Mercy or Machine Dystopia?

We may yet harness silicon to serve the Word made flesh — and leave our children a civilization more humane, not less.

Brinkley Colquitt is an incoming undergraduate at The Catholic University of America.

Artificial intelligence is not a neutral gust of technological wind, but rather an amplifier of whatever already rules the human heart. When efficiency outranks dignity, when data replaces wisdom, and when control substitutes for love, machines will simply magnify the disorder.

Yet the same algorithms, guided by right‑ordered intentions, can become powerful allies of mercy and justice; whether AI ushers in a season of healing or a technocratic dystopia depends on the vision and the virtue of the people who write its code and set its guardrails.

Five years ago, most of us treated generative language models as clever parlor tricks. Today, they draft legal briefs, diagnose cancers, curate our news feeds, and quietly shape the moral imagination of children who have never known a world without voice assistants.

These tools can brighten the horizon of human flourishing: protein‑folding models open pathways to lifesaving drugs, computer‑vision systems detect disease in regions with no physicians, and adaptive tutors translate algebra into the mother tongue of every child on the planet. In the right hands, AI extends the ancient works of mercy, such as healing the sick, educating the ignorant, and proclaiming good news, where missionaries cannot travel.

But the same engines, loosed from a Christian picture of the person, hasten society toward a chilling future. In China, and elsewhere, facial‑recognition grids merge with consumer data to create social‑credit regimes that reward compliance and punish dissent. Deepfake audio and video render evidence suspect and truth negotiable. Personalized feeds herd citizens into ideological silos so sealed that dialogue becomes impossible. Companion robots promise cheap empathy, yet train lonely hearts to settle for counterfeit communion. Predictive‑policing software executes judgment at machine speed without regard for whether a crime has actually been committed yet. None of these trends is an inevitable glitch in the hardware; each one is the fruit of an anthropology that forgets the soul.

Christianity offers a corrective no algorithm can counterfeit: The Word became flesh. God did not livestream salvation; He entered history, bore wounds, and redeemed matter from within. The Church carries that incarnational logic forward in every sacrament. Grace flows through water, oil, bread, and wine — tangible signs that bind earth to heaven.

We may use AI to share information, but we must never outsource preaching to avatars or confession to chatbots. Simulated presence cannot mediate sacramental reality, and no line of code can substitute for the hand that lifts the host or raises the right hand in absolution.

What, then, does a distinctly Catholic approach demand? First, unyielding reverence for the human person, created in God’s image and destined for glory. Every system must be audited, not just for technical accuracy but for its impact on the poor, the unborn, the elderly, the prisoner — those most likely to become statistical rounding errors.

Transparency matters: citizens deserve intelligible explanations when algorithms affect parole, credit, or medical treatment. Ecological costs, such as massive data centers and e-waste, must enter the moral calculus alongside profit margins. Technological decisions should honour subsidiarity, giving real authority to communities closest to the problem. And a culture that never sleeps beneath the LED glare must learn to keep Sabbath for silicon, powering down the screens so hearts can rest and attend to God.

Translating those principles into practice means bishops’ conferences establishing standing commissions on technology, seminaries teaching future priests to wrestle with digital ethics, Catholic schools fostering AI literacy that engages both intellect and conscience, and Catholic universities releasing open-source datasets vetted for privacy and bias. Parishes can bear quiet witness by preserving spaces free of phones and by reminding worshippers that faith flourishes in the presence of persons, not pixels.

The earliest Christians were labelled atheists because they refused to burn incense before Caesar. Today’s incense is data, and today’s idols glow behind glass. To refuse that false liturgy is not Luddite panic; it is prophetic realism. Yet Christian hope never withdraws from the city. It builds better streets. We can craft algorithms that aid doctors rather than replace them, platforms that elevate honest discourse, and classrooms that unite global neighbors in the pursuit of wisdom.

“The glory of God is man fully alive,” wrote Saint Irenaeus. An AI‑driven society will either obscure that glory or magnify it. The outcome is not pre‑programmed. It hinges on whether believers allow technology to define what it means to be human, or whether they insist that every machine kneel before the hierarchy of ends revealed in the Incarnation. If we choose the latter, we may yet harness silicon to serve the Word made flesh — and leave our children a civilization more humane, not less.

---

If you enjoyed this article, please consider becoming a patron of our publication! Your enthusiasm and support means a lot to all of us at The American Postliberal — and we promise we’ll work hard for your investment in our project.