025): AAS 117 (2025), 686.

[199] Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 271: AAS 112 (2020), 1066.

[200] Cf. Francis, Appeal for Peace at Assisi for the World Day of Prayer for Peace “Thirst for Peace: Faiths and Cultures in Dialogue” (20 September 2016): AAS 108 (2016), 1124.

[201] Francis, Address to Members of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See (9 January 2025): AAS 117 (2025), 110.

[202] Cf. Francis, Address to the Participants in the 38^th Conference of the FAO (20 June 2013): AAS 105 (2013), 616-617.

[203] First “Urbi et Orbi” Blessing (8 May 2025): AAS 117 (2025), 660.

[204] Ibid.

[205] Cf. Homily at First Vespers on the Solemnity of Mary the Most Holy Mother of God (31 December 2025): L’Osservatore Romano, 2 January 2026, 1-2.

[206] Cf. Homily of the Mass during the Day (25 December 2025): L’Osservatore Romano, 27 December 2025, 3.

[207] Cf. ibid.

[208] Cf. Angelus on the Solemnity of the Epiphany (6 January 2026): L’Osservatore Romano, 7 January 2026, 3.

[209] Cf. Homily of the Mass during the Night (24 December 2025): L’Osservatore Romano, 27 December 2025, 2.

[210] P. de Bérulle, Discours de l’état et des grandeurs de Jésus, Discours IV, Unité de Dieu en l’incarnation: Œuvres complètes, Paris 1856, col. 218.

[211] Ibid .

[212] Cf. Address to the Conference “Artificial Intelligence and Care of Our Common Home” (5 December 2025): L’Osservatore Romano, 5 December 2025, 2.

[213] Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (25 December 2005), 14: AAS 98 (2006), 228.

[214] Saint Augustine, Sermons, 272: In die Pentecostes ad infantes de sacramento: PL 38, Paris 1865, col. 1247.

[215] Benedict XVI, Homily at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper (21 April 2011): AAS 103 (2011), 321.

[216] Address to the Roma Curia for the Exchange of Christmas Greetings (22 December 2025): L’Osservatore Romano, 22 December 2025, 6-7.

[217] Cf. above, nos. 11-14.

[218] Cf. Address to the Conference “The Dignity of Children and Adolescents in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” (13 November 2025): L’Osservatore Romano, 13 November 2025, 3.

[219] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), 34: AAS 101 (2009), 668-670.

[220] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023), 67: AAS 115 (2023), 1059.

[221] Cf. Angelus on the Solemnity of the Epiphany (6 January 2026): L’Osservatore Romano, 7 January 2026, 3.

[222] Benedict XVI, General Audience (15 February 2006): L’Osservatore Romano, 16 February 2006, 4.

[223] Meditation on the occasion of the Prayer Vigil and Rosary for Peace (11 October 2025): L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2025, 2.

[224] Saint Paul VI, Homily at the Marian Shrine of Our Lady of Bonaria, (24 April 1970): AAS 62 (1970), 301.

the DON JONES INDEX…