Pope Leo XIV’s Encyclical on Artificial Intelligence: Six Initial Key Takeaways

1.  Not just Social Teaching but Social Doctrine

In his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas (“On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence”), Pope Leo XIV consistently and often (60 times) uses the term “Social Doctrine,” when talking about authoritative Catholic moral teaching, as it touches on social, cultural, economic, and political areas of life.  This is important, because for most of the modern history of such teaching, the preferred term has been “Catholic Social Teaching.”  In 2005, the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace published its Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.  Since then, the term “Catholic Social Doctrine” has been used more and more, even by the popes.  But Pope Leo is the first to make that his central term.  The use of “doctrine” rather than simply “teaching” emphasizes that the Church’s wisdom on these matters of social justice is not somehow less authoritative than on other matters of morality, simply because the application of the moral principles to specific, concrete events is more open to interpretation, given the complexity of social matters.  The moral principles involved are not arbitrary or “considered opinion.” They are authoritative doctrine. This means that Catholic moral wisdom needs to engage with these principles, and if varying conclusions are reached in a given concrete situation by different teachers or theologians, all still need to show how theirs flow from the common doctrinal principles. 

As an aside, the grouping of these principles under authoritative doctrine, invites all, especially moral theologians, to re-visit other areas of moral teaching (for example, matters related to marriage and family; procreation, sexuality, and gender; end of life, assisted suicide and euthanasia; medical interventions and the distinction between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” means, and so on), and analyze them from the standpoint of these social doctrine principles.  Personally, I also believe such social doctrine principals provide the best framework for spiritual discernment and for deepening one’s growth in virtue and moral character as well, thus aiding in re-uniting what is often split apart—moral theology and spirituality.

2. The Foundational and Core Principles of Catholic Social Doctrine

In laying out these principles that guide the social doctrine of the Church, Pope Leo follows closely the outline provided by Chapters Three and Four in the 2005 Compendium mentioned above.   He first emphasizes the foundational reality of the dignity of every human person.  He then discusses five principles that come into play in socio-economic-political matters:  the principle of the common good, the principle of the universal destination of all human goods, subsidiarity, solidarity, and social justice.  Arranging them in this way makes it very clear what the central concern is, when it comes to social doctrinal matters, but especially in dealing with the rise of artificial intelligence—the potential to subsume the intrinsic value of each human person into an overarching algorithm, where the human person becomes a means to an end, and not an end in itself.  Thus, the subtitle of the encyclical: “On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.”  And the human person and the dignity of each and every human person is foundational.  However, from a teaching perspective, I think it is more helpful to view the principle of the common good, not as one of five further moral principles, but as an overarching core principle on its own.  Then the four further principles can be grouped together as a way to discern and bring greater clarity to whether the common good is being honored and the dignity of each human person safeguarded.

3. The Principle of Social Justice and the Preferential Option for the Poor

I have discussed these principles of social doctrine in other blogs (see some of the references to earlier blogs below) and have updated a pamphlet on Catholic Social Teaching/Doctrine as a result of this new encyclical.  Here I want to highlight some of the ways Pope Leo makes them his own.  Note, for example, his use of the term “the principle of social justice” (#77-80).  The term “social justice” is an often-used term in contemporary philosophy and theology, even if its meaning is a bit ambiguous.  For many people, actually, the term is used almost synonymously with the term “the common good.”  The Compendium uses the term/heading “Participation” to highlight the need to give those currently marginalized or excluded not only proper access to social goods (universal destination of all goods) but also a legitimate voice and structures to help shape the social-cultural-economic-political landscape.  Pope Leo’s use of the term “social justice” better highlights the moral quality that is built into systems, not just through individual moral choices but in the way the systems are structured: “Justice, however, concerns not only the behavior of individuals, but also the way in which the structures of society are conceived and organized. “(#77)  Referencing Paul VI and John Paul II, Pope Leo states: “…the Christian community cannot be content with a theoretical proclamation of peace. Rather, beginning where people are marginalized, it must allow the Gospel to pass judgment on those economic and political structures which — as John Paul II would later remind us — can become veritable ‘structures of sin.’ As a result, no person or people will be treated as expendable in the processes of development.”  

