Pope Leo breaks new ground with encyclical on AI [News/Analysis]

May 25, 2026

In choosing to be known as Pope Leo XIV, our current Pontiff made tribute to Leo XIII, the author of Rerum Novarum, the encyclical that formed the foundation of Catholic social teaching. Now Leo XIV stands alongside his illustrious predecessor, as the author of his own landmark encyclical, breaking new ground in that field.

Like Leo XIII, who applied Catholic moral teachings to the social problems arising from the Industrial Revolution, Leo XVI sees the world facing an era of disruptive social change, brought on by the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI): a development that will again bring profound changes in the way we live. Again like Leo XIII he foresees that these changes will create new temptations toward greed and exploitation, toward abuses of power and inequality, toward alienation and disregard for human dignity.

However Pope Leo XIV also has some advantages over his predecessor. He can (and does) build on the foundation of Catholic social teaching that began with Rerum Novarum. And as Francis Rocca observed in The Atlantic, the earlier Pope “didn’t publish an encyclical about the Industrial Revolution until more than a century after it started.” In sharp contrast Pope Leo’s encyclical appears at a time when most people are only beginning to think through the implications of AI. His teaching is nicely timed to influence discussions before firm opinions are formed and opposing viewpoints hardened.

“Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice,” writes the Holy Father: “either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together.” That opening sentence encapsulates the challenge of the encyclical.

The limits of humanity

“The primary choice is not between a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem,” writes the Pontiff. He explains that the enormous potential of AI can be used either to imitate the arrogant builders of the Tower of Babel—“a project conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion”—or to imitate the prophet Nehemiah and rebuild the community.

Nehemiah, the Pope reminds us, conceived his project “at a time of great vulnerability in the history of ancient Israel,” as the Hebrew people prepared to return from captivity in Babylon to their shattered homes. He inspired the people to work together, beginning with prayer, fasting, and discernment, “building relationships before rebuilding with stones.”

Today, in a world already unsettled by the forward rush of the digital revolution, the introduction of AI “threatens to normalize an anti-human vision,” the Pope warns. While acknowledging that AI offers exciting prospects for material progress, he insists that machines cannot replace humans as the ultimate decision-makers. “Moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation, for it involves conscience, personal responsibility, and the recognition of the other as a person.”

Pope Leo is happy to welcome the use of AI to perform routine and menial functions, freeing people for more creative and satisfying work. He recognizes that computers can calculate faster than robots can eliminate user errors. But he notes that “building for the common good means accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without consider them an error to be corrected.”

In short the Pope demands that AI be developed with an eye to the demands of the common good, and used in ways that protect people—especially vulnerable people—from exploitation. The encyclical calls for a broader consultation on how this new technological frontier should be opened, and how it might be regulated. That cautious approach will not be welcomed by the AI developers who are now barreling headlong toward implementation of their projects. Still the Pontiff is steadfast: “Calling for prudence, rigorous evaluation, and even, at times, a slower pace in adopting AI does not mean opposing progress; intead, it is an exercise of responsible care for the human family.”

The Church’s social teaching

Although the focus of Magifica Humanitas is unquestionably on AI, the encyclical also provides a solid review and explanation of the tradition of Catholic social teaching. Nearly half of the document is dedicated to the history of papal teachings on social issues in the 135 years since Rerum Novarum. Pope Leo XIV observes that two central insights of Rerum Novarum are equally applicable to the discussion of AI: “the primacy of human labor over any mindset focused solely on finance or productivity—with the consequent attention to the people and families most susceptible to exploitation—and the inseparable link between proclaiming the Gospel and pursuing a more just social order.”

Developing the latter point, the Pope explains some of the fundamental principles of Church social teaching, including the common good, which “cannot be reduced to a mere list of conditions or institutions;” the right to private property, which entails a duty to use property for that common good; and subsidiarity, “according to which the role of individuals, families, local communities and intermediary organizations should not be supplanted by higher-level authorities.”

