Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas: an appreciation

On 25 May 2026, Pope Leo released his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, (On safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence). This is Pope Leo’s first encyclical which caused great interest and sparked debate in many international forums.

The Pope’s letter reflects the ‘aggiornamento’ which has characterised the Catholic Church’s approach to world affairs and its own internal structure since Vatican II (January 1959-December 1965). As part of this ‘bringing up to date,’ the Pope decided to confront the challenges posed by the proliferation of AIs, nanotechnology, algorithms, robotics and some of the other consequences of the digital revolution.

The encyclical is wide-ranging, comprehensive and conveys the Church’s informed approach to the deep changes society has undergone from the research work done in Silicon Valley and other AI outlets.

Before plunging into the main argument of the encyclical, we must pause and consider the full implication of the word ‘humanitas’ in the title.

It is common practice to name an encyclical after its opening words, in this case ‘Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur….’

The word ‘humanitas,’ especially in its Latin form, conveys a deep commitment to what is specifically human; it recalls a full appreciation of those values enshrined in the works of classical Greece and Rome, values later expressed in the magnificent works of the Renaissance.

This same word later appears in the letter but now distorted into ‘transhumanism’ and ‘posthumanism’, both condemned by the Pope as denying what is essentially human.

Before engaging in an in-depth analysis of the problems posed by an uncritical, slavish adherence to the so-called benefits of AI, the Pope recalls two lessons derived from the Bible: the Tower of Babel is cited as an example of hubris and dislocation, where uniformity and coercion lead to human failure and scattering; the second example is less familiar, derived from the Book of Nehemiah, where the returning exiles are motivated to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in a community effort to create a new home. The ‘confusion of tongues’ consequent upon the collapse of the tower reflects the bewildering accents of the AI world.

The core message of the encyclical is encapsulated succinctly on page 15: ‘In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanisation, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human.’

We are encouraged to get our hands dirty on the ‘construction site’ of our time.

AI is defined as the broad field of computer science focused on making machines which mimic human thinking.

Initially, there are some obvious drawbacks: the speed with which AI operates diminishes critical thinking; it also creates a false sense of objectivity but can easily hide bias; it simulates relationships, but this is an illusion; it also, frighteningly, concentrates power in the hands of the few.

The main charge levelled by the Pope against AI is the claim that it has sentience and consciousness. In fact, it only imitates certain functions of human intelligence.

It can surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, but this power is entirely tied to data processing.

The enhanced ability can have many benefits in many areas of human endeavour, like medicine and food production, but this does not make AI human in the accepted, full sense of the word.

Unlike human beings, AI does not undergo experiences, does not have a body and it cannot feel pain or joy.

AIs lack the ability to form relationships, do not know what love and friendship are; more disturbingly, they don’t have a moral conscience as they cannot judge what is good or evil.

AIs may imitate language, emulate some aspects of human behaviour and display analytical skills, but they do not understand what they do; they also lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom.

Two concepts are targeted by the encyclical as sources of misunderstanding and moral confusion: transhumanism, the claim to enhance human beings through technology such as biomedicine, the application of devices to transform the human body and mind; algorithms to increase human performance.

Posthumanism sounds even more threatening and disturbing - it tries to debunk anthropocentrism, envisions a hybridisation of human beings, machines and the environment. It would aid and abet a new leap in human evolution, leaving human nature as we know it behind. Reminiscent of Nietzsche’s superman, it would dwarf Frankenstein’s attempt to create an ersatz human being!

The Pope can draw on some of the well-known tenets of the ‘perennial philosophy’ to buttress his stance against the unwarranted, exaggerated reliance on AI.

He unambiguously espouses the innately, inalienably, specifically human. These are the values enshrined in the humanities, now threatened by the ever-growing influence of STEM subjects in mainstream education.

Magnifica Humanitas argues for placing the dignity of the human person at the centre of all reflection and, in turn, making it the fundamental criterion guiding technological progress and in the assessment of its social, cultural and moral consequences.

The Pope emphasises how, for believing Christians, human experience, expression and culture are divinely underpinned and therefore not comparable to artificial intelligence systems which are optimized according to technocratic principles.

The encyclical evokes the greatness and centrality of the human person.

Ultimately, this dignity is traced to its theological foundation: the human person is created in the image and likeness of God.

Recent debates concerning the nature of human consciousness have focused on what philosophers and neuroscientists call ‘the hard problem’ of establishing how an inner life emerges from the neurons and synapses in the human brain.

Until recently, the possibility of AIs becoming self-aware smacked of science fiction. But with the advances made in developing LLMs (large language models), this step now seems inevitable and not that distant.

If one day LLMs become conscious, how are we to relate to them?

Their power of argument and emotional manipulation will be unmatched. They could, conceivably, acquire legal rights and expect to be treated with the respect and consideration we now reserve for our fellow human companions!

Some researchers have started to treat their models like human minds.

Anthropic-trained Claude now engages in introspection in the hope that it will, one day, act morally.

The Pope urges humanity to adopt the perspective of victims. It is unjust to remain neutral, nor can we claim we are not complicit.

When confronted with the bombing of civilians, calculated attacks on hospitals and schools and vital infrastructure, the Pope does not mince his words: we are appalled at the scandalous behaviour that wound humanity itself.

We could blithely undermine the Pope’s stance on AI by indicating that it reflects the old-fashioned, outdated, reactionary thinking of Catholic tradition. But this would be an egregious error.

The Pope has sought expert advice on this pressing matter; he has spoken to representatives of Anthropic; he has looked deep into the problem and has sensitively and intelligently drawn some compelling conclusions.

It would be a grave misjudgement to ignore his advice.