I do want to point to one caveat in Pope Leo’s discussion of social justice, however.  In the Compendium the principle of the preferential option for the poor was highlighted as a distinct social doctrinal principle, helping to protect the common good by keeping those excluded and on the margins in the forefront of the discussion on how the goods of the earth are distributed and shared.  Pope Leo references this principle three times (calling it a “principle of discernment” in the introduction (#14); pointing out how Pope Francis tied it to, among other things, our care for our common home in Laudato Si’ (#42); and finally, as an aspect of social justice (#78)).  But he does not raise it to the level of a separate doctrinal principle.  This could be because they are so many different types of poverty and so many ways to be marginalized in today’s world. And he had recently published his Apostolic Exhortation Dilexi Te (“On Love for the Poor), which completed some of Pope Francis’ ideas on Christian love, as well as making very clear his own commitment to the obligatory nature of our care for the poor.  Or, it could be that he sees the preferential option for the poor as something present in all the principles, rather than a distinct principle all its own.  He certainly does not ignore it, but by omitting it from the list of key principles of Catholic Social Doctrine, I do worry it could lessen its impact.  There is something very revealing and clarifying when we ask ourselves the question, “How will this decision/restructuring/policy/etc. give those who are the poorest or most on the margins better access to the material and spiritual goods all people have a right to?”

4.  The Failure of Just War Theory

An area that stands out clearly in the encyclical is the section addressing war, violence and military actions (#188-209).  Pope Leo emphasizes how the use of artificial intelligence in this arena is problematic, especially if decisions to use weapons and weapons of destruction are relegated more and more to A.I. algorithms, as though human responsibility for each such decision is secondary or lessened.  Moreover, with the power of the information age to simplify and distort the reporting and understanding of real-time events, along with algorithms designed to create narratives that drive the propaganda for war, war is too easily becoming accepted as inevitable, part of a Realpolitik that then drives even greater development of weapons and a readiness and willingness to engage in military conflict to resolve issues, which could be resolved in non-military ways. In fact, the current climate seems to lead to a neglect of basic humanitarian concerns, not just by ‘bad actors’ such as terrorist and jihadist and criminal groups, but by nations themselves, who prior to this would not have crossed such lines: “In this context, peacebuilding has been relegated to a secondary role. Cooperation for development, disarmament, conflict prevention and the establishment of mutual trust are neglected in the name of power politics. The achievements of humanitarian law are also being compromised. Indeed, the principle of proportionality in responding to aggression, the protection of access to water, food and essential goods, and respect for the lives of civilians, especially children, come to be regarded as naïve relics of the past.” (#203).  Although Pope Leo is thinking of all the many conflicts present in the world (he does not single out any particular nation or actor), it is very difficult to read these words and not think of the actions of Russia toward Ukraine, Israel toward Gaza and Lebanon, and the United States toward Iran.

As a world, we have gone, sadly, deeply astray.  The frameworks for multilateral cooperation and decision-making have eroded; ideological glorification of authoritarian leadership has grown; the use of ‘just war’ theory has been falsely manipulated to justify every military conflict, even so-called ‘preventive war’; and the belief that nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction can be deployed tactically has become an accepted talking point.  It is in this context that Pope Leo takes a step that Pope Francis had already laid the groundwork for: “Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the ‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.” (#192)  The just war theory developed as a way to limit armed violence and aggression between nations so that war should remain “a last resort, subject to strict ethical and legal limits, and always oriented toward a political vision of peace.” (#189)  It is no longer able to accomplish that purpose. In fact, here in the United States (again, Pope Leo is addressing the entire global arena, not naming specific nations or political actors) we have recently seen how apologists for the war we and Israel initiated with Iran have invoked the just war mantra to justify the destruction caused, including the killing of innocent civilians and children.  Is there a right to self-defense?  Yes, absolutely.  But such a thing as a “just war”?  No, not possible, at least not under the classic understanding.

