Pope Leo XIV and the Political Theology of Artificial Intelligence

Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical Magnifica humanitas was only released a few weeks ago, but it has already been exhaustively summarized and analyzed in both the secular and Catholic press. People of all faiths and those who claim none have offered commentary on the encyclical subtitled “On safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence.” The universal interest the document has generated is a testament both to the timeliness and urgency of its subject as well as the care given to it by Pope Leo. I read it with interest, discussed it with my colleagues at the Acton Institute, and then I sat with it with an open heart, for, as Pope Leo wrote, “True progress always stems from a heart open to others, an intelligence willing to listen and a will that seeks what unites rather than what separates”(§15).

It seemed the human thing to do. When you ask an artificial intelligence chatbot a question, at least in the case of frontier models like Claude or Gemini, it will often write out a description of their process in coming to an answer. It will describe a process like this: locate relevant sources, read, summarize, analyze, and then formulate an answer. I had questions after the reading the encyclical but rather than trying to immediately answer them I sat with them and meditated upon them trying to listen with an open heart and took Pope Leo up on his invitation, “to contemplate, in the face of the Son of God, the grandeur of humanity that shines a light also on the era of AI” (§233).

Through this process of listening, reflection, and contemplation, I kept returning to three aspects of the encyclical: the embrace of secular rather than churchly biblical metaphors to inform a social vision of responsibility in the age of AI, a self-conscious and reflective understanding of the Church’s social teaching as developing, and a renewed emphasis and new application of the universal destination of goods to intellectual property.

Pope Leo XIV opens Magnifica humanitas with contrasting biblical images “the construction of the Tower of Babel (cf. Gen 11:1–9) and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (cf. Neh 2–6).” Both episodes are not just construction projects but reconstruction projects. The first of human civilization after the flood and the second of Jerusalem. Each prior destruction had been the product of God’s judgement. The reconstruction of civilization at Babel is met with God’s judgement, as it “was a project conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion. […] Babel thus reveals the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing” (§7).

Nehemiah’s reconstruction of Jerusalem conversely met with God’s blessing, for

He did not impose solutions from above. He convened the families, assigned each of them a section of the wall to rebuild, listened to their concerns, coordinated their efforts, and addressed any opposition. The narrative 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. It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones. §8

The age of AI can be one blessed by God or one that meets His judgement depending on whether it puts God and the dignity of the human person at its center for, “technology is never neutral” (§9). Both these images are striking. Both place great importance on God and human dignity but are decidedly civilizational rather than ecclesial, political rather than churchly. On reflection I believe this to be purposeful.

The story of the Tower of Babel and its confusion of languages is usually contrasted with the story of Pentecost when, “everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability” (Acts 2:4). On Pentecost the Holy Spirit descends upon the Apostles and the Church, and its mission of reconciliation is born. Pope Leo XIV speaks from that Church to that Church, but not to the Church alone; he speaks to the broader world:

Founded on Christ, the living stone, we experience the powerful and mysterious action of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that every authentic human effort to cooperate with him for the good will be blessed by our heavenly Father, in whom we place our hope. For this reason, we can diligently contribute to every initiative that builds a more just world, and we can call others to collaborate in promoting the integral development of every human being. We wish to engage in dialogue with all men and women of our time, with whom we share in the events, questions and aspirations of humanity. §2

This broader world is not simply something that the Church stands apart from and renders judgement on but rather that which the Church seeks to serve, stand in solidarity with throughout history, and address through the development of its social teaching:

Indeed, in each era the res novae require that this teaching address historical questions in the light of revealed Truth. In this regard, artificial intelligence, too, should not be considered as merely yet another theme to be studied or a crisis to be managed, but rather as a development that challenges the categories of Social Doctrine from within, calling for their further development in fidelity to the Gospel. §17

The Church “walks alongside humanity, recognizing the autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction between ecclesial and political communities. Indeed, it is for this very reason that she strives to serve the common good” (§18).

One of the new historical realities the Church seeks to illuminate is the fact that the technological power of AI, at least in the West, is now predominantly held by private transnational corporations. Senior figures in the Trump administration have discussed acquiring stakes in AI companies, and Senator Bernie Sanders has suggested giving “Americans a ‘direct ownership stake’ in the country’s largest AI companies by creating ‘a sovereign wealth fund through a one-time 50 percent tax’ of company stock.”

In Magnifica humanitas Pope Leo has a different approach centered on the principle of the universal destination of goods, “this principle reminds us that the earth’s goods—soil, water, air and natural resources—are given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all” and that, “Today, we are called to recognize that this universal destination applies not only to material goods, but also to immaterial and cultural goods” (§65). Immaterial and cultural goods include “new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data” and “when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without adequate forms of sharing and access, a new imbalance is created that contradicts the universal destination of goods” (§67). Equity stakes do not resolve such imbalances, which exist not primarily between private transnational corporations and modern bureaucratic states but between state and corporate actors and human persons.

The Church’s recognition of the great importance of new forms of property in the age of AI has already proven to be more far sighted than political actors on both the left and the right. Intellectual property, unlike physical property or equity, is non-rivalrous, and can be utilized by multiple people simultaneously without depriving the owner of its use. A reconceptualization and liberalization of intellectual property law could open new Nehemiah like opportunities for economic cooperation and coordination not through the initiative of one state or corporation but through the shared responsibility of all.

We are blessed to live in interesting times; we must embrace our own responsibility in them, but most importantly we must wait with open hearts for, as Pope Leo assures us, “What saves humanity is the divine love that descends into the most fragile point of our history and renews it from within” (§232).

Dan Hugger is Editorial and Research Fellow and the Host of Acton Line Podcast at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty. He is the editor of two books: Lord Acton: Historical and Moral Essays and The Humane Economist: A Wilhelm Röpke Reader.