Pope Leo XIV's Encyclical on Artificial Intelligence: Six Further Takeaways

[See the companion blog for the initial six points.]

7.  Ever since Pope Paul VI coined the term “civilization of love,” each subsequent pope has used that term in a two-fold way.  They use the term to describe what all nations and peoples on earth are to strive for and are capable of; and to contrast that goal to what is actually being lived out in the contemporary world.  For Paul VI a “civilization of love” was contrasted to the ideological blocks and armament build up of the Cold War era.  For Pope John Paul II the contrast was to what he called the “culture of death,” with its emphasis on discarding and failing to protect the gift of human life, whether it be the unborn, the elderly, or those on the margins.  For Pope Leo the contrast is to what he terms a “culture of power” (#182-228), and he specifically ties it to the dangers, which our artificial intelligence age has brought to international conflicts: “In our time, a culture of power is taking hold, in which the availability of resources and the ability to dominate tend to dictate the agenda and criteria for decision-making. In this way, the common good of humanity is relegated to the background and the concrete tragedy of peoples at war is reduced to a secondary consideration in relation to strategic interests. This culture of power infiltrates society, changes relationships and behaviors, and grows by normalizing war, pursuing ever-greater military power, taking advantage of the crisis of multilateralism and fueling a false realism that insists that there is no alternative.” (#188)

“Power” is one of those words which gets used in both positive and negative ways.  In an earlier blog (I have linked it to this blog below), I discuss how leaders for social and political change recognize that no change happens unless sufficiently diverse and strong coalitions see self-interest and power as a positive force for the good and use it to further the common good.  But in our Christian spirituality we tend to talk about letting go of power, emptying oneself, and so on, in which case the desire for power is seen as an obstacle for true openness to the Spirit.  Pope Leo’s use of the “culture of power” fits into that more traditional spirituality: “In our time, a culture of power is taking hold, in which the availability of resources and the ability to dominate tend to dictate the agenda and criteria for decision-making. In this way, the common good of humanity is relegated to the background and the concrete tragedy of peoples at war is reduced to a secondary consideration in relation to strategic interests. This culture of power infiltrates society, changes relationships and behaviors, and grows by normalizing war, pursuing ever-greater military power, taking advantage of the crisis of multilateralism and fueling a false realism that insists that there is no alternative.” (#188)  The Pope’s critique of such power is quite accurate, I think, but it would be a mistake to not use all the legitimate avenues for influencing change—in short, our power understood in a positive sense—out of fear that we are seeking personal power.

8.  In the encyclical Pope Leo provides a powerful (pun intended) defense of three key components of any society that is trying to safeguard the dignity of the human person and the common good, components that are especially threatened or being put under extreme stress in this time of artificial intelligence—truth, work, and freedom.  He links the protection of authentic truth to the health of any democratic society, pointing out that “Indifference to the truth leads, slowly but surely, to a descent into totalitarianism.” (#134)  The combination of powerful self-interests with the power of A.I. generated content that mixes facts and opinions, calls into question accepted factual information, creates fake news, and pursues not truth but power (for its own sake) and influence is visibly at work in the world today.  Pope Leo uses the clear example of murder in order to show the underlying falsity of such indifference to or manipulation of truth: “Murder is not wrong simply because it is socially unacceptable and punished by law, but because of a deeper conviction. This is a non-negotiable truth attained by the use of reason and accepted in conscience.” (#133)  In other words, truth and its pursuit through shared factual understanding always matters and is essential in any healthy society. 

