An Appropriate Pastoral and Academic Response
By Fr. Luis O. Jiménez Rodríguez, SJ
Since 2022, with the widespread launch of artificial intelligence (AI), this field has provoked shock, debates and even apocalyptic warnings worldwide. Modern society is witnessing a moment of technological revolution. AI is producing, and will continue to produce, a profound sociocultural metamorphosis, similar to other technological inventions such as the printing press, the steam engine, the automobile, the computer, the internet and social media. It has become an unavoidable part of modern life. The question is, what is an appropriate pastoral and academic response?
AI has been evolving for decades. Before 2022, algorithms, or systems of algorithms, were what we call “weak” or “narrow” AI. This type of AI solves specific problems, such as GPS, image identification and analysis, and games like chess. Beyond these achievements or innovations, many groups or companies aspire to develop a “general” or “strong” system that resembles human intelligence as closely as possible, capable of solving a wide range of problems and ultimately achieving a system we could classify as conscious.
The year 2022, with the announcement of OpenAI and its ChatGPT software, marked a milestone in that goal. Although we have not yet reached that moment of “consciousness” – often called the “singularity” – there is no doubt that Generative AI is a significant step toward achieving “strong” or “general” AI.
What would such a general, strong and possibly conscious system look like? According to Stuart Russell, one of the leading experts on the subject and author of highly regarded texts and articles on AI, a strong or general AI system would:[1]
- Constantly absorb gigantic amounts of information from sensors all over the planet.
- Constantly improve the mathematical and statistical models of the social world and the actions of human beings.
- From these improved models, through enormously complex computations, develop better predictions that would solve even more complex problems.
- Improve predictions of natural events and human decisions, thereby optimizing long-term plans.
We are not there yet, but the development of quantum chips capable of solving in minutes what would take many years with the best current technology would give us the ability to accelerate the process of reaching that point.[2]
The question Russell asks himself – and us – is whether this is what we want and should do. Are we technically prepared to maintain such a system and power under human control? Do we have the ethical, social, legal and political development to face the challenges this would create?
Human vs Artificial Intelligence
Human intelligence is much more complex and richer than the instrumental notion employed in the development of AI. Our intelligence encompasses human experience, language, feelings, assessment, rationality, deliberation and action. In this multiplicity of aspects of human intelligence, we find the dimension of coexistence with others and the responsibility to build our personal and social reality, ensuring our freedom.
Machine intelligence simulates some aspects of human intelligence, and increasingly, these simulations are performed in extraordinary and surprising ways. However, this does not imply that the intelligence of AI systems is identical to that of humans. The concept of “intelligence” in the term “artificial intelligence” is used to imply the production of unexpected and unprecedented results in the form of texts, processes, music or images that can suggest a specific action to a user, with a unique effect on the world.
The Implications of AI for the Future of Democratic Societies
AI can contribute to the processes of democratic societies that aspire to be truly participatory. It could enable more efficient public management and improve communication between government and citizens, optimize the allocation of limited resources, answer questions about political processes, communicate citizen concerns to governments and identify patterns of corruption.[3]
However, there are several risks to using AI in politics. We are facing a “critical juncture,” with a choice between two possible paths: “AI-augmented democracy” versus “AI-driven techno-autocracy.” [4] In the first case, we would have an AI that would seek to strengthen authentic participatory democracy by promoting and respecting human rights, encouraging public deliberation to facilitate informed decision-making, and assisting communities in communication and deliberation through data information and consensus-building. All are essential elements for addressing complex challenges, such as climate change.
In the second case, that of techno-autocracy, AI progressively replaces human decision-making in the political sphere. In the extreme case, AI systems could be considered more suitable for directing public affairs than citizens or elected officials. In this way, participatory democracy is undermined by depriving citizens of their role in deliberation and decision-making.
AI and Education
AI can benefit education. Generative AI algorithms quickly process and analyze educational data, turning it into measurable elements that help evaluate and improve teaching and learning methods.
From the student’s perspective, AI can facilitate active learning by assisting with information search, text generation and comprehension. Many educators have encouraged critical thinking by rigorously examining AI-generated responses to open-ended questions, taking into account what they’ve learned in class.
However, in academia, we are increasingly aware of the limitations of AI and the ethical issues that arise from its use, such as academic honesty and the spread of misinformation. Moreover, generative AI cannot replace human experience in the learning process and skill development. Its use can lead to the belief that education is simply a transfer of information, neglecting other dimensions of the subject, such as the skills and virtues that shape a person’s character, and the wisdom and relational dimensions that shape the person.[5]
The use of AI transforms learning, pedagogical relationships and – potentially – the purpose of education. AI is a tool that facilitates the effectiveness and performance of processes. Education is a slow and complex relational process that students must adopt through the exercise of their autonomy. Integrating both to leverage the effectiveness of AI and the student’s learning process is a challenge of our times.
