Ever since the beginning of Pope Leo XIV’s papacy last May, there has been anticipation concerning his first encyclical letter. Oftentimes the subject and tone of a pope’s opening epistle is a significant marker of a given pontificate.
For Pope Leo, this moment arrived last month with the release of Magnifica Humanitas. It focuses on humanity in a time of artificial intelligence and other advanced technological innovations, and it certainly moves into new territory for theological reflection.
Even as Baptists, this text deserves appropriate attention. What does it say and what might its impact be? What follows are some observations about Leo’s XIV’s encyclical as well as some questions for consideration.
Grandeur of humanity
As its title indicates, the driving theme of the encyclical is the grandeur of humanity. That is, Pope Leo is focused on what it means to be human and how that is reflected (or not) in our social, economic and political structures. It is important to note Leo is not elevating humanity at the expense of God. In fact, his is a robustly theological account of what it means to be human, grounded in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Derek Hatch
As found in Scripture, since Jesus is our trailblazer (Hebrews 12:2) and the first fruits of salvation (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23), he shows us what it means to be fully human. This claim resists anthropologies based on strength, power and domination. Human weakness and limitations are not seen as defects or something to be corrected or eliminated.
For Leo, “true fulfilment is not achieved by eliminating weakness but through harmonious growth. It is found where freedom and responsibility are intertwined with mutual care and true solidarity, and where progress is measured by the dignity of each person and the good of all peoples.”
In the encyclical’s first paragraph, Leo states, “Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is ‘only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.’”
The last part of this quotation is from Gaudium et Spes, a text from the Second Vatican Council that is invoked several times in this encyclical. It makes clear that without a genuine sense of the transcendent, humanity lacks the intrinsic value necessary to prevent it from being instrumentalized and commodified, themes that Leo will pick up later in the encyclical.
Catholic social teaching
Not surprisingly, Leo intentionally speaks about Catholic social teaching. In fact, about one quarter of this letter is dedicated to expounding the history, foundations and working principles of Catholic social doctrine. In some ways, this is designed to provide a thick context from which to offer guidelines related to artificial intelligence and the digital revolution (and that is certainly part of what is happening).
“Not surprisingly, Leo intentionally speaks about Catholic social teaching.”
However, if one merely scanned through this section (or had artificial intelligence summarize it), it is possible to miss that Leo’s historical overview and thematic summary of Catholic social thought is as much an interpretation of that tradition as it is a summary of it. Foundational to this tradition is the dignity of the human person, and Leo highlights five underlying principles built on that foundation: The common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice.
Several of these deserve a brief discussion.
The universal destination of goods states that the goods of the earth are given by God for all people and each person has the inherent right to access these goods. This does not abolish the right to private property, but within Catholic social teaching, private property is to be aimed at serving the common good.
In the 19th century (when this concept was first thematized), property and goods meant physical or material resources, but Pope Leo XIV underscores that our current context involves “new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data.” These digital goods and intellectual property are concentrated in the hands of a few people, and they have proved quite lucrative and capable of exploiting those without access. Leo wants to see “shared knowledge (become) a true common good rather than an instrument of dominance.”
Subsidiarity calls for decisions to be made at the most local level possible. Instead of a church version of federalism and states’ rights, the theme behind subsidiarity is that those most affected by momentous decisions should be able to participate in the deliberations around those decisions.
In earlier forms of Catholic social thought, the primary binary of actors involved nation-states and individuals. As a result, Rerum Novarum (1891), the first major text of modern Catholic social thought, sought to position the church as an alternative to state-run socialism or laissez-faire capitalism. Instead, numerous intermediate institutions formed a robust civil society and were to play a significant role in elevating the agency and dignity of workers. Workers’ guilds and labor unions were a significant part of that civil society, a point reiterated in later papal texts. State intervention was still possible, albeit in service to the common good.
Leo embraces this perspective but recognizes the need to rethink its embodiment in light of our digitized world. In our time, he writes, “the highest level is not the state, but rather major economic and technological actors that exercise de facto power over the conditions of everyday life.”
This observation is quite perceptive and has been increasingly mentioned by theologians and political philosophers alike. The sort of surveillance, communication and data collection that multinational economic and technological corporations can leverage is immense. For Leo, subsidiarity in the technological field calls for “transparency, accountability and meaningful forms of participation.”
In one of his so-called “Easy Essays,” Peter Maurin, co-founder of the Catholic Worker Movement, describes Catholic social teaching as the dynamite of the church. Leo XIV’s interpretation of Catholic social thought seems to reflect this sort of dynamism, where it is an essential part of engaging with the world. As Leo declares, the church’s social teaching should be seen as “a theology of communion in history, a history in which the Word made flesh continues to be present through dialogue, memory and prophecy.”