Pope Leo does something analogous with his discussion on artificial intelligence and the protection of human freedom, but here I want to focus a bit more on the second of the three components—work.   Pope Leo references Pope John Paul II’s Laborem Exercens (#3), where the Pope calls work “the essential key understanding the entire social question.”  If there is one topic or thread that unites all the key documents of Catholic Social Doctrine, it would be the focus on protecting the value of work and the dignity of workers.  The Church sees the ability to connect each individual, if possible, to some worthy labor as essential for a person’s full human dignity. It is not enough to give people the basic necessities (though we must do that at times). Work brings about a participation in all the socio-economic spheres of life that promotes true social justice: “For these reasons, work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfilment. In this regard, financial assistance to the poor may at times be necessary in emergencies, but it cannot become the sole response, since the goal is to enable each person to live with dignity through his or her own work.” (#149)  With the advent of more and more artificial intelligence integrated into the workplace, we see an acceleration at times of an improper reversal of roles: “[The convergence of automation, robotics, and AI]…frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work.” (#150)  The pope maintains the Catholic Social Doctrine emphasis on people over profits: “Yet, the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule. The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good.” (#152)

Throughout the history of Catholic Social Teaching (now Doctrine) the Church has been criticized as ‘naïve’ or ‘out-of-touch with reality,’ with its insistence on the worker as more important than the means of production, labor more important than capital.  The excesses of the Industrial Revolution and its treatment of workers is what prompted the initial encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891.  The loss of apprentice-style crafts and economy which so valued local realities and subsidiarity is at the heart of Quadragesimo Anno in 1931.  In 1981 Laborem Exercens devotes an entire encyclical to the question of labor and keeping the dignity of work and the worker in the forefront. On the 100^th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Centesimus Annus points to both the failure of Eastern European-style socialism and the severe excesses present in Western capitalism as rooted in a failure to protect the centrality of the human person in any arrangement of labor. Now on the 135^th anniversary of that first social encyclical Pope Leo XIV adds his stamp to the intrinsic importance of protecting the dignity of work and the worker, especially in light of the tremendous ability of artificial intelligence to ignore such questions for the sake of efficiency or profit.  Pope Leo says: “The labor market is one area in which the risks associated with new technologies more clearly emerge. It is thus necessary to remember that economic freedom is not absolute; it must always be measured against the common good and the dignity of every person.” (#157)  And here he makes a very practical observation. If we are to succeed in keep the dignity of work and access to work available for all, we need to move beyond the charade of a single metric like the Gross Domestic Product, in evaluating the health of an economy, “since these metrics almost systematically neglect aspects essential to the overall wellbeing of people and the environment.” (#157)  The true health of any economy and of the society within which that economy operates is how that economy promotes and protects the intrinsic value of the human person and his/her labor.

The Pope delves more fully into the impact of A.I. on labor markets and human dignity, brings in the advent of cryptocurrencies and some concerns surrounding these, looks at the need to bring hope to families youth, and in the end offers three practical criteria for evaluating the A.I.-dominated economy (#165): 1) transparency where decision algorithms generated by A.I. are held to accountability and not hidden or viewed as beyond understanding; 2) inclusion and access, where any benefits of the new economy and loss of jobs is paired with skills training and new ways to enhance the role of labor; 3) direct measures to ensure greater equality including taxation.  These are not revolutionary ideas, but they do flow from the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine. Would that multiple entrepreneurs embrace such principles as they develop new and creative enterprises, including those highly connected to the use of artificial intelligence, in order to show how one can be successful, wealthy even, but truly protective of human dignity and the common good.

9.  One of four principles that can be used to evaluate how well we are promoting the common good and the dignity of every human person is the principle of subsidiarity.  The principle of subsidiarity in Catholic Social Doctrine arose, in the first instance, as a way to protect individuals, families, and intermediary groups (religious congregations, unions, community groups, etc.) from undue coercion by the State.  Pope Pius XI raises it to a key principle in his fortieth anniversary encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, updating Pope Leo XIII’s original Rerum Novarum.  With the rise of communist and fascist states, he could see the clear danger such state-imposed control posed to the freedom of such groups and the loss to human freedom and creativity that could/would occur.  But there is an ancillary side to this principle that reminds us that, when the local decision-making level is unable or not equipped to decide or carry out the actions necessary for the common good, the higher level, including at times the State can and must intervene.  Pope John XXIII saw this clearly and so reminded people of that aspect of subsidiarity.  Moreover, with the creation of the United Nations and its 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the deepening Cold War of the time, there was a hope that this side of subsidiarity might help control the militaristic and authoritarian impulses of various nations.