A disjunction between the use of AI and genuine pedagogical objectives can lead to students becoming dependent on algorithms to do their work. It can impede the development of critical thinking, creativity and autonomy. It could result in students remaining at a superficial level of understanding at a time in history when humanity faces highly complex challenges that threaten its very survival.
Simplistic thinking will not be sufficient for the search for solutions to the climate problem, the global outbreak of authoritarianism, the problem of poverty, the distribution of scarce resources, etc. At a time when we most need authentic humanism, the humanities are being ignored or attacked through simplistic, superficial thinking.
AI, Values and Ethics
Many ethical challenges arise from the use of AI. I will mention only a few: user privacy, manipulation of citizens in the form of “fake news,” the security of users who use these systems, the lack of transparency and explainability, biases against particular groups that reflect the prejudices of society, the substitution of human labor, the environment in the face of the consumption of electricity and water by the hardware systems that implement the algorithms, power belonging to those who control these systems and the safety of the population if humans ever lose control of AI.
What ethics applied to technology would help us face these challenges in the design, development and use of AI? The answer requires the embodiment of values and ethics from the very beginning of a product’s development or the generation of knowledge. A prohibitive ethic or a requirement for compliance with legal norms is not enough. The speed of systems development makes this type of ethics insufficient. For this reason, Pope Francis called for the development of an ethics of artificial intelligence that helps, guides and inspires such development and use, going beyond a mere prohibition or compliance.
We propose an inspirational ethic that goes beyond the prohibitive while recognizing the need for some restrictions. An ethic inspired by personal, professional and social values that would integrate human intelligence and AI in the pursuit of the common good of citizens, society, the environment and future generations. It is a human-algorithmic articulation that seeks to embody values in the design, development and use of AI.
The most common propaganda about AI reflects the technocratic paradigm, as Pope Francis wrote about [6], which promotes a very particular set of values that guide current technological development: hyper-performance, productivity, efficiency, success, competition and consumption. The common feature of all these is that they are instrumental values promoted by the technocratic paradigm.
Pope Francis promotes another set of values to be embodied in the development and use of AI [7]:
We therefore have a duty to broaden our outlook and direct our technical and scientific research toward achieving peace and the common good, in the service of the integral development of humanity and the community.
Artificial intelligence should serve greater human potential and our highest aspirations, not compete with them.
Knowledge and wisdom as ultimate values
In generating knowledge, universities must promote other values such as critical thinking, creativity and the freedom to use that complex web of knowledge. A Catholic university seeks not only the production of knowledge, but also the wisdom that comes from the Incarnate Logos.
Pope Francis framed this quest for wisdom within the development of a guiding synthesis that is so urgent today: “Today […] there is a lack of wisdom, of reflection, of thought capable of producing a guiding synthesis.”
The former pope reminded us that from the living center that is the Word of God made flesh, “it is possible to overcome the fatal separation of theory and practice, for in the unity of science and holiness we find the true spirit of that doctrine which is destined to save the world.”[8]
Therefore, for a Catholic university, it is possible and necessary to articulate the effort of human intelligence with the use of artificial intelligence in the generation of knowledge, with the goal of seeking wisdom in the form of a guiding synthesis of the meaning of life and the meaning of people. The development of such a synthesis must integrate science and humanism, faith and reason, theory and praxis, the indigenous and the foreign, the old and the new.
In this way, AI can be transformed into an instrument that assists human beings in developing projects that realize human potential and help us create a more humane world that fulfills creation and does not destroy our common home.
Fr. Luis O. Jiménez Rodríguez, SJ, is the director of the School of Theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico and a member of the working group on artificial intelligence for the Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano y Caribeño (CELAM), or the Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Council.
[1] Stuart Russell, Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control, Penguin Random House, 2020, 92.
[2] Zoe Kleinman, Will quantum be bigger than AI?, BBC News, November 5, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c04gvx7egw5o
[3] CELAM Technological Frontier Working Group (Various Authors), Artificial Intelligence. A Pastoral Perspective from Latin America and the Caribbean, May 2025, 68. https://adn.celam.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/IA-mirada-pastoral-desde-ALC.pdf
[4] Mark Coeckelbergh y Henrik Skaug Sætra. “Climate change and the political pathways of AI: The technocracy-democracy dilemma in light of artificial intelligence and human agency”, 3
[5] CELAM Technological Frontier Working Group, Artificial Intelligence. A Pastoral Perspective, 65.
[6]Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’. May 2015, nos. 101, 106-114. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
[7] Pope Francis, Message for the 57th World Day of Peace, January 1, 2024. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/messages/peace/documents/20231208-messaggio-57giornatamondiale-pace2024.html
[8]Pope Francis, Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium on Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties. December 2017, No. 4c. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_constitutions/documents/papa-francesco_costituzione-ap_20171208_veritatis-gaudium.html