Two biblical images
This encyclical is thoroughly enmeshed with the biblical text. However, Leo sets up a primary contrast between two biblical building images: the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) and the post-exilic rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls under Nehemiah’s leadership.
The former attempted to secure its own stability and power while the latter centers on God and “rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones.” Presenting the primary contrast in this manner moves away from an overly simplistic “yes” or “no” concerning technology and shifts focus to what Leo states is a choice “between a power that claims to dominate the heavens (‘the Babel syndrome’) and a people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild walls of fraternal coexistence (‘the way of Nehemiah’).”
“The emphasis on building facilitates an interesting connection with our present context, where we see construction everywhere.”
The emphasis on building facilitates is an interesting connection with our present context, where we see construction everywhere — physical infrastructure, data centers, digital platforms and even new financial and geopolitical superstructures. Even though we see an excitement about the act of building as a sign of progress, Leo declares that “What are we building?” is the primary question.
The biblical images he discusses offer contrasting possibilities and differing futures, inviting Christians to a deeper reflection on the biblical text and its relationship with the world around us. It also invites discernment about present developments, a theme that carries through the whole encyclical.
A changing world
Pope Leo sees the world is rapidly changing, although he notes many people are actually spectators to what is happening: “watching and waiting, observing from afar and merely hoping for the best.” To be sure, artificial intelligence is the main example of this shift, but expansive developments in robotics, nanotechnology and biotechnology also are in view. They are tools of what the pope sees as a technocratic paradigm that is fueled by values of efficiency, profitability and control.
In short, more advanced technology will save the day. However, as described earlier, design and control over technological platforms and infrastructure is not in the hands of nation-states but with financial and technological corporations. With this power, these actors can evaluate people based on efficiency and determine their value and their future. In other words, it is possible and even likely to accept that “some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy.” With this perspective, if these people are marginalized or left behind, then they are simply “necessary sacrifices.”
Leo sees a mismatch between “artificial intelligence” and our customary use of “intelligence” (such as for humans). AI does not feel joy or pain, does not mature through relationships, does not bear responsibility for consequences and does not actually learn as well. His resistance to casually associating human intelligence with so-called machine learning sets him apart from quite a few advocates for an ever-expansive technological horizon.
“It cannot be forgotten that human designers and developers are behind these systems and have affected their shape.”
Moreover, even if it could stand as a neutral instrument, it cannot be forgotten that human designers and developers are behind these systems and have affected their shape. As such, their stereotypes and biases are embedded within these supposedly neutral technological frameworks, even as their internal operations are hidden from public view. For these and many other reasons, Leo boldly states that, like every tool that is used by human beings, AI is not morally neutral.
Calls for ethics in the use of artificial intelligence are quite common these days, especially in light of AI’s potential to displace numerous workers from their jobs, and so Pope Leo’s encyclical certainly joins this chorus, although it does so with some distinct differences.
He critiques two approaches to ethical questions related to AI. The first is an approach where ethical responses are developed only after the technology has been deployed and observed. Advocates of this approach will often protest that we must see what the technology can do before restraining it. Leo notes, though, that upholding the principle of social justice means it is “a condition that must shape (these technologies’) very design from the outset.”
Those looking to wait and see are responding to problems but also possibly leaning into the profitability motive, trusting that market forces will shape new innovations in a morally good direction. Leo flatly rejects this sentiment: “In the age of AI and robotics, it is no longer possible to rely solely on the ‘invisible hand’ of the market.”
The second approach critiqued is a generalized emphasis on “ethics.” This can give the guise of concern about these technologies’ effects without any particular shaping of their design and use. Leo writes, “We cannot be satisfied with merely calling for the moralization of machines — the so-called ‘alignment’ of AI with human values.” Instead, these technologies must be examined with a different lens than the technocratic one, and a different approach to ethical concerns will be needed.
Leo does not offer a blanket rejection of advanced digital technologies. Instead, his concern is that “if technological development advances without a corresponding ethical and social progress, the result may be an increase in means without a growth in humanity: ‘having more’ without ‘being more.’”
Thus, what is needed is discernment in light of the grandeur of humanity, where work is dignifying and human beings are not commodities. For Leo, this involves “disarming AI.” By this, Leo certainly means it should not be entrusted with any means of military lethality or irreversible action. However, he also means freeing artificial intelligence technologies from all competitive struggles (such as the market) that push for greater investment and innovation alongside deeper blindness (or apathy) to the impacts on humanity as a whole. This rejected armed perspective includes a vision of the fulness of life centered on “having more, reducing weakness, eliminating uncertainty and exerting total control.”
