This paper reviews the main papal texts that explicitly addressed the question of technique or technological issues before Laudato si’ (2015), taking as a framework the three components of the technocratic paradigm identified in The radical critique of the “Technocratic Paradigm” in Laudato si’, namely: the structural and social component (the power of technocracy); the component of rationality or logic (economic and financial profitability); and the epistemological component (specialized knowledge versus integral vision of problems).

1. Leo XIII: Rerum novarum (1891)

The text begins by stigmatizing the effects of the “thirst for innovation” which has seized societies and “keeps them in a feverish agitation”. Leo XIII deplores and condemns its social effects. “Feverish agitation” has, in fact, put an end to the previous institutional framework and exposed isolated and defenseless workers, leaving them “at the mercy of inhuman masters and the greed of unbridled competition. [...] To all this must be added the concentration in the hands of a few of industry and commerce, which has become the property of a small number of opulent men and plutocrats, who thus impose an almost servile yoke on the infinite multitude of proletarians” (Author’s translation from the French version of Rerum novarum).

Although Rerum novarum does not explicitly mention “technology” as an autonomous reality, nor any of the three components of the technocratic paradigm highlighted by Laudato si’, the diagnosis of the two Popes – 130 years apart – converges on two points: concentration of power and impact on social organization of a rationality biased by greed-fed concern for profitability. Thus, Rerum novarum highlights the deleterious (not to say corrupting) effects of economic power on political power, and underlines the harmful consequences for society of greed that penetrates the engine of economic rationality and, in consequence, masterminds the technical tools.

On the other hand, when it comes to remedies, the two Popes diverge: Leo XIII, in order to avert the crisis, calls for politicians to act in the name of the common good. Francis, in Laudato si’, calls for nothing less than “a cultural revolution” which should help to dismantle the technocratic paradigm and purge every corner of the social structure from its contaminating components.

2. Pius XI: Quadragesimo anno (1931)

Forty years after Rerum novarum, the world was grappling with the great economic crisis that was generating unprecedented unemployment and shaking up the political spectrum by strengthening the extremes, whether communist and socialist or fascist. Concerned by the multiform instability, Pope Pius XI pleaded in Quadragesimo anno for the urgent establishment of a (new) social order, which he proposed to base on the social teaching of the Church, in particular on the principles of solidarity, subsidiarity and the common good. In the face of the social emergency, neither the technological question nor the one of industrialization are at the heart of the analysis. Nevertheless, Pius XI addresses – in paragraphs 103 to 106 – some of their emerging consequences.

Pius XI takes note of the globalization – we would say today – of the capitalist regime; what concerns the Pope most is the concentration of wealth and power (derived also from technology) in the hands of managers : “This concentration of power and might, the characteristic mark, as it were, of contemporary economic life, is the fruit that the unlimited freedom of struggle among competitors has of its own nature produced, and which lets only the strongest survive; and this is often the same as saying, those who fight the most violently, those who give least heed to their conscience” (Quadragesimo anno, 107).

This concentration of power and resources, which is like the distinguishing feature of the contemporary economy, is the natural fruit of the cut-throat competition whose freedom knows no limits; only those remain standing who are the strongest, which often means fighting with the most violence, who are least bothered by scruples of conscience. This accumulation of might and of power generates in turn three kinds of conflict. First, there is the struggle for economic supremacy itself; then there is the bitter fight to gain supremacy over the State in order to use in economic struggles its resources and authority; finally there is conflict between States themselves… (cf. Quadragesimo anno, 107-108).

The analysis of the concentration of immense power – of Power with a capital P – in Pius XI is taken up by Francis, who uses the concept of technocracy to describe it. Pius XI acknowledges the existence of this power, whereas Francis goes deeper to identify its source in the alliance between technology and finance.

3. Pius XII: Christmas Messages of 1953 and 1957

Pope Pius XII devoted his Christmas message of 1953 to the spiritual consequences of technical advances. Indeed, the Pope says, it is clear that technology, having reached the height of its power and efficiency, is in fact being transformed into a spiritual danger. Indeed, the Pope foresees that a “spirit (of) technology” is taking hold of man and locking him into materialism. Without God, “technology will complete its monstrous masterpiece and transform man into a giant of the physical world at the expense of his spirit, which is reduced to a pygmy of the supernatural and eternal world”.

