La Salle Campus Barcelona, a founding member of Universitat Ramon Llull, hosted a roundtable discussion bringing together experts from different fields to reflect on and debate artificial intelligence and the care of the human person, using Pope Leo XIV’s recent encyclical as a guiding thread. Under the title Care of the Human Person and AI: On Pope Leo XIV’s Encyclical Magnifica humanitas, the session promoted a transdisciplinary dialogue on the social, educational, philosophical, and technological challenges posed by today’s digital revolution.
The event featured Dr Rosa Ma. Alsina, Provost of La Salle-URL; Dr Carles Llinàs, Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy; Dr David Miralles, professor and researcher at La Salle-URL; and Dr Ricardo Mejía, professor at the Faculty of Philosophy. Brother Alejandro González Cerna, Dean of Education at Bethlehem University, also joined online. The discussion was moderated by Dr Armando Pego, Academic Director of the PhD Program in Philosophy: Humanism and Transcendence.
Analyzing the encyclical Magnifica humanitas through interdisciplinary dialogue
The moderator, Dr Pego, opened the session by highlighting the intention to organize a roundtable that would not simply be a series of monologues, but rather a genuine conversation capable of reflecting the characteristic features of both the encyclical and the campus itself. He emphasized the importance of doing so from a transdisciplinary and Christian perspective because, ultimately, the encyclical is a spiritual document.
Dr Ricardo Mejía began the discussion by outlining what he sees as the central characteristic of Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical: “We are faced with a social encyclical. It is not a text that addresses dogmatic or doctrinal issues from a theological perspective; it is a social encyclical. There is a connection with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum novarum in that it addresses a new revolution: the digital revolution.” The encyclical does not speak of a simple change of era; rather, it presents the current moment as a revolution. From a philosophical perspective, speaking of a revolution carries much greater significance than speaking of change. In Mejía’s view, the Pope has been both courageous and remarkably explicit. Dr Carles Llinàs expanded on this idea: “It is undeniable that this is a social encyclical, and I would add that it is not a dogmatic encyclical because it does not deal with the central tenets of faith. However, it seems to me that the central tenets of faith serve as the underlying premise for everything that follows. The encyclical is by no means technophobic, but it does tell us that we are faced with a choice between one particular vision of the human being and another.”
The philosophical perspective was complemented by the contributions of Dr Miralles and Dr Alsina. “The Pope is a mathematician. He speaks about concepts that, unless you belong to the field, you may not know. One of them, which he argues deserves deeper scientific research, is the internal representation of models. It is a construct created by AI and also by our own brains, helping us interpret reality and make decisions about specific issues, and it is something we use extensively in our research group,” Dr Miralles explained before adding: “Through interaction with machines, you may eventually lose the desire to genuinely seek out the other person. When you talk to a friend and share your problems, something more emerges because there is another human being there, and you feel the need to get to know them. That does not happen with a machine.” At this point, Dr Pego further developed the idea, noting that “every human interaction involves uncertainty: a machine will always respond, whereas a person may not. A machine will never stop answering.”
For her part, Dr Alsina combined technological and educational perspectives in her interpretation of the encyclical: “We need judgment and critical thinking. We need to understand the new reality we are living in because, fundamentally, AI itself is not new; what is new is the form of AI we have today and its democratization.” She argued that adaptation is required not only in education but also in research and industry. She also agreed with the Pope’s assertion that technology is not neutral—a widely repeated mantra. Technological systems are designed with specific purposes in mind, and she noted that she had never before seen such a categorical statement from such a prominent figure.
Placing the human person at the center in a global technological context
In the final part of the discussion, Dr Mejía emphasized that the Pope rejects technophobia from a rational standpoint. “He acknowledges that AI and emerging technologies undoubtedly benefit humanity, but he also criticizes what a British theologian has called technolatry.” The final chapter of the encyclical, which he considers its most political section, addresses the idea of “techno-fascism,” understood as the elevation of innovation into a dogma. Dr Alsina agreed: “At a global level, we must understand that power structures are no longer only the ones we have traditionally known. Those structures still exist, but power has shifted and become digital power. A form of power that does not belong to someone elected every four years, but to someone driven by business interests.” Dr Miralles concluded his intervention by stressing that truth is a common good and not the property of those who hold power.
Finally, the roundtable featured an online contribution from Brother Alejandro González Cerna, Dean of Education at Bethlehem University, who expressed his gratitude for being able to participate in a discussion: “Conducted through personal and communal reading, and developed through sharing together rather than from dogma. It has been said that the Pope does not approach the issue in a dogmatic way, and neither have we.” He concluded with a reflection from a Lasallian perspective: “We want to incorporate AI as a tool that helps us see people as whole human beings and helps them use both their feet and their minds. Are we preparing our students to compete against organizations and algorithms? Or are we equipping them precisely for what algorithms cannot imitate? Things such as love, disruptive thinking, or genuine innovation.” He closed with the following observation: “I agree that the encyclical is social rather than Christ-centered, but it is profoundly human”.
The event reflects La Salle-URL’s commitment to fostering dialogue between technology, the humanities, and society in order to address the major challenges of our time. Faithful to an educational tradition that combines innovation, critical thinking, and commitment to the individual, the campus continues to promote spaces for dialogue that contribute to building a more human, responsible, and common-good-oriented digital transformation.
