Live updates: ‘Magnifica humanitas’ aims to address ‘culture of power’ in AI

Expert theologians liveblog Pope Leo's first encyclical

Editor’s note:

Pope Leo XIV on Monday published Magnifica humanitas, an encyclical meant to focus on the dignity of work, and the assurance of social justice amid the extraordinary technological advancements of recent years.

ln addition to The Pillar’s reporting, we have invited several theologians and experts to offer reaction and analysis as they read the text, to help readers unpack Pope Leo’s first encyclical.

This page will be updated May 25 and 26, as those thinkers — along with The Pillar’s newsroom — continue their close readings of the document, and offer analytical reflections along the way.

Pope Leo XIV introduces ‘Magnifica huanitas’ during a May 25 Vatican press conference. Credit: Vatican Media.

Live updates:

(These updates are posted with the most recent at the top. To read them sequentially, scroll down to where they begin!)

5/25/26, Joe Vukov, 10:18 AM

Charlie Camosy notes that, in #99, the claim “‘AI’s power remains entirely tied to data processing’...is a technical/empirical one” rather than ontological:

A good point. A quick response: here, I think that the Church’s ontological stance about the nature of human intelligences is going to have some empirical consequences. In particular, that while our understanding of the functioning of AI’s is currently murky, no matter how things turn out, we’ll ultimately see that an “AI’s power remains entirely tied to data processing.”

So maybe the idea here in #99 is that while (as #98 emphasizes) we currently can’t fully understand the functioning of AIs, our ontology tells us something about how things will shake out (so, in a way, lessening the epistemic murkiness a bit discussed in #98).

Responding to Tim Hwang: I completely agree with your assessment of the central idea/contrast being between Babel/Nehemiah rather than acceptance/rejection. I think this is going to be a very helpful, even foundational, contrast for Catholic scholars and practitioners going forward.

5/25/26, Tim Hwang, 10:00 AM

On Chapter Three.

“Yet there is also a subtler danger, for when AI systems present themselves as neutral and objective, they end up reflecting and reinforcing the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers and developers.” (§102)

“We cannot be satisfied with merely calling for the moralization of machines — the so-called “alignment” of AI with human values — without also having the courage to insist on a further condition: the possibility of openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved and subjecting them to shared standards of social justice.” (§107)

The work of aligning these systems to ensure “safety” and “alignment” has proceeded for too long as if it were some neutral, inviolable science.

But the truth is that much of this work going on inside the labs is really a kind of applied moral philosophy. In this sense, the terrain is new but it is fundamentally a Christian territory.

5/25/26, Tim Hwang, 10:00 AM

On Chapter Two.

“This network of relationships, however, only constitutes solidarity in the fullest sense of the word when it becomes a conscious choice. Faith invites us to see this reality as a call: we are not merely neighbors to one another, but entrusted to each other, so that each of us may take responsibility, as best we can, for the lives and wounds of our brothers and sisters.” (§74)

It’s worth noting that this assertion takes on broader ramifications in an era of AI systems which are autonomous and themselves relationship-forming with the individuals and organizations that it interacts with. Can an AI system be “rooted”? What would an AI system genuinely aligned towards such principles of solidarity look like? How would it need to be designed differently than what the companies do today?

5/25/26, Brian Boyd, 9:59 AM

Hello everyone. I woke with the sun here in Lander, Wyoming, and am blogging from just off the campus of Wyoming Catholic College. It’s a fitting location for reflection upon the magnificence of all God’s creation, with humanity at the apex of the material world, linking matter to spirit.

It’s also fitting because WCC is famous for its low-tech policy, which is one of the best examples I know of for where Catholics are succeeding in communal discernment which begins with the good sought (here, true leisure for liberal education and formation) and then selects which tools will serve those ends.

That’s a small but very real example of the “shared discernment” operating on the basis of Catholic Social Doctrine called for in §24: “the proper function of Social Doctrine, which does not claim to supplant the responsibilities of politics or institutions, but offers itself as a foundation for collective discernment, helping to recognize and promote whatever serves the dignity of persons, the vitality of communities and the common good.”

