Skip to content

Should the Lion Lie Down With the Electric Lamb?

Source: Should the Lion Lie Down With the Electric Lamb?

TL;DR

Antón Barba-Kay offers a critical analysis of Pope Leo XIV's encyclical Magnifica humanitas on AI, arguing it fundamentally fails to diagnose digital technology's nature. The Church (sacrament of true presence) and Big Tech (virtual absence) represent "the two most significant nonstate actors in human history" with competing visions of reality, yet the encyclical takes a conciliatory, moderate position — calling only for "just and appropriate use" of AI. Barba-Kay identifies a "neutrality trap": the encyclical claims technology isn't neutral because it reflects its creators, but this is functionally identical to the neutral tool argument. He argues AI transforms the very grounds of psychic self-interpretation, like language or drugs. While industrial capitalism compelled from outside-in, digital technologies manipulate from inside-out — "nudged and smiled their way into our hearts." The encyclical misses two specific risks: de facto transhumanism (indifference to human vs artificial) and the impossibility of moderate use when cognitive deskilling is already pervasive.

The Competing Visions of Church and Tech

Barba-Kay frames his analysis around a fundamental tension: the Catholic Church and Big Tech are "the two most significant nonstate actors in human history," and they offer diametrically opposed visions of reality. The Church is built on the sacrament of true presence — the belief that something real and transcendent manifests in physical ritual. Big Tech, by contrast, is built on virtual absence — the conviction that physical distance can and should be overcome, that presence can be simulated, and that mediation is always an improvement.

Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica humanitas was expected to offer a clear theological reckoning with AI. Instead, Barba-Kay argues, it pulled its punches.

The Neutrality Trap

A central problem Barba-Kay identifies is what he calls the "neutrality trap." The encyclical claims that technology isn't neutral because it reflects the values and intentions of its creators. While this sounds like a critique of technological neutrality, Barba-Kay argues it is functionally identical to the neutral tool argument:

If technology merely "reflects" its creators, then the only question is whether the creators are good or bad — the technology itself remains a passive instrument. This is exactly the neutral tool view in different clothing.

The real issue, he contends, is that technology actively constitutes new forms of human experience and self-understanding — it doesn't just reflect pre-existing values.

Inside-Out vs. Outside-In Control

Barba-Kay draws a crucial historical distinction. Industrial capitalism compelled human behavior from outside-in: factories, time clocks, and assembly lines imposed external discipline on workers. Digital technologies, by contrast, manipulate from inside-out — they "nudged and smiled their way into our hearts," reshaping desires, attention, and identity from within.

This makes the traditional moral framework of "moderate use" inadequate. A sin you commit knowingly is one thing; a pattern of behavior that reshapes your very capacity for judgment before you even recognize it is another entirely.

Two Missed Risks

Barba-Kay argues the encyclical overlooks two specific dangers:

  1. De facto transhumanism: The encyclical condemns explicit transhumanism (the project of transcending human limitations through technology), but misses how AI already fosters an implicit indifference to the boundary between human and artificial. When an AI writes a poem or offers life advice, the question of whether the source is human or machine becomes functionally irrelevant — and that indifference is itself a profound anthropological shift.

  2. The impossibility of moderation: The encyclical recommends "just and appropriate use" of AI, but cognitive deskilling is already pervasive. By the time you notice your ability to navigate without GPS, remember phone numbers, or write without autocomplete has atrophied, the damage is done. You cannot "moderately" use a technology that is already reshaping your cognitive architecture.

The Deeper Diagnosis

For Barba-Kay, the Church missed an opportunity to offer a genuinely theological critique. The deepest problem with AI is not that it might be used for bad purposes, but that it embodies a particular ontology — a way of being in the world that treats presence, embodiment, and mediation as problems to be solved rather than as constitutive features of human existence. The encyclical's conciliatory tone, he suggests, reflects a failure to recognize that the Church and Big Tech are not potential partners but competitors offering fundamentally incompatible accounts of what it means to be human.

Key Takeaways

  • The Church and Big Tech are the two most significant nonstate actors with competing visions of presence vs. absence
  • The encyclical's "technology reflects its creators" argument is a neutrality trap — functionally identical to the neutral tool view
  • Digital technologies manipulate from inside-out (reshaping desires and cognition), unlike industrial capitalism's outside-in compulsion
  • The encyclical misses de facto transhumanism (indifference to human vs. artificial) and the impossibility of moderate use under pervasive cognitive deskilling
  • A genuine theological critique would challenge AI's ontology of presence and mediation, not just its potential misapplications