In the Christmas message of 1957 (his last), Pius XII returned to the collateral damage, anthropological and sociological, of technical progress which exploits human weakness when it is devoid of moral control.

“Technical progress, on the contrary, where it imprisons man in its coils, segregating him from the rest of the universe, especially from the spiritual and interior, conforms him to his own characteristics, of which the most notable are: superficiality and instability. The process of this deformation is no secret, when one considers man’s tendency to accept ambiguity and error, if they hold in their hands the promise of an easier life”.

4. Paul VI: Populorum progressio. On the development of peoples (1967)

Paul VI examines the implications of the extension of technology and industrialization to developing countries. Paul VI starts acknowledging that “certain types of colonialism surely caused harm and paved the way for further troubles”, but at the same time he pays tribute to “those colonizers whose skills and technical know-how brought benefits to many untamed lands, and whose work survives to this day. The structural machinery they introduced was not fully developed or perfected, but it did help to reduce ignorance and disease, to promote communication, and to improve living conditions” (Populorum progressio, 7).

Technology is therefore good, but remains difficult to handle since it places the societies concerned before “tragic dilemma: either to preserve traditional beliefs and structures and reject social progress; or to embrace foreign technology and foreign culture, and reject ancestral traditions with their wealth of humanism” (10). Faced with the tragedy of the situation, Pope Paul VI sees a way out: in the use of the fruits of industrialization – which is unavoidable – and of development to make man grow: “The introduction of industrialization, which is necessary for economic growth and human progress, is both a sign of development and a spur to it. By dint of intelligent thought and hard work, man gradually uncovers the hidden laws of nature and learns to make better use of natural resources. As he takes control over his way of life, he is stimulated to undertake new investigations and fresh discoveries, to take prudent risks and launch new ventures, to act responsibly and give of himself unselfishly” (25).

If man’s progress and development depend on industrialization, Paul VI dissociates the latter from capitalism, as if the former were possible without the latter. In this he echoes the promises of industrial but socialist planned economies, which were very much in vogue at the time.

“But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself … We must in all fairness acknowledge the vital role played by labor systemization and industrial organization in the task of development (26).

Populorum progressio refuses to recognize the inescapable nature of the collusion between industrialization and the ‘technological and financial’ logic. Because it envisages the possibility of another industrialization (and of a technique) attentive to the common good, dissociated from the misdeeds of capitalism. Paul VI remains – at this stage – relatively optimistic. This being the case, he identifies the technocratic danger that looms on the horizon: “It is not enough to develop technology so that the earth may become a more suitable living place for human beings. The mistakes of those who led the way should help those now on the road to development to avoid certain dangers. The reign of technology – technocracy, as it is called – can cause as much harm to the world of tomorrow as liberalism did to the world of yesteryear. Economics and technology are meaningless if they do not benefit man, for it is he they are to serve” (34). It is in this context that the notion of technocracy appears for the first time – I think – under a pontifical pen. Paul VI returns to technocracy in the apostolic letter Octogesima adveniens (1971). The connotation is more concrete, more clearly systemic and more negative at the same time. Thus, bureaucratic socialism and technocratic capitalism are first dismissed for their inability to “solve the great human problem of living together in justice and equality” (Octogesima adveniens, 37).

Then it comes to the remedies, which are barely sketched out: in order to contain “a growing technocracy, it is necessary to invent forms of modern democracy, not only by giving each person the possibility of being informed and of expressing himself, but by engaging him in a common responsibility” (47). Forty-four years later, the theme of technocracy and the ‘technocratic paradigm’ will be taken up by Pope Francis in Laudato si’ in a much more alarmist way.

5. Saint John Paul II

The technological question is a subject little touched upon by the three social encyclicals of John Paul II: Laborem exercens (1981), Sollicitudo rei socialis (1987) and Centesimus annus (1991). The Pope’s attention is focused on two points related to technology. On the one hand, the delicate question of the relationship between the – often technical – means and tools of production (capital) and the worker (Laborem exercens), whose autonomy and pre-eminence must be guaranteed; on the other hand, the imperative to keep the development and use of science and technology under ethical and moral control.

