{"id":35700,"date":"2026-05-26T08:13:42","date_gmt":"2026-05-26T12:13:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=35700"},"modified":"2026-05-26T08:13:43","modified_gmt":"2026-05-26T12:13:43","slug":"the-papal-encyclical-on-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=35700","title":{"rendered":"the papal encyclical on AI"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Magnifica humanita<\/em>s<\/a> (“Magnificent Humanity”) is Pope Leo XIX’s first encylical, subtitled “On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Near the beginning, Leo makes a plea for “a shared discernment process.” He warns against worrying only about “contingencies” and “a succession of emergencies.” It is urgent to think ahout AI more deeply. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He observes that “most people are watching and waiting, observing from afar and merely hoping for the best. For this very reason, crucial questions impose themselves on our conscience and can no longer be avoided: Where are we going? Toward what goal do we wish to orient ourselves? What direction should we choose as a people and as a human community?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the Catholic Church practices “discernment” about social conditions, it “does not claim to offer ‘a definitive opinion'” but strives “to listen to and distinguish the many voices of our times and to interpret them in the light of God\u2019s word.” Leo says that the Church is open not only to technical expertise but also to “a diversity of opinions” about values. Leo mentions previous papal letters with gratitude but also “gratefully acknowledges” the development of human rights doctrine through documents like the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/em>, which did not originate with the Church.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coming from outside the Church, I also welcome a basic inquiry into human intelligence at a time when computers are supporting a different kind of intelligence that poses risks for humans. The “central question” of the encyclical is indeed a basic question of our day: “what does it mean to safeguard our humanity?” I welcome the normative contributions of Catholic social doctrine, in much the way that Leo says he welcomes other views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In paragraphs 11-14, Leo names four principles that are essential for “building a city founded on the common good.” The first is “a firm relationship with God.” I respect that idea but cannot follow it. But the second one is important and can be developed outside of Christianity. Leo says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Today, the human desire for fullness of life is at risk of being misled by deceitful goals, such as the prospect of a technology that promises to free us from all weakness, and models of wellbeing that leave behind entire populations. All too often, we place our hope in unlimited ‘upgrades,’ in forms of progress that exacerbate inequalities, and in immediate solutions incapable of healing people\u2019s wounds. As a result, while some pursue the illusion of unlimited self-assertion, many are deprived of basic necessities. The Church reminds us, with a firm yet humble voice, that 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is very much like Hannah Arendt’s understanding of love for the world<\/a> (amor mundi<\/em>). We must love the species we happen to be (including the male portion, by the way). Our love for people should not be contingent on believing that we are good or smart. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When we can improve the human condition, we should. For example, if we can use gene therapy to cure a debilitating disease, then it is our obligation to do so. But the goal is never to perfect human beings. It is to help humans do the best we can with what we are, together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leo’s reference to a “city” based on love involves two Biblical stories that he briefly sketches near the outset. The Tower of Babel resembles a modern Large Language Model (LLM):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Fearing being scattered across the earth, [the people] sought to guarantee stability and power for themselves, and above all to ‘make a name’ for themselves. It was an impressive feat: a single language, a single technology, a single direction. However, the project concealed a profound danger. It was a project conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion. When a city is built on pride and the claim to self-sufficiency, communication breaks down, languages are confused and people no longer understand each other. The result is not unity, but dispersion.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The other city is Jerusalem as it was rebuilt by Nehemiah–a story with deep civic resonance that I have discussed on this blog<\/a> and in What Should We Do? A Theory of Civic Life<\/em> (pp. 81-83)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The teachings of the Church are grounded in biblical narratives like these but have developed through previous efforts of discernment in modern times. Leo discerns the following components of today’s Catholic Social Doctrine: the equal dignity of all human beings<\/a>; the supreme value of human rights<\/a>; the principle of the common good<\/a>; the principle of the universal destination of goods<\/a>; the principle of subsidiarity<\/a>; the principle of solidarity<\/a> and the principle of social justice<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I will mention a few points that interested me from this framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the encyclical develops an interesting view of property rights in an era of data science and AI. Leo acknowledges that “certainly there is a right to private property, which has its own specific meaning and purpose.” (He does not explain the purpose of private property, but it could be to permit individuality and thus human dignity.) However, for Leo, private property is “always subordinate to the universal destination of goods,” which means that “the earth\u2019s goods \u2014 soil, water, air and natural resources \u2014 are given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all, and … every person has an inherent right to the use of such goods, both now and in the future.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So far, this is established Catholic Social Doctrine, but the novel point in Magnifica humanitas<\/em> involves intellectual property: “Today, among the goods that are universally intended for everyone, we must also include new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data.” Later, Leo says, “Data is the product of many contributors and should not be treated as something to be sold off or entrusted to a select few. It is necessary to think creatively in order to manage data as a common or shared good.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prevalent legal frameworks treat software and intellectual property as the work of human beings who have the right to own the fruits of their work. But Leo traces all goods back to God. When a human being invents software or a machine, there is no second creation. The output is still meant for the entire human family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leo also makes a strong argument against tech-bro economics:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

It is important to ensure that this growth in appreciation of human dignity is not obscured by the pressure of new ideologies or very powerful interests in today\u2019s world. 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The practical concerns that the encyclical catalogues include propaganda and misinformation, loss of meaningful work, rising inequalities of power and wealth, and deadly militarism enabled by “autonomous” weapons systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are valid topics, and the encyclical sometimes reads like a thoughtful but relatively conventional policy white paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At times, however, the specifically Catholic perspective lends additional depth to its conventional recommendations. For instance, here is some general advice regarding education in a time of AI:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

We need adults to rediscover their vocation as artisans of education, prepared to work patiently each day, with the support of extensive and shared educational partnerships. Today, accompanying children and young people in using technology for developing responsible relationships, helping them to recognize the risks and choose what fosters inner freedom, is a concrete form of charity and will safeguard their dignity. Teaching new generations that technological evolution does not follow a predetermined path, but can be guided by personal and collective responsibility, constitutes one of the most valuable services to the common good.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A purely secular nonprofit could have written those sentences, although perhaps without the reference to charity (caritas<\/em>). But only the Church would preface this passage with the preceding sentence: “Indeed, we must consider the digital world as a new continent to be evangelized, one that requires generous missionaries who are mature in the faith.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I suppose I would have liked to read a bit more about the spiritual costs of intelligence that is artificial rather than an activity of the human mind. In the history of the Catholic Church, technology has repeatedly changed how human beings have formed and communicated ideas and meanings. The codex, the confessional, the cathedral, the printing press, and the broadcast studio have restructured individual and collective mentalities. We have survived such changes so far, as has the Church. But right now, we must think deeply and act effectively to prevent AI from reducing us to “data, a cog in a machine or a commodity” so that it can instead become an “instrument of growth, justice and fraternity.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

See also: Reading Arendt in Palo Alto<\/a>; the Nehemiah story: on the pros and cons of walls<\/a>; AI as Satanic<\/a>; love of the world<\/a>; the encyclical Laudato Si and the power of peoples to organize<\/a>; etc.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Magnifica humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”) is Pope Leo XIX’s first encylical, subtitled “On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.” Near the beginning, Leo makes a plea for “a shared discernment process.” He warns against worrying only about “contingencies” and “a succession of emergencies.” It is urgent to think ahout AI more deeply. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[43,49,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35700","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-artificial-intelligence","category-science-technology-and-society","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35700","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=35700"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35700\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35713,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35700\/revisions\/35713"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=35700"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=35700"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=35700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}