In Pope Leo XIV’s discussion of this principle he brings together these two aspects of subsidiarity: “Subsidiarity does not justify the Stateʼs disengagement, but rather guides its actions. Indeed, public intervention is necessary precisely to enable all social actors to fulfill their mission without being stifled. It is the responsibility of the political community to create the conditions that allow individuals, families, associations and intermediary organizations to fulfil their mission in society, without being replaced or reduced to mere facilitators.” (#69)  But, with A.I. we get a new reality that must be fitted to this principle—transnational actors, often more powerful than many nations. Pope Leo notes: “The principle of subsidiarity applies especially in the context of the digital revolution. Here, 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.” (#71)  The principle then must be extended to transnational institutions, tasking them with the responsibility of safeguarding the use of artificial intelligence in a way that even the State alone cannot do.

Subsidiarity is a tricky principle to balance.  In any social-economic-political setting less than perfect decisions need to be made.  Not everyone can be consulted; there is no perfect procedure to hear the voice of all; considerations of both efficiency and practical results need to be weighed against further discussion and dialogue.  With the advent of artificial intelligence, however, the massive amount of data available to decision-makers is unprecedented.  It might seem as though A.I. actually democratizes decision-making, allowing for the input of nearly everyone.  But with built-in biases, an excessive focus on monetizing the data, and a great chasm between the haves and have nots of the digital age, artificial intelligence is not a guarantee of fairness or subsidiarity.  That is why this principle needs to be used in conjunction with the principle of solidarity (to be attentive to the ideological divides present) and the principle of social justice (so that those most on the margins are given a due voice in decision-making).  Only with all the principles used in concert can one begin to evaluate a particular social, economic, cultural, or political initiative.

10.  Interestingly, but very properly, Pope Leo XIV along lines similar to Pope Francis, challenges the Church itself to do an examination of conscience on how well it embodies these principles: “In conclusion, I would like to touch on a point that is particularly close to my heart. Social Doctrine is not merely a message addressed to society; it is also an examination of conscience for the Church —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)  He grounds Pope Francis’ call for synodality, not just in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, as did Francis, but in the social doctrine of the Church: “In the ecclesial context, the common good takes the form of a synodal approach for mission at the service of the Kingdom.” (#86)  In other words, synodality is not just a good way to live out the mission of the Church post-Vatican II, it is a permanent characteristic of the Church authentic to living out its gospel mission at all times. 

Moreover, it means that the Church cannot just teach about its social doctrine; it must embody it.  This is a huge challenge in any hierarchically-structured Church.  Failure to embody these principles led precisely to the type of distortion that was verbalized so eloquently by the Belgian Bishop DeSmedt at the Vatican Council—roundly criticizing the Church of the time and the way it taught about itself as rooted in ‘clericalism, juridicalism, and triumphalism. ‘ Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) opens up a new pathway forward by placing the structure of hierarchy within the wider reality of the whole pilgrim People of God, where all the baptized have essential Spirit-given charisms, including a call to holiness.  But rather quickly, except for some liturgical changes encouraging more conscientious and active participation, that pathway was not fully traveled. Even the periodic Synods of Bishops became more a discussion group centered around what the current Pope wanted to discuss, with the final reports carefully vetted, rather than an experience of true synodality.  Only with Pope Francis’ unexpected but forceful focus on synodality, covering three years and two Synods of Bishops, does the vision of Vatican II become more enfleshed in the life of the Church.  With this new encyclical, Pope Leo is tying the practice of synodality to doctrinal principles. Not simply a pastoral strategy. Not optional for the Church. Applicable to all.

