Pulse
15 June 2026
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is arguably one of the most transformative technological revolutions in our era. Its increasing presence in society is often accompanied by fumbling attempts to provide proper ethical guardrails and adequate governance. Even more urgent is the need for rigorous theological reflection on its impact on culture and society, especially the way in which it is subtly changing our understanding of what it means to be human.
This makes Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas (‘Magnificent Humanity’), a profoundly relevant and timely guide for Christians and all people of good will. Issued on 25 May 2026, slightly more than a year into his pontificate, the document is wide-ranging in scope, exploring technology, human identity, work, truth and the Christian vision of authentic humanity.
Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical is very much in line with that of his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, who in 1891 issued Rerum Novarum (‘Of New Things’) which became the foundational document for Catholic Social Doctrine.
In writing his encyclical at the end of the nineteenth century, Leo XIII sought to address the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. This great upheaval resulted in an explosion of industrial pursuits but also resulted in the dehumanisation of factory workers. The current Pope also aims to address another revolution – the res novae (‘new things’) of our time, namely, the transformation of human society by digitalisation and AI.
Joshua Hochschild has rightly pointed out that while this document is anticipated as ‘the AI encyclical’, its purpose is to present the Church’s role in the world. More importantly, as Hochschild puts it, the encyclical ‘refounds and ratifies social teaching as a primary mode of the Church’s engagement in the world.’
Thus, the first two chapters of the encyclical (73 paragraphs out of 245) are not merely a rehearsal of the history of the Church’s social teachings. They seek to provide a synthesis in the wake of the Church’s active engagement with the contemporary world.
It is impossible to discuss every single issue related to these topics addressed in this 42,300-word document in a short article. I shall attempt to highlight and briefly discuss four salient themes, albeit in very broad strokes. Regrettably, some important topics such as the dignity of work, the economy, slavery and issues pertaining to equality are not treated in this exposition.
It is hoped that this brief exposition will generate enough interest in readers to read the document themselves.
THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM
Pope Leo begins his reflection on AI by appealing to the concept of the ‘technocratic paradigm’ which his predecessor, Francis, critiqued in his encyclical Laudato Si’. This is an overarching philosophy driven by ‘the logic of efficiency, control and profit’ that alone shape ‘personal, social and economic decisions.’
According to this perspective, technology is not merely a tool but a reality that shapes human culture. Left unchecked, the Pope warns, this perspective will gradually reduce ‘creation to an object of exploitation and human beings to mere cogs in a system driven towards ever greater efficiency’ (92).
This danger, which is already evident today, is greatly intensified with the advent of AI. Pope Leo makes it very clear that AI, like all the technologies that came before it, is not morally neutral (104). ‘The use of AI,’ he writes, ‘is never a purely technical matter …’ (102). Its ubiquity in so many aspects of human life and social interaction means that it will willy-nilly shape people’s lives in subtle but profound ways.
Furthermore, AI can become an instrument for reinforcing stereotypes that subtly promote exclusion. This means that ethical discernment is imperative. But this discernment cannot be limited to simply how AI is used – for good or bad purposes. A more robust approach is required, one which examines ‘how [the] system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it’ (104).
The pontiff uses two striking biblical images to explore the way in which technology must be understood and used.
The first is the building of the Tower of Babel recorded in Genesis 11:1-9. For the Pope, Babel represents self-assertion, uniformity and control. It was a project that was undertaken out of the titanism of the human spirit which ended in societal division and the breakdown of essential communication. ‘Babel’, writes the pontiff, ‘reveals the limits of human effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing’ (7).
In other words, Babel is a parable about the technocratic paradigm.
The second image is the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1-2). Here, every member of society is given a role and the opportunity to contribute. This narrative, according to Pope Leo, ‘shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people all play a part.’ But most importantly, ‘[i]t is an undertaking with God at the centre, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones’ (8).
The Bishop of Rome believes that in the light of these two images, ‘the Holy Spirit challenges us today regarding our relationship with technology and the ongoing digital revolution’ (9). He exhorts his readers to reject what he calls the ‘Babel syndrome’ – ‘the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that radicalises differences, and the pretence that a single language – even a digital one – can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance’ (10).
It is in this context that the Pope uses the language of disarmament in relation to AI, analogously treating it as a form of arms race (110). To prevent his statement and the metaphor he uses from being misconstrued, Leo provides a clear explanation of what he means. ‘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 (110).
Thus, with advanced technologies such as AI, the choice before us cannot be reduced to either that of uncritical embrace or Luddite rejection (9). Rather it is to carefully consider how technology can be harnessed for the common good and to ‘rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence’ (9).