5/25/26, Tim Hwang, 9:33 AM

On Chapter One.

One of the most profound and important themes flowing through this encyclical is that idea that the choice is not between acceptance and rejection, but instead between Babel and Nehemiah. This is a message of agency: Christians are called to choose the direction of progress, not just be on the train or off it.

This is particularly important because the Christian tradition can genuinely shed new light on the technical problems facing the engineers and scientists working at the heart of the AI labs. The encyclical cites Gaudium et Spes for the proposition that “it is the task of the whole People of God, particularly of its pastors and theologians, to listen to and distinguish the many voices of our times and to interpret them in the light of God’s word, in order that the revealed Truth may be more deeply penetrated, better understood and more suitably presented.” (§22).

My favorite example of this is so-called “emergent misalignment” - where an AI is trained to behave badly on one set of tasks (say, putting vulnerabilities into software) and then is found to accrue bad behavior across domains. This is considered a very surprising phenomena to technical researchers, but any Christian would recognize it as the doctrine of sin manifested.

5/25/26, Tim Hwang, 9:23 AM

Hi everyone. Thrilled to be doing this with you all.

For readers, I’m a researcher at the Institute for a Christian Machine Intelligence, where we’re working on bridging the gap between theological tradition and technical AI safety and alignment. My background is primarily on the computer science side of this, so I’ll be bringing that perspective to the proceedings.

NB: I’m also juggling two kids solo for Memorial Day weekend, so will be in and out throughout the day 😂

5/25/26, Catherine Moon, 9:19 AM

On Chapter Two: Foundations and Principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church

The second chapter of the encyclical, “Foundations and Principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ”sets out very clearly and very precisely (as its title surely indicates!) foundations of social doctrine and principles of social doctrine. The foundations of social doctrine it delineates are (1) the human person as the image of the Trinity, (2) the equal dignity of all persons, (3) the supreme value of human rights. The principles of social doctrine it delineates are (i) the common good, (ii) universal destination of goods, (iii) subsidiarity, (iv) solidarity, (v) social justice, and (vi) integral human developments. As such, again like the first chapter, this second chapter acts as a great primer to Catholic social teaching and would be fantastic to give to middle school, high school, or even college students to read for any theology or philosophy teachers out there.

The (1)human person is the heart and way of “every authentic path of integral human development” (§50). As the image of the Triune God Created each every human person“is planned and willed by God to enter into communion with Him, with others and with creation”(§50). For to be made in the image of God is to be created “for relationship”(§50). The meaning, purpose, and dignity of the human person “does not depend on a person’s abilities, wealth or position in life, nor on the right or wrong choices made; instead, it is a gift”(§50). Given this (2) the equal dignity of all persons “is neither acquired nor earned, nor does it need to be justified” (§53). The view 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” is insidious and false (§51). In service and related to affirming the fundamental dignity of each and every persons, the Church proclaims that (3) the supreme value of human rights is “not an external addition to the person, but an expression of intrinsic human dignity, which the international community is called to protect and promote”(§54).

We are living in a time where human rights are being viewed as merely “purely formal” and being viewed as merely formal because of an “inability to recognize the foundation of their universality” (§56). Because of this it necessary therefore, not enough to state simply that men and women have equal dignity and rights; it is necessary that the human person, her infinite dignity, and her rights as the expression of her inexhaustible worth and meaning “be reflected in concrete decisions, such as in laws, access to employment, education, social and political responsibilities, and the way society listens to and values women’s contributions” (§57).

Context matters and now in reading the second chapter, it is clearer to me why the first chapter spent so much time on the question of historicity as it relates to the activity of the Church in the world as well as to the development of doctrine. Since the beginning of the advent of global AI ethics, which I would want to locate with the OECD’s Recommendation, although other scholars and ethicists might reasonably disagree with me, the primary mode of doing AI ethics has been creating various lists of principles that AI developers and AI users should follow as pertained to their respective roles. The idea of a principlist approach to ethics is generally that the principles should either be instantiated into law or followed by institutions, corporations, or individuals through free adoption. The difficulty with a principlist approach to ethics tends to be that principles are often not specific or contextual the way a law might be but abstract or general values. This often makes them a popular approach in pluralist contexts because their abstractness and generality helps to obfuscate disagreement that might arise if goods or actions were more specifically defined.