Evaluated in this way we can say that the Catholic Church struggles with the principle of subsidiarity.  On the one hand, it is structured in what business managers would call an admirably ‘flat’ way.  There are really only four levels to the Church’s structure, which means all 1.4 billion Catholics have just three degrees of separation from one another.  Every parish personally knows its pastor who knows his bishop who has direct contact with the Pope.  Such ‘flatness’ for such a huge organization would make any large corporation envious.  On the other hand, the emphasis on direct and universal papal authority from the 11^th c. on and especially after the loss of the Papal States in the 19^th century, makes it very difficult even for bishops to live out true subsidiarity with the pope.  The pope’s charism and role as unifier and the bishops’ role as co-equal successors to the apostles too easily becomes a relationship of authoritarian ruler to obedient servant.  On the diocesan level the unique authority of the bishop makes true presbyteral shared wisdom very difficult to do in practice.  And the pastor’s canonical authority can quickly, if the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine are not understood and embraced at the parish level, turn the pastor from servant leader to autocrat. 

However, with Pope Francis and now especially with Pope Leo XIV, we need to call out any Church governance that fails in its honoring of subsidiarity.  Pope Leo highlights how the principle of solidarity (#88) and the principle of social justice (#89) similarly apply to the Church’s inner workings, ending the section with: “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. In this way, the Church will be able to bear credible witness to society that seeking the common good together, with shared responsibility and fraternity, is not a utopia, but a real possibility.” (#89)

11.  Pope Leo ends the encyclical with a reflection on faith, hope, love and prayer—what he calls the “four pillars” of the Christian life as we address and live through the challenges of our times—and concludes with this prophetic word of hope he finds in Mary’s Magnificat: “Mary suddenly sees all of history through the lens of this revelation. Nothing has changed around her; the socio-political situation of her time remains the same. The Romans continue to control her land, and her people are still subjugated and humiliated. Yet, everything has changed within her, and this allows her to see what is invisible.  God has already shown the strength of his arm; he has already scattered the proud, cast down the mighty, lifted up the lowly, filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty-handed. He has already helped Israel, his servant. God takes the part of the lowly. His plan is one that is often hidden beneath the opaque context of human events that see ‘the proud, the mighty and the richʼ triumph. Yet his secret strength is destined in the end to be revealed.” (#243)

Theologians and biblical scholars contrast two strands of eschatology found in the Scriptures and in our theological tradition: ‘future eschatology,’ which focuses either on death and its aftermath or the culmination of all things at the end of time, and ‘realized eschatology,’ which focuses on the in-breaking of the reign of God here and now.  As is typical of Catholic thought, we are usually invited to take these two strands not as an ‘either/or’ but as a ‘both/and’.  The most common way to unite them is to see eschatology as an ‘already but not yet fully realized’ reality.  Yes, the kingdom of God is already breaking in and we need to be signs and instruments of that kingdom now, embodying it as much as we can now, not simply looking to death and heaven.  But we also know that the kingdom of God will never be fully achieved on earth by our efforts. We prepare for and live for and long for the graced reality of a “new heaven and earth” (Revelations 21). 

Pope Leo’s concluding remarks fit into that ‘already but not yet’ understanding of eschatology but, I think, with an important emphasis of his own. He invites us to take Mary’s perspective in the prayer, who sees a land and a people subjugated, controlled, even humiliated by the Roman socio-political power structure of the day (and so the ‘not yet’ seems so clearly dominant), but who sees in the midst of that how God is truly already choosing the lowly, the hungry, the ‘little ones’ of the world to reveal his reign.  Three times the Pope adds the word already to Mary’s Magnificat phrasings to emphasize this understanding.  The eschatological ‘already’ is not there just to remind us to take seriously our earthly responsibilities and the eschatological ‘not yet’ is not there just to keep us from equating kingdoms of the earth with the kingdom of God.  Rather, for Pope Leo the eschatological ‘already’ is not what we are already doing to show forth the reign of God, but what God is showing us by already siding with the poor and lowly.  And the ‘not yet’ is not simply a humble acknowledgement that it is God who must bring about the kingdom, but an indictment on all the ways we have not yet embraced that same solidarity with those most hurting and in need. Pope Leo’s take on the ‘already but not yet’ contrasts the discrepancy between where God has already taken his stand (with the lowly) and where we have not yet properly responded (by continuing to maintain structures that exclude them).  This allows us to become, in Pope Leo’s wonderful phrase, “weavers of hope” (#245). 

