Papal Encyclical on Artificial Intelligence

In May 2026 the current Pope, Leo XIV, published his Encyclical on Artificial Intelligence: Magnifica Humanitas. This news piqued my attention. While it's common to hear religious leaders speak on modern human challenges, I was surprised see Artificial Intelligence (AI) the subject of the Pope's attention. I suppose the speed and scale of AI's current influence can't be ignored across the globe.

I've never read a Papal Encyclical until now. I'd never heard of "Encyclical." They are publications the Pope uses to circulate official doctrine to Church leadership and lay. Because of its centralized and authoritative nature, Catholic Church Encyclicals can be assumed to have a global relevance and impact.

As I began reading I was struck by the diverse number of topics covered by Leo XIV. AI is quite outside the scope of the Racial Equity group. While this Encyclical focuses on the effects of technology on the Church and society at large, it also covers a lot of issues related to justice and to the welfare of people and families. The term Racial equity is not explicitly mentioned but Leo XIV covers a range of topics and ideas that intersect with our project of eliminating racial inequities and dismantling systems and practices of oppression towards people of color in our church and communities.

Background

This document is inspired by Rerum Novarum, an encyclical published in 1891. That Pope, Leo XIII, reflected on the emerging modern society during the height of European industrialization and imperialism. It reflected on how society, politics, and the economy interacted with the lives of people in the Church. It was unprecedented in its time because people assumed the Church as responsible for only the spiritual parts of human lives and preaching the message of eternal life. "Leo XIII responded with realism and wisdom, saying that the proclamation of the Gospel cannot overlook the concrete lives of people." (Para. 3)

I was reminded by Rev. Casey that the current Pope took his name in honor of these social teachings.

Since Rerum Novarum, Papal Encyclicals have often commented on the social and economic situations of people across the world. Using extensive references and quotes from his papal predecessors, such as John Paul II and Francis, Leo XIV thoroughly preempts any criticisms that his encyclical treads into unfamiliar and unprecedented topics. Leo XIV argues that his predecessors are the authors of foundational concepts, like Social Doctrine and the common good. In a way analogous to how "fans" of sports teams chide athletes when they comment on politics and social issues, that they should "stick to sports," Leo XIV anticipates the potential backlash to his reflections in the current technological, social and political developments across the globe. According to the Church for over a century, the well-being of people and the teachings of Jesus are not separate.

Themes

Recurring themes are reused to ground Leo's XIV arguments in existing doctrine and Biblical lessons.

The Tower and the City

Leo XIV uses two Old Testament stories: The Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9) and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 2-6). He highlights and references these stories when drawing comparisons to our modern challenges. Ultimately the Church is asked: do we want to build a Tower of pride and domination or a "holy city of coexistence and peace" (Para. 185).

The Tower of Babel is his cautionary analogy. The Tower "was a project conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion" (Para. 7). Leo XIV compares the current attitude of technological companies and leaders to the power and pride of the Tower builders. Leo XIV warns that modern AI technology seeks to transform the global economy and human achievements in the name of efficiency with little concern for its dehumanizing effects. "We must, then, avoid the 'Babel syndrome,' namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences...into data and performance" (Para. 10).

Nehemiah's story represents an idealized form of building together and for one another. "It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones." (Para. 8). When Nehemiah returns to a destroyed Jerusalem he convenes the remaining families, giving them each a shared portion of the walls to rebuild and maintain. All play a part. The city is rebuilt, not by forceful command but by a shared responsibility that rebuilds using relationships as much as it uses stones.

Leo XIV asks the Church: "What are we building?" (Para. 90). Are we building tools that serve efficiency, profit, and domination? or are we building technology that respects, preserves, and empowers our shared humanity?

The Social Doctrine arises in the late 19th century to connect the Church to the material and fundamental human needs of her people. The Church sees itself in dialogue with history. It makes policies and prescriptions to the Church in order to fulfill its primary mission to sanctify and proclaim eternal goods to all humanity. It is concerned with promoting the faith that will unite heaven and earth. But the Church isn't separated or ignorant of human needs. It responds to changes in human society.