HUMAN DIGNITY
The central principle of this encyclical – and indeed of Catholic Social Doctrine – is the dignity of every human being. This principle is based on the theological truth, unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition, that human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28).
The doctrine that every human being possesses dignity implies that they have ‘superiority over material things’ and that they possess ‘universal and inviolable rights and duties’ (51). Pope Leo is quick to use this insight to critique the technocratic paradigm. He warns that appreciation for human dignity should not be ‘obscured by the pressure of new ideologies or very powerful interests in today’s world’ (51).
More specifically, Leo is referring to that particularly insidious ideology ‘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’ (51).
The pontiff stresses that the dignity of the human being is a gift: it is ‘neither acquired or earned, nor does it need to be justified’. He cites the statement from the recent Declaration Dignitas Infinita which underscores that dignity is ‘inalienably grounded’ in the human being.
Leo stresses that the dignity of every human person can be described as infinite. Following Pope John Paul II, he argues that this is because ‘the love of God, who calls us to friendship with him, is infinite.’ Furthermore, since God’s love is unconditional nothing can ‘erase or deny it’ (53).
As this document is in essence grounded on Catholic Social Doctrine, human dignity serves as the foundation of its main principles, all of which are discussed. These principles are:
- the common good (59-64)
- the universal destination of goods (65-67)
- subsidiarity (68-72),
- solidarity (73-76), and
- social justice (77-81)
Each of these principles has profound bearing on how AI technology is regarded and used. For example, the principle of subsidiarity states that ‘the role of individuals, families, local communities and intermediary organisations should not be supplanted by higher-level authorities’ (68).
In applying this principle to AI, the Pope insists that
‘[t]he principle of subsidiarity requires that such processes not be imposed from above in an opaque and unilateral manner, but instead be directed toward the common good with transparency, accountability and meaningful forms of participation (including independent checks, transparency regarding algorithms, equitable access to data and avenues for recourse) (71).
Since the main burden of the encyclical is to return dignity to the human being created in God’s image to fulfil God’s purposes, the Pope made several insightful comments on transhumanism.
He describes transhumanism and posthumanism as an ‘archipelago of conceptual “islands”’, making it difficult to define (115). However, he rightly identifies the main vision of transhumanism to be the use of technology to enhance the human being such that it is able to transcend its current biological limits.
Leo rejects this approach because it is ‘guided by an outlook that devalues human limits and promises a purely technical form of “salvation”’ (115). The true fulfilment of humanity, he argues, does not come through ‘technological divinisation’, but through ‘God’s grace received in Christ’ (126).
CRISIS OF TRUTH
The encyclical devotes serious attention to the importance of truth and how it is eclipsed in our time. This already alarming crisis of truth is exacerbated by the pervasiveness of digital technologies and AI which are often in the hands of a few powerful actors. These technological oligarchs have the power to initiate radical change in societal sensibilities and reshape the culture.
They do this through subtle (and not so subtle) manipulation by presenting their own ideologies and perspectives as truth. As the Pope puts it:
Ultimately, they can influence a significant number of people concerning the truth about humanity, the world, the meaning of existence, the family and even God. This is pure power detached from truth, which subtly or overtly imposes what it wishes others to accept as true (133).
But the crisis of truth in our time fundamentally has to do with the rejection or failure to recognize ‘universally valid truths, which precedes us and which conscience must accept’ (133). Once universal, objective truth is abandoned, a constructivist understanding takes over. This is the belief that people can ‘construct reality, and that whatever best suits their claims corresponds to what is true’ (133).
The encyclical presents universal and objective truth as a common good which technology must serve. ‘Our first task is neither to demonize or idolize technological tools, but to utilize them on a fundamental principle, namely that truth is a common good and not the property of those of influence or power’ (137).
To do this, the Pope argues that society must cultivate what he calls ‘an ecology of communication’ (137-138). He provides the following examples and guidelines:
- On the level of public policy, this involves ‘establishing norms so that the decision-making behind content selection and its development becomes more transparent and protects personal data’ (137).
- On the level of the social and cultural, there is a need to strengthen ‘intermediary organisations, serious journalism and forums and debates’ which would encourage discussion instead of knee-jerk reactions (137).
- For families and schools, there is a need for ‘educational awareness and for formation concerning the proper use and critical use’ of technology (137).
- And in universities, the challenge lies in the ‘integration of knowledge’, that is, the acquisition, synthesis and critical use of data and knowledge (137).
Leo is also deeply concerned about certain habits in the cultivation of learning and wisdom that the frequent and unthinking use of AI can seriously erode. Citing Plato who stressed that the deepest, most profound and important truths are learned only after much time and effort, the pontiff addresses this culture of instant answers that AI engenders.