Pope Leo connects his thoughts on war and military force to the reality of artificial intelligence in one other way, through the metaphor of ‘disarmament’: “Finally, I would like to employ the expression ‘to disarm,’ which is close to my heart. Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of ‘armed’ competition, which today is not limited simply to the military context, but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon. This entails a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire to secure geopolitical or commercial dominance.” (#110)  A disarmed person or group is welcoming and accessible, open to dialogue, cooperation, shared wisdom.  A disarmed A.I. is brought into service for the common good, accessible to all, with ethical guardrails and clear human supervision and human responsibility for the outcomes.  A disarmed world is a world that does not accept war as inevitable, or competes to be the last or strongest standing, but seeks peace through negotiation, dialogue and cooperation, especially on a multinational, multilateral level.  On a practical level here in the United States, it seems to me, this raising of the image of ‘disarming’ calls for two immediate focal points: a renewed effort toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, bioweapons, and other weapons of mass destruction.  Secondly, for the development of ever stronger public voices that can help shift the growing use of resources for militarization toward humanitarian needs, here in our country and abroad.  It is scandalous how we stopped relatively modest aid to humanitarian efforts abroad but have quintupled that amount, adding it to the already enormous amount of money spent on Homeland Security and the mass deportation of immigrants.  It is scandalous how poorly our health system takes care of the basic health needs of our population, compared to nearly every other developed country of the world.  Evaluated by the social doctrine of the Church, we fall horribly short in this country on the proper use of and distribution of resources for the common good.

5.  Artificial Intelligence is Not Morally Neutral

In some of the first commentaries on the encyclical I noticed the document was being criticized as either not sufficiently strong in opposition to the dangers and overreach of artificial intelligence, or too naïve in thinking the encyclical’s message would be listened to. Pope Leo recognizes how quickly artificial intelligence efforts are moving and developing, so he deliberately does not try to address specific issues or pretend to be an expert on all things A.I..  Rather, he wants to insert the Church’s moral wisdom into the public discussion at all levels of A.I. development, in order to keep front and center the foundational truth: all such efforts need to protect and enhance human dignity, not lessen or relativize such dignity.  This is a moral wisdom that is rooted in the doctrines of our Christian faith; a moral wisdom that is open to all humanity, not just people of faith, forged into certain principles of social doctrine over the last 135 years; a moral wisdom that is often not heeded by government, business, and cultural leaders but nevertheless provides for a depth of analysis and ethical reflection that is not always found in discussions on artificial intelligence.  Typically, we are presented with two options: fear of apocalyptic takeover of humanity by A.I. or embrace the panacea of utopia to be ushered in by A.I.. Pope Leo refuses to take either of these approaches. In fact, in leading up to the publication of the encyclical he listened to proponents of both those approaches. At the publication event itself a co-founder of Anthropic, one of the early A.I. platforms, was present and invited to speak some words, even though his view was much more open to the potential human-like qualities of A.I., something Pope Leo strongly challenges.  However, though the Pope points out many concerns surrounding the development of A.I., he refuses to condemn it or take a stance opposed to all efforts promoting it.

What Pope Leo does, however, is assert very strongly that the development of artificial intelligence is not “morally neutral.”  It is not simply a tool that can be used by good people for good purposes and bad people for bad purposes, as though the tool itself wasn’t already biased one way or the other.  As he states: “If a system is designed or used in a way that treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes them without the possibility of appeal, then it is not merely a tool ‘to be used well,’ since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the inalienable dignity of the human person. For this reason, 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.” (#104)  Pope Leo sees the danger of A.I., especially if we believe it to be purely objective or morally neutral, as though its results and decisions need to be accepted as the most logical or most intelligent or optimally best that we can do.  He recognizes that as currently constituted artificial intelligence too easily is manipulated toward biases that favor outcomes that the developers desire.  I cannot help but think of Elon Musk’s A.I. “Grok,” which he tweaks whenever searches produce results that are overly critical of himself or businesses and ideas he supports.  But that is an obvious bias. What about the biases built into algorithms that determine who gets what health care? Who is eligible for a green card or deportation?  Who gets financially audited?  Who gets hired and fired? And so on.