Leo XIV spends an entire chapter on the Social Doctrine. It is "core set of unchanging truths" (Para. 46) that guide the Church when evaluating and interpreting new developments of human history. The Social Doctrine rests on three foundations: The human person as the image of God, that dignity is afforded to all people equally, and that basic human rights are supremely important and inviolable by any person or entity.

The Common Good

The common good is one of the most referenced themes that first emerges as a core principle of the Social Doctrine. It's a shared object of aspiration that should exist on Earth between all peoples. It's a state of harmony constantly under construction and refinement when we look outwardly at the social needs of others. It's something that can be neglected and harmed when we act in wrong or selfish ways. In short, "We can describe it as the social expression of the dignity recognized in every person" (Para. 59). For a Christian it is a non-negotiable value.

According to Leo XIV, the common good rests upon three foundations: a firm relationship with God, accepting humanity's limits, and shared responsibility with courage. These last two items, especially, are pertinent to altering our relationships to others. We can choose unity over division and isolation. "It is the pursuit of the common good that gives life to a people, understood not as a mere collection of individuals, but as a living reality in which people learn to recognize that they themselves are interconnected and jointly responsible for the res publica" (Para. 62). When we live towards the common good we build meaningful relationships and sustainable governance. And when Leo XIV reflects on responsible governance it includes the highest and lowest levels of organization. Responsibility falls upon government and business leaders in the same way it falls upon two people working out their differences. All affect how we live and whether we build or destroy the common good.

Topics

In this section I will focus quotations from the Encyclical. There are so many but here are the highlights from my reading:

Within the entire encyclical there is no specific recommendation regarding racial equity. However Leo XIV's thoughts on the treatment migrants and refugees come closest. He calls for a reset and reimagining of the ways citizens and their governments treat foreign, minority populations.

For the Christian community, social justice is a concrete way of following Jesus and remaining faithful to the Gospel...[it] concerns not only the behavior of individuals, but also the way in which the structures of society are conceived and organized (Para. 77).

Justice is one our shared responsibilities.

In the New Testament, Jesus proclaims the “good news to the poor” ( Lk 4:18) and identifies himself with the lowly, the sick, the imprisoned and strangers (cf. Mt 25:31-46). He thus teaches us that justice is born from, and fulfilled in, fraternity, because the way we approach and relate to the least among us becomes..the measure of our relationship with God and with our brothers and sisters (Para. 77).

A litmus test for social justice today is the treatment of migrants, refugees and those forced to move due to poverty, violence, climate change and environmental disasters...Social justice in this area entails at least two complementary commitments. On the one hand, this means protecting the rightful hopes of those forced to leave by ensuring safe and legal routes, dignified conditions for receiving them, and genuine pathways to integration. On the other hand, it means promoting the right to remain in one’s homeland in peace and security by addressing the root causes that force people to migrate, including those linked to economic injustices and the climate crisis (Para. 81).

The Dignity of Persons

Leo XIV repeatedly warns against the potential for harm by AI and new technological leaders. It's clear he believes the most powerful technology leaders promote economic growth and profits at the expense of the dignity of individuals, especially those at the bottom of society's ladder. Leo XIV is concerned that transformational changes to economy and society might displace workers and people who do not prove themselves useful to the new structures of power.

Among these ideologies, I consider particularly insidious the one that suggests that every person must earn or justify his or her own worth, to the point of attributing greater value to those who are more efficient or effective. From this perspective, persons end up being reduced to a means of achieving results, a resource to be used and exploited, and are no longer recognized as a proper end in themselves who should never be instrumentalized. The value of persons, however, does not depend on what they achieve or produce. There are rights that apply to everyone simply by virtue of being human, and no human power can legitimately deny or arbitrarily limit them (Para. 51)

The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good (Para. 152).

AI and Technology

It's important to remember that AI is a human creation. It is an impressive, useful, and transformational tool, but it is not the same as human intelligence.

We must avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligence” with that of human beings...they [do not] have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom (Para. 99).

Because AI is created and used by humans we can not fall into a trap of treating AI as a neutral arbitrator of truth.

From this follows a simple but compelling consequence: we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral. In reality, every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations. If a system is designed or used in a way that treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes them without the possibility of appeal, then it is not merely a tool “to be used well,” since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the inalienable dignity of the human person. (Para. 104).

Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral, for they can either foster participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control and exclusion. For this reason, they must be evaluated by asking a crucial question: Do they truly help individuals and peoples to become more humane and fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations? (Para. 85).

We all must take responsibility for the technologies. A machine can not be held responsible for its actions and it can not make moral, courageous decisions.

For AI to respect human dignity and truly serve the common good, responsibility must be clearly defined at every stage: from those who design and develop these systems to those who use them and rely on them for concrete decisions (Para. 105).

Human dignity is revisited in the light of the way technology can change us. Leo XIV sees the ambition of AI and techno-humanist ambition as destroying the definition of what it means to be human and to relate to one another.

At the root of these problems lies a technocratic and post-humanist mentality that tends to regard the human person as an object to be manipulated or a resource to be optimized, [172]removing all safeguards against the unchecked pursuit of profit. What prevails is efficiency, rather than respect for freedom and human dignity (Para. 172).

When efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion (Para. 112).

For an algorithm, an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, however, an error can be a catalyst for profound change. A person’s future is not calculable, but depends on one’s freedom — elevated by the inexhaustible grace of God — and on the relationships cultivated (Para 128).

While Leo XIV demands courage and responsibility from all of us he places a higher burden on the leaders to shift their ideologies to a more humanist outlook. He argues for the primacy of humans despite our heterogenity and innate flaws because we are able to grow and our future is shaped by our interactions with one another. An optimized and flawless humanity implies that technology will "dominate and ultimately dehumanize" (Para. 90) those who do not fit the vision of the builders (The Tower of Babel analogy). Instead we should be more cognizant of the common good we want to build and how we all share the responsibility of building it (Nehemiah analogy).

Leo XIV calls for the "disarming" of today's AI technology.

To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion and debate, therefore making it human-friendly and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life. Our task today is not only ethical or technical. It is ecological in the deepest sense, for it concerns a new dimension of our common home. AI is already an environment in which we are immersed, as well as a force with which we must engage. For this reason, merely regulating it is insufficient; it must be disarmed, welcoming and accessible (Para. 110).

Conclusion

I read Leo's XIV most as a warning that we can not offload to technology the hard questions and challenges regarding how we relate to each other and our world. Our current challenges like the movement of migrants across borders, an ongoing climate crisis, and global poverty, are deeply human problems that require humans to solve. When we offload our responsibilities to technology we concentrate these decisions to unaccountable people and algorithms. Businesses are designed to be efficient, to deliver goods, and to make profit. But these are neutral things. They can be positive things but ultimately these are demands of a technological order. It requires human courage and responsibility to direct the benefits of technology to the common good and to safeguard the gift of life we enjoy on Earth.

Considering Leo XIV's encyclical and our goal to promote racial equity within our church and communities there are certain lessons in this document we already understand. The Social Doctrine principles of solidarity and justice are necessary to bridge our relationships and repair divisions we are taught long before we can comprehend them.

I also think that Leo XIV's warnings about systems that promise to free us from weakness and our limits are important. Analogous to Leo XIV's Tower of Babel analogy a plan of racial equity lead by only white people or only by powerful corporations isn't a plan of shared responsibility. Ideologies that promise equality though efficiency and sameness deny our humanity because they will fundamentally exclude those left behind. We will only repair our relationships and build a better common good if we do it together.