At different moments in history, the Catholic Church has published documents that sought to respond to transformations that profoundly altered the organization of society.

This was the case in 1891, when Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Rerum Novarum in the face of the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. This was also the case during debates on war, human rights, labor, and globalization throughout the 20th century.

Now, for the first time, Artificial Intelligence becomes the central theme of a papal encyclical.

Published on May 25, 2026, Magnifica Humanitas places technology at the center of a discussion that goes beyond innovation. The document addresses power concentration, automation, human dignity, algorithmic warfare, and the growing influence of private corporations over systems capable of impacting governments, economies, and entire societies.

The perspective of the Catholic Church

Over the last two centuries, the Social Doctrine of the Church has typically emerged during moments of rupture.

The very choice of date for the new encyclical carries this symbolism. The text was signed exactly 135 years after the publication of Rerum Novarum, a document considered a milestone of the Church's response to the impacts of industrialization on labor and inequality.

In the view of Leo XIV, Artificial Intelligence represents a transformation of similar magnitude.

During the official presentation of the document, the Pope stated that humanity is facing a change capable of profoundly altering human coexistence, economics, politics, and even the way wars are conducted.

The text makes it clear that technology is not incompatible with humanity. The problem arises when technological systems begin to be guided exclusively by economic interests, concentration of power, or military strategies.

The "new Tower of Babel" of algorithms

One of the most recurring images of the encyclical is that of the Tower of Babel.

For the Pope, there is a risk that society will build a new structure based on the illusion of technological self-sufficiency, where efficiency, speed, and scale take the place of fundamental human values.

The text asserts that technology is never neutral because it carries the intentions, priorities, and interests of those who develop, fund, and control it.

This point appears several times throughout the encyclical.

Instead of treating AI merely as a technical tool, Leo XIV directs the discussion toward the power structure behind the models.

Who defines the limits of algorithms?

Who controls the data?

Who establishes which values will be prioritized by systems used by billions of people?

Unlike other technological revolutions, the current infrastructure is concentrated in a relatively small number of private companies, many of them with resources comparable to those of national States.

It is at this point that the encyclical aligns with current debates on governance, regulation, and technological sovereignty.

Moral judgment remains human

Another central core of the document is the critique of the idea of delegating ethical decisions to artificial systems.

The encyclical argues that moral judgment cannot be reduced to statistical calculations or probabilistic patterns.

According to the text, AI systems can simulate empathy, produce sophisticated responses, and make complex decisions, but they remain incapable of assuming moral responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.

For this reason, the letter states that decisions related to human life cannot be transferred to machines.

This concern appears especially in areas such as healthcare, justice, public safety, and defense.

The document advocates that the chain of responsibility remain traceable and that human beings continue to answer for decisions made with the help of automated systems.

This perspective is summarized in a passage that runs through virtually the entire encyclical: "There is, therefore, an urgent need for a double commitment: on the one hand, a deepening of scientific research; on the other, an exercise of moral and spiritual discernment."

The ethical disarmament of Artificial Intelligence

Perhaps the most striking point of the letter lies in the discussion of military use.

Leo XIV dedicates a significant part of the document to concerns over autonomous weapons and systems capable of selecting or attacking targets without direct human intervention.

The Pope argues that automation tends to lower psychological and political barriers to conflict, making warfare more distant, impersonal, and operational.

According to the encyclical, no technology is capable of turning an armed conflict into something morally acceptable just because it has become more precise or efficient. 

This concern dialogues directly with discussions already occurring in international forums regarding autonomous drones, target recognition systems, and military applications of AI.

In this context, the document proposes a kind of "ethical disarmament of AI," arguing that technologies aimed at destruction and surveillance should be subjected to clear boundaries before they become irreversible. 

The presence of Anthropic

One of the points that drew the most attention during the launch of the encyclical was the participation of Anthropic.

The official event was attended by Christopher Olah, co-founder of the company and head of interpretability research at the firm. 

This rapprochement did not happen by chance.

In recent years, Anthropic has built a public image strongly associated with AI safety and governance.

The company popularized concepts such as Constitutional AI, published research on model alignment, and routinely takes a stance in debates regarding risks associated with advanced Artificial Intelligence systems.

At the same time, this rapprochement has also generated criticism.

A section of the academic and technological community began to question whether participating in institutional initiatives of this type might also serve as a reputational enhancement strategy.

The term "Vatican-washing," inspired by expressions like "greenwashing," began to appear in discussions about the relationship between AI companies and institutions of great moral influence.

The criticism stems from the perception that companies defending ethical boundaries for AI remain embedded in an intense commercial struggle for market share, users, and global influence.

Automation and the future of work

The discussion on labor occupies an important space in the encyclical. The Church has addressed the economic impacts of technology since Rerum Novarum, a document that analyzed the changes brought about by industrial machinery in the 19th century. Now, the focus is on cognitive automation.

Anthropic itself has already acknowledged that fields such as programming, technical support, and data entry are among the most exposed to the effects of automation.

In various recent interviews, Dario Amodei, CEO of the company, stated that a portion of office jobs could experience significant impacts in the coming years.

Despite this, experts continue to point out that the most likely scenario involves the transformation of roles, redistribution of tasks, and shifting skills, rather than necessarily the complete replacement of workers.

The encyclical follows a similar line. The document avoids an apocalyptic view of technology, but warns against the risk of productivity gains being concentrated among a few economic actors, while the social costs of the transition are distributed across the whole of society. 

The struggle for power

Although the document constantly speaks about algorithms, automation, and Artificial Intelligence, the central theme appears to be another: power.

Throughout its five parts, Magnifica Humanitas returns multiple times to the idea that the discussion around AI cannot be restricted to laboratories, investors, or technology companies.

The letter proposes that governments, researchers, civil society, universities, and international institutions participate in building the rules that will define the limits of the next technological phase.

This position aligns the encyclical with contemporary debates on market concentration, digital sovereignty, and global AI governance.

The publication of Magnifica Humanitas shows that the discussion on Artificial Intelligence has definitely entered spaces that traditionally shape long-term debates about society, labor, and power. As advanced models begin to influence economic, political, and military decisions, the debate ceases to be merely technological. The struggle shifts to encompass governance, accountability, and the definition of which values will guide systems that are already beginning to participate in some of the most relevant decisions of contemporary life.