Applying these principles to the questions posed by AI, the Pope sums up the moral challenges to be addressed:

The principles of Social Doctrine offer a framework for understanding this new reality. In a world where data, computational resources and regulatory influence remain in the hands of a few, to speak of the common good means exposing this new form of epistemic, economic and political asymmetry and naming the new monopolies of AI. To speak of the universal destination of goods means finding ways of ensuring universal access to both technologies and the education needed to use them. To speak of subsidiarity calls for protecting the ability of communities to make choices and corrections, rather than confining their role to mere oversight after the standards have been set elsewhere. To speak of solidarity obliges us to recognize the hidden, often exploited workers, who sustain algorithmic systems. To speak of justice requires questioning the global distribution of power that decides who in fact can train these models and who is merely subjected to them. Likewise, it means acknowledging that social justice is not only a goal to be safeguarded after technologies are deployed, but a condition that must shape their very design from the outset.

Specific problems with AI

Is it realistic to expect that the developers of AI—some of them already anticipating spectacular profits for their creations—will pause to reflect on these moral guidelines? The Vatican offered one hopeful sign at the press conference introducing the encyclical: the participation of Christopher Olah, the co-founder of Anthropic, one of the leading ventures in the field. Olah expressed his own hope for “a long collaboration between those of us who are building this and those who can see what we, from the inside, cannot.”

Still Pope Leo concedes in Magnifica Humanitas that regulating the AI field will not be easy. He writes:

In many cases within the digital context, control over platforms, infrastructure, data and computing power does not rest with States, but with major economic and technological actors. These entities effectively set the conditions for access, determine the rules of visibility and shape the very possibilities for participation. When such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities.

To complicate matters immeasurably, some of the most influential figures in the AI world are enthusiastic proponents of “transhumanism” or “post-humanism.” Without naming names, the Pope gives a pointed critique of these ideologies, which see “a futuristic vision of an ‘enhanced human being’ or a ‘human-machine hybrid.” Such visions can never be reconciled with Christianity—although the Pontiff remarks that the faith does provide a path to becoming “more than human”:

For centuries, the Christian tradition has maintained that human beings are not confined by the boundaries of their own nature; rather, they are called to self-transcendence, not through an escape from reality or a contempt for their limitations, but through their fulfillment in love.

Even apart from the dangers of degrading ideologies, reliance on AI will have its dangers, the Pope reminds us. The internet has already displayed a frightening power to spread disinformation, suppressing independent thought and undermining democracy. Improper reliance of AI in education will stunt the intellectual development of the young, and obsession with the digital world degrades normal human relationships.

Meanwhile the ever-greater demand for computing power can aggravate environmental problems; the use of robots can lengthen the unemployment lines; while in impoverished countries others workers, underpaid and often in danger, sweat to provide the raw materials that sustain the AI machines.

All in all, Pope Leo concludes that “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.”

A civilization of love

After weighing the dangers of AI and the potential responses, Pope Leo takes an unexpected turn in the fifth chapter of Magnifica Humanitas, entitled “Culture of power and civilization of love.” Here, in an argument that strongly reflects the influence of St. Augustine’s City of God, the Pope decries what he sees as the widespread acceptance of conflict as a norm for human interactions, the ambition to build a “culture of power.” He proposes instead a “civilization of love,” motivated by Christian faith. In fact he suggests that the appeal of exotic new ideologies reflects a sense of emptiness that true faith can fill:

In the promises of transhumanism and some posthumanist currents of thought, which seek an enhanced and almost disembodied humanity, we recognize a yearning that is of concern to us, namely the need for a fuller life, less exposed to limitations and suffering. Yet the Incarnation opens a different pathway.

The encyclical ends, as it must, in an appeal for faith, because only through the life of faith can we nurture the balanced outlook that could properly guide the development of AI, or any other powerful tool. Pope Leo reminds us:

When we embrace the possibility of transcending ourselves through God’s grace, we do not deny our nature, nor do we become less human…. Herein lies the radical departure from Promethean dreams: what saves humanity is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms. In this light, a technology that merely classifies and optimizes what already exists can, however unintentionally, become an obstacle to change and growth. 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.

[Analysis by Phil Lawler]

 

---

For all current news, visit our News home page.

---

 
Further information:

• Magnifica Humanitas (full text)
• Safeguard the human person in the AI era, Pope Leo urges in first encyclical letter (CWN)
• Presentation and promulgation of the Encyclical Letter “Magnifica humanitas”
• Pope Leo Warns of Risks From A.I. in 42,300-Word Encyclical (New York Times)
• Rerum Novarum (encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII)
• Pope Leo’s Unsettling Vision of the AI Future (Francis X. Rocca, Atlantic)