In our time of great uncertainty, with nations and institutions losing many of the accepted safeguards that arose after two tragic world wars and a Cold War that brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster, with the use of artificial intelligence threatening to fray those boundaries even more, is it possible to show a path forward? And his calm but urgent response is ‘Yes’: “With the same faith as Mary, let us become “weavers of hopeˮ in our world, sharing who we are and what we have, so that the presence of Jesus may grow among us and his Kingdom take shape. In the humble fidelity of daily life, even the era of AI can become a time in which the Holy Spirit brings about the civilization of love in our lives. Indeed, the Lord continues to make all things new and offers every era the possibility of becoming part of salvation history in the light of the Incarnation.” (#245)

12.  As I reflect on the amazing creativity with which the Spirit of God has endowed humanity, the development of artificial intelligence is certainly a sign of that gift.  I am pleased that Pope Leo has not just warned the world of its use or condemned its use.  He has not approached these potentially world-changing developments in a spirit of uncertainty or fear.  Instead, Pope Leo has taken the path that has been a very strong part of our Catholic tradition—engage those involved in such new discoveries with the depth of our shared Catholic moral wisdom.  If for nothing else, the encyclical is worth reflecting on as a template for how to use Catholic Social Doctrine as the basis for spiritual and moral discernment no matter the issue being looked at.  Even though he knows that human freedom will often choose wrongly, Pope Leo is confident that God’s Spirit gets the final say and therefore the proper approach is to present the vision that is possible—the ‘civilizaton of love’—and not simply the potential horrors that could ensue.  At the same time, he forcefully insists that all that happens with artificial intelligence is accountable to human persons and communities.  He insists on the fact that no artificial intelligence is morally neutral, not because it has an independent morality of its own, but because it reflects the built-in biases of its developers, or the deepening biases gained by how it processes the data from around the world. 

The Pope could have chosen the Genesis story of reaching for the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden—implying that artificial intelligence is a step too far, a hubris of wanting our eyes to be open and to know as gods.  Many would have wanted the Pope to do so, because then we could simply condemn artificial intelligence efforts and smugly point out its horrors, every time it goes too far or leads to something outrageous.  But it would also imply that we should withdraw into monastic or Amish enclaves, thinking we will not be tainted by the corrupt world around us but at the same time completely dependent on that world protecting us and letting us go our way.  There is a place in our Catholic tradition for such, but that is for a chosen few.  The vast majority of us are asked to engage with the world as it is and to bring the gift of our Catholic Christian life to every facet of that world.  But will we engage with the world like the people do with the Tower of Babel or engage with the world like the people do re-building the wall of Jerusalem with Nehemiah.?  Only the second way respects the diversity of people, recognizes the gifts each person adds to the whole effort rather than forcing everyone to fit into a pre-conceived vision, and takes the time to address serious issues in the building process. That is the story the Pope has chosen for us in connection for how we build and use A.I. It is a cautionary tale not a condemnatory one.  A hopeful tale rather than a fearful one. We should listen to it.

We have an amazingly wise gift—Catholic Social Doctrine.  Pope Leo invites us to use it to engage with all that is happening in this time of artificial intelligence.  In the end, I think, it will come down to what it always comes down to for those who are Catholic Christians.  No matter where we fit within social, economic, cultural, or political realities, will we let our Catholic identity be at the core of our decision-making? Or, as is too often the case, will we be Americans first (or Russians or Brazilians, etc.) and only secondarily embrace Catholic wisdom? Or defined by our political interests first and foremost?  Or our economic interests? Or social status or any other identity that is willing to push aside Catholic Social Doctrine when it is inconvenient to our lifestyles?