Within the context of this landscape, it seems to me that there was a rightful concern that were the encyclical to jump right from the “Introduction” to second chapter on “Foundations and Principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church” there could reasonably be a misconstrual in what the Church meant by principles. What the Church is proposing in Magnifica humanitas could have potentially been seen as yet another laundry list of “do’s and dont’s” or vague and unforceable guidelines by a global entity.

A Catholic approach to principles, as John Paul II liked to make clear in his writing, is not general or vague, but strikes at the heart of action and the good that is called to be done in the present historical moment in which one finds oneself. The principle of solidarity is not a nice idea; it is when I see a person on the side of the road who needs help I stop and help them. I do not continue on and think to myself, “helping people is good but I have somewhere to be and I do not know if I can trust that person.” Now none of this is to say that principles do not affirm goods that ought to be affirmed (they often do which is good!). But it is to simply point out that principlist approaches to ethics have been widely critiqued in the field of ethics in general and the field of technology ethics in particular and in moving from the first to second chapter of this encyclical it seems sensitive to those critiques and vigilant to make sure that the ethics it is proposing just because it speaks of principles is not misunderstood as a principlist approach.

Following the description of each of these foundations and principles, the chapter concludes with an “examen,” choosing language that (at least to me) invokes St. Ignatius of Loyola. In the concluding remarks to this chapter, we are reminded that “Social Doctrine is not merely a message addressed to society; it is also an examination of conscience for the Church” (§89). What it means for Catholic social doctrine to be an examination of conscience is that it is “a home and school of communion that is always called to ensure that the principles outlined in this chapter are applied, especially within its own structures”(§86). This is why Magnifica Humanitas recommends that “regular assessments of the exercise of ministerial responsibilities should be encouraged, not as judgments on individuals, but as tools for learning and correction oriented toward mission”(§89). For it is “only to the extent that we are open to the action of the Holy Spirit will these principles of Social Doctrine become incarnate in ecclesial life”(§89).

5/25/26 Charlie Camosy, 8:44 AM

On Chapter Three: Technology and Dominance

Joe, I get what you are saying, but a claim like “AI’s power remains entirely tied to data processing” isn’t an ontological claim, right? It is a technical/empirical one.

There are lots of other claims in #99 which seem to be more ontological in nature, but some are not.

As you know, there is lots of disagreement about how much of what is happening in the new frontier models can be reduced to data processing.

5/25/26, Joe Vukov, 8:11 AM

On Chapter Three: Technology and Dominance

From paragraph #104: “ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes; it must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it.”

This is really important.

It means that we can’t be facile in our technological ethics — we can’t simply ask, “are we using AI for good or ill?”

That’s an important question to address (of course!), and to address through the lens of the Church’s moral teaching.

But our ethical analysis must be more subtle, and include structural dimensions that go beyond questions about ethical usage.

5/25/26, Jue Vukov, 7:47 AM

On Chapter Three: Technology and Dominance

Totally agree, Charlie, that these paragraphs are going to get a lot of attention! My current read is this: paragraph #98 is epistemic. It is primarily about our limitations in knowing how AI systems work. Paragraph #99, by contrast, is ontological — it is primarily about the nature of AI.

So we get a fairly clear take in #99, but a more tentative take in #98.

Epistemically, after all, we are on shakier ground when it comes to AI; but ontologically, given the Church’s stance about human intelligence, the importance of embodiment to the human person, etc., we can be much clearer.

5/25/26, Charlie Camosy, 7:31 AM

On Chapter Three: Technology and Dominance

I love this encyclical SO MUCH. But I do think I’ve come across an interesting and perhaps significant tension in how it understands the technical and empirical realities of AI.

