You Are Invited to the
Presenter: Fr. Pawell Szymanowski, CR, is a priest of the Congregation of the Resurrection and teaches moral theology at Oblate School of Theology. His international experience includes Poland, Italy, Austria and Canada, where he has worked in parish ministry and religious formation. His main area of research is social ethics, particularly questions of citizenship and the impact of technology on human life and society.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81082528703?pwd=byjM8LANDbcsam08bX3kM0UOI3V3Ir.1
Three Questions About AI: From the Perspective of Human Dignity and Social Justice
Artificial intelligence is developing very quickly. Most often, we approach AI from a practical perspective: How can we use it in our ministries? What can it do for us? But I believe this is also a moment when we need to step back and ask more fundamental questions.
During our conversation, I would like to share three questions that I think are particularly important when we think about AI today, especially from the perspective of human dignity and social justice.
But I would also like to hear your questions. As preparation for our meeting, I invite you to read paragraphs 106-108 of Pope Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas and think about one question about AI that you believe is important for us to ask today. Your question does not need to be directly related to the text; the reading is simply meant as an inspiration for your reflection.
During our meeting, we will have time to share and discuss some of these questions together.
About the Presenter
Fr. Pawel Szymanowski, CR, is a priest of the Congregation of the Resurrection and teaches moral theology at Oblate School of Theology. His international experience includes Poland, Italy, Austria, and Canada, where he has worked in parish ministry and religious formation. His main area of research is social ethics, particularly questions of citizenship and the impact of technology on human life and society.
The Three Questions on AI
Pope Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas, 106-108
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment