Pope Leo XIV released his first papal encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, on May 25, a roughly 42,000-word document outlining a Catholic response to recent developments in AI. I had been eagerly anticipating this encyclical and spent much of the release day poring over the text. While there have been other Christian efforts to release statements about AI, this is the first comprehensive statement from the Catholic Church. What follows is a summary of the document, followed by my own response.
The document is arranged into five chapters along with an introduction and a conclusion. The introduction notes the anniversary of another encyclical that is referred to throughout the document, Rerum Novarum, written by Leo XIII in 1891 as a response to the industrial revolution. Just as the industrial revolution posed threats in the nineteenth century, Pope Leo XIV identifies many contemporary threats to humanity posed by AI. The subtitle of the encyclical captures his chief concern: “On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of AI.” The introduction invokes two images from the Bible (images that recur throughout the document): the construction of the Tower of Babel in contrast to the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. We are called to decide “between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem” and encouraged to harness AI “in building up the common good.”
Chapter 1 reads like a literature review in an academic paper, outlining the Social Doctrine of the Church as developed in previous encyclicals, with special attention to Rerum Novarum. Next, Chapter 2, titled “Foundations and Principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church,” sketches how the Social Doctrines of the Catholic Church inform the rest of the encyclical. These doctrines include: the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity, and social justice.
Chapter 3, titled “Technology and Dominance,” warns against the “technocratic paradigm” and efficiency that reduces “creation to an object of exploitation and human beings to mere cogs in a system.” The language has strong echoes with Jacques Ellul’s notion of Technique and Neil Postman’s notion of Technopoly. The chapter then applies various Social Doctrines to AI. It warns about the “simulation of human communication” as an area for “careful consideration” and can lead one to “gradually lose the very desire to form genuine human connections.” Given that some chatbots are tuned to be charming and addictive, I was surprised that the encyclical devoted only one paragraph to AI companionship.
As a computer science professor, I was delighted to see this chapter include a “special appeal to those who develop artificial intelligence” who “bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility.” Developers are reminded to attend to the values that they embed into their projects “with due seriousness” and with “transparency, responsibility toward affected communities and careful attention to ensuring that what is being cultivated is a genuine good” (concepts that figure prominently in our capstone course).
This chapter also addressed ideological movements such as Transhumanism and Posthumanism, which seek to use technology “to transcend the limits of the human condition,” viewing human limits as “a defect to be corrected.” The chapter wisely reminds us that it is within our limitations that we find compassion, generosity, and “encounter the presence of the Lord.” The chapter ends with another call to rebuild Jerusalem as opposed to the construction of Babel.
Chapter 4 is titled “Safeguarding Humanity at a Time of Transformation” and focuses on truth and work as common goods. The chapter raises the issues of disinformation that “finds a powerful amplifier in AI,” which can “manipulate content” and “exposes people to biased or misleading perspectives.” The chapter emphasizes norms for communication in contexts like the news, educational settings, and Christian communities.
As a professor in a Christian university, I appreciated how the chapter highlighted education as an area of “decisive importance” where we are called to “seek and love the truth” in “a long journey requiring patience.” The chapter has a long section devoted to the value of work, recognizing that while technology can “relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks.” However, there is a call for political leaders, labor, and business to collaborate to develop regulations and policies to proactively provide training and professional transitions for workers.
Chapter 5 is titled “The Culture of Power and the Civilization of Love,” which deals with war and how AI is changing the nature of conflict. The chapter identifies issues like cyberwarfare and autonomous weapon systems, which make “war more ‘feasible’ and less subject to human control.” There is a wise warning that “moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation” and hence “it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems.” There is a call for a clear “chain of responsibility” including those who “design, train, authorize and employ technology” to be held accountable. The chapter calls for curbing the “technological arms race” and ensuring “robust protection for civilians.” There is a call to build the “civilization of love” which includes individual action as well. Five paths towards a civilization of love are given: to be mindful of our words, to build peace through justice, to adopt the perspective of victims, to cultivate healthy realism, and to revive dialogue. The chapter concludes with a call to prayer.
The conclusion makes an appeal to Mary that my protestant sensibilities would quibble with, but my wider Christian sensibilities can wholeheartedly embrace Pope Leo’s call in this landmark publication with its wise and timely call for the church to be a witness to the gospel in the age of AI.
Some Critique
While the encyclical does acknowledge good uses for AI, as a computer scientist, I would have liked to have seen more specific examples for the good uses for AI, things like medical imaging and drug discovery, reducing traffic accidents, increasing crop yields, Bible translation, and environmental monitoring. While the document emphasizes the doctrine of creation with respect to how humans were made in the image of God, there is little discussion about AI as part of the good possibilities in creation. I appreciate the inclusion of a special appeal to those who develop AI, but it would have been helpful to sketch some more practical frameworks for the design and testing of AI systems. What would it look like not only to mitigate the many risks surrounding AI but also to reshape it in ways that are more redemptive?
Beyond that, I have very little critique of the encyclical. I came away convinced that the encyclical did a good job of showing how two thousand years of Christian social thought was indeed relevant and crucial to informing some of the most pressing issues in the age of AI. I was struck by how the Social Doctrines of the Catholic church overlap substantially with Reformed Christian thought (with which I am most familiar). I hope the issue of AI will provide an opportunity for Catholics and Protestants to put aside their ecclesiastical differences and come together with a united voice to advocate for the common good. As one step towards that, the upcoming Wisdom in the Age of AI hosted at Calvin University has invited Paolo Bananti, “the pope’s AI guy,” to be one of our keynote speakers. In the end, all believers in Christ should reject the building of another Tower of Babel and join hands to work together to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in this age of AI.