In #98, the encyclical says something quite remarkable and probably surprising to many: namely, that AI systems are more “cultivated” than “built,” that developers “do not directly design every detail, but instead create a framework within which the intelligence grows,” and that “fundamental scientific aspects” of how AI works remain unknown. This is a striking description of the epistemic situation, and it represents exactly the kind of thing the Catholic Church has often done well: keeping its powder dry when it comes to technical matters in which it does not have competence and which are contested/open questions for the technical experts.

But then, in #99, it proceeds to make a series of confident and definitive claims about AI. Stated not as what seems to be the case but as what is categorically true. For instance, the claim is made that its power “remains entirely tied to data processing.” That may or may not be true, but it is in some tension with the claims about the epistemic situation in the previous paragraph. The encyclical in these two paragraphs essentially says something like: Even the best experts don’t really know how these systems work, but here are some confident claims about how these systems work.

Why doesn’t the position of epistemic humility in #98 govern the claims in #99? I feel like these two paragraphs are going to get a lot of attention and will be the subject of much discussion and debate.

5/25/26, Joe Vukov, 7:06 AM

From the concluding paragraph of Chapter 1 (paragraph 45): “Considering this historical overview, it is clear that the Church’s Social Doctrine is not the result of a project devised at a desk, but rather the product of a patient process in which each pontiff — together with the Second Vatican Council — made a unique contribution in light of the “new things” of each particular era.”

Both a helpful summary of the development of the Church’s Social Doctrine, and sets the context for this new encyclical. The Holy Father is positioning the encyclical in the tradition, and positioning his thoughts on the ‘new things’ of our era--in particular, AI--in light of this tradition.

5/25/26, Joe Vukov, 6:46 AM

This gloss on the Church’s Social Doctrine in paragraph 27 seems like it will be important: “It is not a handbook of principles and norms to be applied, but a process of shared discernment.” I’m guessing this will be an organizing principle for the discussion to follow. We won’t see as many strict principles or norms, but rather guidelines for shared discernment.

5/25/26, Joe Vukov, 6:32 AM

his caught my attention from paragraph 12: “building for the common good means accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without considering them an error to be corrected” and later in the same paragraph, “true fulfilment is not achieved by eliminating weakness but through harmonious growth.” The key virtue being extolled here is humility. I find it helpful to contrast the worldly values of continuous growth upheld by transhumanism (and often, the wider culture as well) and the Gospel values articulated so clearly in the Beatitudes. Hold up the Beatitudes and the acceptance of limits and weakness and contrast these with the driving values of so much of our 21st century imagination, and the contrast couldn’t be starker.

5/25/26, Catherine Moon, 6:31 AM

Yes, Joe, I was also quite surprised by the image from Nehemiah. It is not an image used commonly in discussions on AI technology in the way the Tower of Babel image is.

The image of from Nehemiah paired with the reference to Revelation also brings out the image of nature or the garden since it is a tree at the center of the Holy City. I find forefronting nature and the natural world in combination with human building to be a striking and important image for technology ethics.

5/25/26, Joe Vukov, 6:29 AM

Thanks Catherine! I appreciated the two biblical images as well: the tower of Babel and rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. The tower of Babel is an obvious and appropriate image, and I very much like this from paragraph 10: “We must, then, avoid the “Babel syndrome,” namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance.”

The reference to rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem is maybe a bit less expected, but also very appropriate, and, in counterpoint to the Babel image, provides a picture of hope, one grounded in a way forward “rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones.”

5/25/26, Catherine Moon, 6:24 AM

Following, Charlie Camosy’s quick outline, as an initial reflection on the encyclical, Magnifica humanitas [“On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence”], I thought it might be most helpful to approach these series of comments and reflections the way I typically approach a book review: develop a summary outline with some key highlights in order to provide readers with footholds to better navigate the text on their own. Magnifica humanitas is written in seven parts, somewhat unusually for an encyclical it is divided in five main chapters with an “Introduction” and “Conclusion.” I’ll begin this first post by giving an overview of the “Introduction.”