By contrast, a disarmed AI is freed from this drive to dominate and can witness to the reality that “what saves humanity is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms.”
“The way forward, according to Leo, is discernment, but this discernment must be shared.”
The way forward, according to Leo, is discernment, but this discernment must be shared (inviting the participation of all) and it must be grounded in particularity (developing concrete criteria for evaluation). As he writes, “Every technical or economic decision should include spiritual discernment and be an opportunity for assessing whether the advances in AI are promoting justice and participation or concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a select few.”
Even supply chains and worker conditions in technological design and development are subject for deliberation. This expansive view is notable because technological companies — often in the name of intellectual property rights and protecting propriety material — are less disposed to share information about design processes. The focus is on the output, the product and its price for the consumer.
There is no doubt this path is complicated and messy; shared spiritual discernment about emerging technologies likely always was going to be that way. In many ways, this messy path might resonate with Baptists, who have practices in our own heritage that promote slow deliberation and listening to minority voices of dissent as part of discerning the will of God.
Likewise, Leo argues that engaging artificial intelligence through the prism of Catholic social doctrine guides this process toward “embodying God’s love in the concrete events of life.” In which building project are we engaged: Denying our finite limitations by erecting the Tower of Babel or reconstructing relationships and communion? Or as Leo asks: “Does AI ‘make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?’”
Questions to consider
No encyclical’s impact or legacy is known within a few weeks of its release. It takes time for its significance to emerge within the life of the church and the wider rhythms of the world. Here I offer a few questions that could very well shape how Magnifica Humanitas is received and utilized going forward.
- How will this encyclical affect the pope’s moral leadership? Previous popes have worked quite hard to cultivate a sense of global moral guidance. There have been moments when that leadership has clashed with and critiqued geopolitical powers. Will Leo’s admonitions in Magnifica Humanitas be interpreted as his participation in the same sort of global leadership or will it be interpreted as Leo XIV wading into nontheological issues that are outside his competence and unrelated to church concerns?
- How do the designers and developers of these emerging digital technologies react to this encyclical? Does Leo’s argument touch the heart of this audience or is he summarily dismissed? It seems Pope Leo intends for Magnifica Humanitas to serve as an invitation to a conversation. One of those who spoke at the release of the encyclical was Christopher Olah, co-founder of AI-company Anthropic. In his comments, Olah agreed with Leo’s observations, stating that every AI company “operates inside a set of incentives and constraints that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing.” He also expressed appreciation for voices like Leo’s in Magnifica Humanitas that are external to AI development and who are not subject to these incentives or constraints. He echoed Leo’s observations about AI and praised his taking AI seriously. Will this level of appreciation be shared by other AI-invested companies or will Olah’s comments stand as a minority opinion?
- How will this encyclical impact Leo among the Catholic faithful and Christians around the world? Within this encyclical, we see some signs. The robust presence of the Second Vatican Council is not surprising but is notable as Leo does not intend to leave it behind. In fact, he has incorporated it (and the reflections of almost all his papal predecessors) into the development and legacy of Catholic social thought. How might that affect intra-Catholic arguments about the church? Moreover, will it create new friends among other similarly concerned Christians (such as Baptists) about the theological challenges presented in this emerging age of artificial intelligence?
- How might this encyclical shape the shared task of educating others? As an educator, this is a question that I am pondering all the time, and Leo’s admonitions will be helpful going forward. He indicates that the true character of education is not simple information transfer and recall and notes that educators are recognizing that “people may ‘know many things’ but struggle to find direction in their lives, partly due to an inability to connect information with deeper knowledge or maintain a sense of purpose.” In response, schools must not fall prey to the same technocratic values and instead pursue “a shared time of learning and developing trustworthy relationships.” Part of this is an approach to education that embraces and explores the limits of humankind — “incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability” — and leads students to understand and encounter these realities as the path to genuine vocation and not a distraction or roadblock to it.
Conclusion
Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, offers a robust account of engaging the world as it is rapidly shaped by advanced digital technologies. His vision displays how a wealth of Christian resources, especially the Bible, can speak into the present and guide us as we navigate whatever future may emerge. And lest we think the pope’s approach is only about reflection and evaluation, he also encourages the Catholic faithful, all Christians and all people of goodwill to “get our hands dirty” once we can discern the path to being “builders of communion, rather than architects of Babel.”
By praying and working in this manner, he envisions that “a solid, welcoming common home will emerge on the earth, where love and faithfulness will finally meet and righteousness and peace will embrace.”
Derek Hatch serves as Endowed Chair of Baptist Studies and professor of religion at Georgetown College in Kentucky.
Related:
Pope Leo’s ‘evangelical’ encyclical | Analysis by Rodney Kennedy