John Paul II clearly sees the risk of the emancipation of the logic of technology from all moral control, but – according to him – this risk can be contained by moral decisions (cf. Centesimus annus, 36). Neither the technological logic nor the power structure that results from it and underpins, it is at the heart of John Paul II’s attention, in contrast to the attention paid to these issues by both his predecessors and Pope Francis.

However, St. John Paul II does acknowledge the importance of the relationship between personal acts and the structural level. To capture the social consequences of individual deeds, he proposes the notion of the “structures of sin” (Centesimus annus, 38). In this way, he refers to perverse organizational structures that arise from individual acts contrary to the common good and which have further a structuring effect on actions of others. Once in place, these structures have a multiplying and leveraging effect on others by limiting their freedom of action to the point of forcing them into non-ethical behaviours. At the root of these structures lay personal acts, by those who have the capacity to exercise power by passing unjust laws, setting up organizations or companies embedded in values or culture contrary to human dignity, etc. These structures act as multipliers of sin into which those they govern are drawn.

There is a certain analogy between the notion of technocratic paradigm developed by Pope Francis and the broader category of “structure of sin” proposed by John-Paul II. Indeed, the structure of sin arises from a morally flawed decision (the biased decision criterion in Laborem exercens) and gives rise to a power structure, which is at the heart of the technocratic paradigm.

The third systemic component of the technocratic paradigm, namely the production of new knowledge that ensures its sustainability, is not highlighted explicitly in the notion of structure of sin. Yet there is an analogy between what has just been said and the fact that every structure of sin tends to produce – like did communism, which St John Paul II has dissected on many occasions – its own discourse of moral justification which – in turn – will seek to subdue consciences and thus contribute to the solidity of the structure.

6. Benedict XVI: Caritas in veritate (2009)

The question of technology, its contribution to development and of its control is very present in Benedict XVI’s only social encyclical, Caritas in veritate, whose chapter 6 is entitled “the development of peoples and technology”. The starting point is the observation that “technology […] is ambivalent” (14) and that it cannot therefore be left to itself. It must be controlled and subjected to moral judgement or it will become a dangerous “technocratic ideology”. For Benedict XVI, “idealizing technical progress, or contemplating the utopia of a return to humanity’s original natural state, are two contrasting ways of detaching progress from its moral evaluation and hence from our responsibility” (14). Indeed, “technology is never merely technology” (69); it has a moral dimension that it is tempting and easy to ignore or forget.

“When technology is allowed to take over, the result is confusion between ends and means, such that the sole criterion for action in business is thought to be the maximization of profit, in politics the consolidation of power, and in science the findings of research. Often, underneath the intricacies of economic, financial and political interconnections, there remain misunderstandings, hardships and injustice. The flow of technological know-how increases, but it is those in possession of it who benefit, while the situation on the ground for the peoples who live in its shadow remains unchanged: for them there is little chance of emancipation” (71).

Benedict XVI analyses the various components of what Francis will call the “technocratic paradigm” primarily in a mode that can rightly be described as speculative. It is true that he envisages the possible absolutization of technology, but the author does not speak of this as a proven fact. The same applies to the social effects of a technically driven logic. They are mentioned as particular and possible situations, without underlining their recurrent character.

Two permanent concerns emerge from this analysis of papal pronouncements: on the one hand, technology as an instrument of power and its consequences on society, especially on the most disadvantaged; on the other hand, the concern to maintain moral (and political) control over technological development.

The paper devoted to Laudato si’ has shown to what extent the “technocratic paradigm”, as it emerges under Francis’ pen, draws on the contributions of his predecessors, but also to what extent it goes beyond them by proposing a more articulated diagnosis. For Francis, in fact, the technocratic paradigm is a coherent, powerful and systemic reality. The Pope’s diagnosis matches the level of complexity of the phenomenon: it is holistic and systemic. Francis text is not a demonstration, a description or an argument; it is rather a synthetic diagnosis of a complex social and ideologic phenomena. For Francis, the reality of the phenomenon is undisputable, as is undisputable its dangerous character for man, for humanity and for the common home. This point is further reinforced in the apostolic exhortation Laudate Deum (2023).

It must therefore be better contained, resisted or even fought. Laudato si’ is therefore also a call to resist through a “cultural revolution” driven by “authentic humanity”. According to Francis, resolute action can contain, counteract and even dismantle the paradigm and save humanity from social and ecological collapse in the near future.