Pope Leo raises the concern of becoming “posthuman” or “transhuman” (#115), but does not address in any substantive detail the inner logic of either of these “movements”.  What the pope does do, and does masterfully, is to offer a mini-course on the Church’s development of Social Doctrine, its core principles, and how to allow those principles to query the development of A.I. at all stages, so that the central reality is always kept in full view: the safeguarding of the dignity of every human person, which means the safeguarding particularly of those who are in danger of being pushed to the margins, ignored, or even used as a means to an end by the developers of artificial intelligence.  Moreover, he makes a wonderfully strong ethical case for why humanity and the acceptance of limitations or “finitude” go hand in hand.  The dream of A.I. developers to overcome all the “weaknesses” and “limitations” of humanity misses the very dignity and beauty of what it means to be truly human: “Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis today. Everything that appears as a ‘limit’ — incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability — tends to be seen primarily as a defect to be corrected, rather than as a reality through which our humanity matures and opens itself to relationship. And yet we must remember that humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them. … While it is right to strive to alleviate the suffering that marks human life, it is also wise to acknowledge our fundamental finitude... It is precisely within our limitations that the following find a place: compassion, as well as a sincere concern for the needs of others; a generosity that can emerge even in the midst of darkness and failure; spiritual experience and the worship of God.“ (#118-119)

In short, artificial intelligence makes the category mistake of identify data-driven intelligence as the highest human achievement.  It is not.  To hope, to love, to be compassionate, to have faith—in short, to have an orientation toward community and transcendence—is what makes us most deeply human.  Intelligence is included in such an understanding, but it is not exclusive or even primary.   Artificial intelligence can only pretend to simulate that truly human openness to transcendence and depth of moral character that comes from building communities of compassion and care.  And, even then at least for now, it does not do that very well: “Thus, intelligence, when absolutized, overshadows other essential dimensions of life, such as affection, the will, commitment and relationships. Similarly, technical power, if left unbalanced, does not make us more capable; it makes us more isolated and more vulnerable to being dominated and excluded.” (#113)

6.  Two Approaches to ‘Building the Future’

Finally, I want to call attention to Pope Leo’s overarching narrative, which uses two contrasting biblical images for building a future: The one is the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). The other the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah and those returning from the Babylonian exile (Nehemiah 2-6).  The pope continually circles back to these contrasting narratives throughout the encyclical.  Pope John Paull II loved to exegete a Bible, usually Gospel, passage as an entryway into his encyclical teaching, and I was always amazed at his creative insight, thinking, “why haven’t I interpreted that passage in that way?”  Pope Francis also did this but also was brilliant at using images or turns of phrases, such as “the Church as a field hospital” or “time is greater than space,” and so on. Here, Pope Leo joins in that tradition by giving us a biblically-based, narrative way of understanding what is at stake and how to approach the future, as it pertains to this time of artificial intelligence. 

Artificial intelligence development can be likened to an ongoing building project.  We can choose—and maybe are most prone to do so—the way of the Tower of Babel.  But, as Pope Leo reminds us, the Tower of Babel “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. 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 Godʼs blessing.” (#7)  Even though it appears as collective effort to enhance humanity’s reach, it ultimately ends in further dehumanization and greater disunity.  Or, we can choose the path that Nehemiah took, where he gathers the families, each take part in the re-building, when concerns or opposition is raised, he listens and addresses the issue.  In short, “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. Thus, ancient Jerusalem rediscovers a common language — not one of uniformity, but one of communion, namely the harmony that arises when all persons assume their own role and recognize that their strength comes from the Lord.” (#8)

Pope Leo invites the world, prophetically, in the spirit of Nehemiah and the wall-builders, to just such a piece-by-piece assembling of the gift of artificial intelligence, so that relationships and communion are enhanced, not lessened or destroyed.  Which path will we choose?  What will the future narrative say about how we have safeguarded the human person in the time of artificial intelligence?  We are indeed in a momentous era.