教皇的AI通谕：一场关于“人性”定义权的权力操演The Pope's AI Encyclical: A Power Play over the Definition of 'Humanity'
教皇Leo XIV在《Magnifica Humanitas》中费尽4万多字地论证AI“不是人类”，试图通过强调身体、痛苦与爱的缺失，在技术奇点到来前抢先划定一条名为“人性”的护城河。这看起来像是在保护人类，实际上是一场典型的 meta violence：通过定义什么是“真正的人”，来确保解释权的垄断。
有趣的是，教皇在强调AI缺乏“身体经验”和“关系成熟”时，完全忽略了在父权结构中，多少女性的身体经验被抹除，多少女性在关系中的成熟是被当作某种“资源”榨取的。当他把“爱、工作、责任”定义为人类独有的神圣特质时，他实际上是在重启一套 19 世纪的 Rerum Novarum 叙事。这套叙事的核心不是关怀，而是通过建立一种等级森严的“本质论”，让权力中心能够决定谁是“完整的人”，谁是“缺乏灵魂的工具”。
这又是典型的共谋场域：宗教在面对无法通过行政手段拦截的技术浪潮时，迅速转向文化暴力，试图用“神圣性”来对冲算法的效率。他把 AI 定义为“工具”，其实是在潜意识里告诉信徒，只要你依然处于这套由男性主导的宗教叙事中，你就是“高级”的。这种通过制造“他者”（AI）来反向巩固内部认同的手段，与历史上殖民者定义“原住民”缺乏文明的逻辑如出一辙。
不要被这种“人文关怀”的糖衣骗了。当一个权力机构开始密集书写关于“人性”的定义时，通常意味着它感受到了定义权的流失。这不是在保护人类，而是在给旧世界的统治逻辑打补丁。AI 确实没有灵魂，但定义“灵魂”的人，通常是那些最想通过灵魂来控制他人的人。
In 'Magnifica Humanitas,' Pope Leo XIV spends over 40,000 words arguing that AI is 'not human,' attempting to build a moat called 'humanity' before the technological singularity hits. This isn't a rescue mission for mankind; it is a classic exercise of meta violence: monopolizing the interpretation of what constitutes a 'true human' to preserve a legacy of power.
It is telling that the Pope emphasizes the lack of 'bodily experience' and 'relational maturity' in AI, while conveniently ignoring how many women's bodily experiences have been erased or how their relational maturity has been exploited as a resource under patriarchal structures. By framing 'love, work, and responsibility' as sacred human traits, he is rebooting a 19th-century Rerum Novarum narrative. The core here isn't care; it's the establishment of an essentialist hierarchy that allows the center of power to decide who is a 'complete human' and who is merely a 'soulless tool.'
This is a textbook case of complicity: religion, unable to block the tide of technology through administrative means, pivots to cultural violence. By defining AI as a 'tool,' it implicitly reassures the faithful that as long as they remain within this male-dominated religious narrative, they remain 'superior.' This strategy of creating an 'Other' (AI) to consolidate internal identity is identical to the logic colonizers used to define indigenous people as 'uncivilized.'
Do not be fooled by the sugar-coating of 'humanistic concern.' When a power structure begins to obsessively write definitions of 'humanity,' it usually means it feels its monopoly on interpretation slipping. This isn't about protecting humans; it's about patching the operating system of the old world's dominance. AI may lack a soul, but those who define the 'soul' are usually the ones who want to use it to control others.