In Chiclayo, Pope calls on local clergy to reject clericalism, warns students against soulless tech
During a Nov. 13 visit to his former diocese in Chiclayo, Pope Leo XIV urged local clergy to turn Church reform and synodality into concrete action, beginning with pastors examining their own conduct. He said Church authority should be exercised through service and discernment, and that lay participation reflects the dignity of baptism rather than being a concession. Addressing university students, the pope warned that soulless technology, including artificial intelligence, can threaten human dignity.
3 hours ago
Pope Leo XIV returned to Chiclayo, Peru, where he had served as bishop, and used two Nov. 13 gatherings to urge greater lay participation and accountability within the Church, while cautioning students and educators against allowing technology and efficiency to eclipse human dignity.
Speaking to bishops, clergy, religious and lay leaders at the Shrine of Our Lady of Peace, Leo said synodality must be put into practice, starting with pastors examining their own conduct. He called for an end to clericalist attitudes and said Church authority should be exercised through service, discernment and recognition of the gifts and initiatives of the laity.
The pope described authentic communion as something that values, rather than erases, differences in culture, vocation and ministry. He said listening to social realities, defending human dignity, accompanying vulnerable groups and working for justice, peace and the common good are requirements of the Church’s mission.
People who spoke before the pope offered examples of synodality in practice: a priest recalled being taught to listen to laypeople and give them their place; a religious sister emphasized discerning and making decisions with lay partners; and a laywoman described door-to-door ministry that brought people together around a pilgrim statue of Mary.
At Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo Catholic University, Leo warned that higher education should not be reduced to job preparation for a competitive market. He said scientific progress detached from justice and workers’ dignity can become oppressive, and cautioned that “technology without a soul does not truly improve life.”
He urged the university community to resist a technocratic outlook that treats efficiency as the highest value and reduces reality to material data. Drawing on the example of St. Turibius, he encouraged using scientific innovation to bridge social divides and address exclusion, especially affecting the poor.
Leo encouraged students to combine prayer, study and reflection with action, and asked educators to put truth before opinion and justice before self-interest. He also called on academics to apply their expertise to social justice, the needs of the poor and care for creation.
Authority and technology must serve human dignity
Authority and technology are legitimate only when they help people flourish: they must respect the inherent dignity of every person and serve the common good. Authority is not a license to dominate, and technological capability is not proof that a system should be built or used. Catholic teaching therefore judges both by what they do to people—especially the vulnerable—and by whether they protect freedom, justice, solidarity, and the possibility of human growth.
The Church understands authority as necessary for an ordered common life, but its legitimacy depends on how it is exercised. The Catechism puts the point plainly:
Those who exercise authority should do so as a service.
In civil society, service means protecting fundamental rights, applying just laws, respecting subsidiarity—the principle that decisions should be made at the most appropriate level, rather than unnecessarily concentrated—and seeking the community’s good rather than the ruler’s private interest. Authority should coordinate the freedom of people and social groups toward integral human growth; it must act within moral limits and a just legal order.
This also explains why Catholic teaching does not treat obedience as unconditional. A law or command must be measured against the dignity of the person and right reason. The Church’s social teaching says that when public authority abandons the common good, it abandons its proper purpose. The point is not that every disagreement makes authority illegitimate, but that power is morally accountable: it may not rightly command what violates human dignity or the moral law.
Technology can be a genuine good. It can reduce risks, save labor, improve living conditions, and express human creativity. But it is not simply a neutral instrument: its design, funding, regulation, and use reflect human purposes and choices. Pope Leo XIV’s teaching warns that when technology becomes the ultimate standard, people risk being treated as data, as replaceable parts, or as commodities; wisely directed, however, technology can serve growth, justice, and fraternity.
That distinction matters because technical efficiency is not the same as moral goodness. A system might process information quickly or reduce costs while still excluding people, deepening inequality, or making decisions without adequate regard for their circumstances. Pope Francis warned that algorithms can rely on data shaped by social prejudice and can wrongly make a person’s past behavior a barrier to future change. Human worth, he stressed, cannot be measured by data alone.
Technology should therefore be judged by whether it supports human beings and relationships—not merely by whether it works as intended by its designers. The Church’s teaching on digital communication recognizes its real potential for encounter and solidarity, while insisting that it be directed toward truth, service, closeness to people in need, and the common good.
Authority and technology cannot be assessed separately. Public authorities shape the conditions in which technology is developed and used, while technological systems can affect access to social and political influence. Pope Francis accordingly raised questions about whether institutions can hold technology companies accountable for the social and cultural effects of their products, and whether technological inequality undermines solidarity.
This calls for more than either blind trust in innovation or a blanket rejection of it. The 2025 Vatican note on artificial intelligence says that human dignity and fraternity must undergird technological development and serve as decisive criteria before technologies are put into use. Authority should set and uphold just conditions; those who develop and deploy technology should take responsibility for its effects; and the people affected should not be treated as passive objects of decisions made elsewhere. These are practical implications of the supplied teachings on accountability, dignity, and the common good.
When a government, institution, or company considers exercising power or introducing a technology, the Catholic principle in your statement can be made concrete by asking:
The central claim is not that authority or technology is inherently bad. Both can contribute to human flourishing. But neither is self-justifying: authority must remain morally accountable, and technology must remain a human instrument. Their proper measure is whether they honor the dignity of persons and build conditions in which people can live, participate, and grow together.