The “Introduction” opens with recognition that “Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era” (§ 1). Where a generation guides “history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible” but it is nonetheless the case that “every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world” (§1). The “Introduction” then continues on to discuss Pope Leo XIII and Rerum novarum with deep gratitude for having been the impetus for what is now called the Church’s Social Doctrine which “is a legacy of wisdom, where we find principles for thought, criteria for discernment and judgment, and concrete guidelines for action (§3).

From this Magnifica Humanitas then somewhat strikingly asserts “today we cannot limit ourselves simply to repeating [Pope Leo XIII’s] insightful teachings. Instead, we must ask God for the wisdom to interpret the great trends of our time, particularly technological advances” (§3. The “Introduction” makes clear that it is our collective and ongoing task in the age of AI “ to begin a shared discernment process for identifying the spiritual and cultural roots of ongoing transformations” (§5). We cannot “only on contingencies” because if we do “we risk letting the succession of emergencies dictate the direction of our path”(§5).

Toward the end “Introduction” concludes with bringing our attention to two images from the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament: The Tower of Babel and Nehemiah’s return & rebuilding of Jerusalem. Magnifica Humanitas draws out attention to the image of the city where the city is acting as a corollary for human technological “advancements.” These images of the city shows us what becomes of magnificent humanity when we try to build or create without God or against God: ruin, miscommunication, disunity.They also show us what becomes of magnificent humanity when we build and create with God and is consonance with God’s good world: rebirth, new creation, community. These two images point forward to the one of the final images in the Bible, of the new heaven and the new earth, of the Holy City, of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21).

The “Introduction” finally concludes with an affirmation of “building for the common good” and “remaining human.” What the rest of the encyclical sets out to do and what it asks that we keep at the forefront of our minds is that “building for the common good means accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without considering them an error to be corrected”(§12). This is because we must remember that “ true fulfilment is not achieved by eliminating weakness but through harmonious growth’” and true fulfillment is only really “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“ (§12). Because of this, it is imperative that we “lovingly safeguard the grandeur of humanity bestowed upon us and revealed in its fullness in Christ, the splendor of which no machine can ever replace”(§15). It is, after all, “the ‘rejected stones’ — the poor, the sick, the migrants and the least among us — [who] will become the cornerstone, and a solid, welcoming common home will emerge on the earth, where love and faithfulness will finally meet, and righteousness and peace will embrace” (§16).

5/25/26, Joe Vukok, 5:57 AM

Yes, Charlie, a long encyclical! I just finished skimming through citations. Many are what we might have expected: lots of citations to documents from the Second Vatican Council, the major documents of Catholic Social Teaching, and recent relevant documents and addresses. I’m excited that I see a reference to Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” (fn. 187), and interesting to see a reference to Hannah Arendt (fn. 143).

5/25/26, Charlie Camosy, 5:53 AM

Quick overview of the structure. The encyclical has five chapters, the first two of which (“A Dynamic Approach Faithful to the Gospel” and “Foundations and Principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church”) are focused on methodology and almost giving the reader a primer on Catholic social teaching. There are 245 numbered paragraphs for the whole thing and the discussion of AI doesn’t really start until #97. There is a real attempt here to set up the theological and ethical framework before diving into the technology. Also, the encyclical is fairly long: the English version I have, when uploaded to Google docs, gives me 42,543 words…making it about four times longer than Rerum novarum. Significantly longer than Caritas in Veritate. But in the ballpark of the length of the encyclicals from Pope Francis.

—
Charlie Camosy teaches moral theology and bioethics in the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America.

Catherine Moon is an Arthur J. Ennis Teaching Scholar at Villanova University.

Joe Vukov is the associate director of the Hank Center for Catholic Intellectual Heritage at Loyala University Chicago, and an associate professor of philosophy.

Tim Hwang is a researcher at the Institute for Christian Machine Intelligence.

Brian J.A. Boyd is U.S. Faith Liaison of the Future of Life Institute, and an instructor of Catholic social teaching at Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans, Louisiana.