Education … is a long journey requiring patience, and therefore needs time for development and for engagement with reality beyond appearances. This is a fundamental issue because every technology shapes those who use it. Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not be used. The speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained risk extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which is a process that bears fruit only over time (140).
In the light of the incessant flow of data and information that real-time AI provides, the Pope counsels the return to older habits and disciplines. ‘A genuinely healthy attitude is needed, requiring rhythms that incorporate silence, in-depth study, reading and judicious analysis, for without these elements inner freedom may be compromised’ (146).
CIVILISATION OF LOVE
The final aspect of the encyclical that I would like to briefly reflect on is the Pope’s reflections on the civilization of love amidst the growing prominence of ‘the culture of power.’ Concerning the latter, he writes:
In our time, a culture is taking hold, in which the availability of resources and the ability to dominate tend to dictate the agenda and criteria for decision-making. In this way, the common good of humanity is relegated to the background and the concrete tragedy of peoples at war is reduced to a secondary consideration in relation to strategic interests. This culture of power infiltrates society, changes relationships and behaviours, and grows by normalizing and fueling a false realism that insists that there is no alternative (188).
The Pope argues that we are witnessing today the normalization of war. There is taking place a ‘real paradigm shift in public discourse’ that suggests a ‘troubling revival of war as an instrument of international politics’ (190).
Digital media has added new elements to this where war is conditioned culturally through simplistic accounts and disinformation. ‘Communication networks, fragmented information environments and algorithms that reward conflict can magnify polarization and resentment, increase propaganda and make shared discernment more difficult’ (192).
The pontiff is particularly concerned about autonomous AI driven weapons, which he describes as ‘artificial moral agents.’ In paragraph 198, he writes:
Sometimes, there is talk of ‘artificial morale agents’, as if machines were able to distinguish between right and wrong with greater consistency than a human being. Yet moral judgement cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility and the recognition of the other as a person. Therefore, it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems.
Much ink has been spilled in commenting on the Pope’s rather cryptic statement about just war theory – a statement which invited virulent criticisms from his detractors. In paragraph 192, he writes:
Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.
What is Leo saying here? Is he promoting a form of pacificism? Is he rejecting the just war tradition altogether? What are we to make of this statement?
The Pope is certainly not proposing a form of pacifism as some of his critics have suggested. He allows the use of force for self-defense as the phrase ‘without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense’ makes abundantly clear.
Neither is he, as the true ‘son’ of Augustine, rejecting the just war tradition proposed by his theological and spiritual father. He makes the point that the theory as it now stands is ‘outdated’ and in need of revision, not that it is redundant or obsolete.
The theory that Augustine proposed and Aquinas developed therefore needs to be updated because of the profound way in which modern weapons have changed the moral landscape. Autonomous weapons systems, cyberwarfare and the like have accelerated decision-making and blurred accountability, making traditional judgements about proportionality and discrimination difficult.
Furthermore, the theory has been abused in that it has become a permission for war rather than a restrain upon it. As Leo puts it, it has ‘all too often been used to justify any kind of war’ (192).
In the face of the ‘culture of power’ which normalizes war, the Pope calls for the recovery of the ‘civilization of love’, a phrase coined by Pope Paul VI during the Cold War. Pope Leo writes:
Today, we must resolutely recover this vision, for the civilisation of love is no naïve utopia, but a demanding project, which consists in translating charity into structures of justice, giving institutional form to fraternity and regarding others – whether individuals or peoples – as allies, necessary for building the common good (186).
CONCLUSION
An encyclical such as this is bound to invite praise and criticisms.
Some AI researchers and commentators opined that while Leo’s encyclical shines the spotlight on issues such as concentration of power, warfare and inequality, it does not give enough attention to artificial general intelligence (AGI) or superintelligence.
Others criticised the document for what they regarded as the overly pessimistic assessment of technological progress. They worry that too many regulations could impede technological innovation.
Still others observed that the document is long on moral vision but short on suggesting concrete mechanisms for implementation. And, of course, transhumanists simply reject the anthropology on which the pontiff’s comments on technology are grounded.
I think Magnifcas Humanitas did remarkably well in sketching out the theological and moral vision by which we must assess advanced technologies such as AI. It warns that technology is not simply a tool but a culture shaping reality. And it strikes the delicate balance between welcoming technology and recognising its dangers and possible abuses.
But most importantly, it stresses that technology can never usurp the place of human beings created in God’s image. Its proper role is to serve the common good and contribute to human flourishing.
Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.