The first encyclical of Leo XIV: centrality of the person before the challenge of AI

The Pope's warning about the "technocratic paradigm"

Therefore, Leone warns against the 'technocratic paradigm' already denounced by Francis, in which every choice is dictated exclusively by efficiency and profit parameters. On the contrary, the most powerful technology is not necessarily the best: the IA can imitate and simulate man, but lacks moral conscience, empathy, affective, relational and spiritual capacity. It is therefore necessary to approach AI in a sober and vigilant manner, maintaining clarity about the responsibilities of all its steps (accountability) and focusing on adequate policies and legal frameworks, independent supervision, and user education.

Above all, there is a need for a code of ethics subject to criteria of shared social justice, because "there is no use of a more moral IA if this morality is decided by a few". Without neglecting the environmental impact of new technologies, which require large amounts of energy and water, affecting carbon dioxide emissions and damaging Creation.

Private property is not an absolute or untouchable value

Linked to this principle is that of private property "which has its own meaning and function, but is always subordinated to the universal destination of goods. According to John Paul II, this subordination is the golden rule of social behaviour and the 'first principle of the entire ethical-social order'. But the tradition of the Church 'has never recognised the right to private property as absolute or untouchable', its social function must not be considered a mere theological opinion, but a certain doctrine of the Church.

"Today, among the goods that are universally intended for all, we must also include the new forms of property: patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructures, data. In a context in which the wealth of nations increasingly depends on knowledge and technologies, 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 and feeds the gap between the included and the excluded, between those who can participate in the digital revolution and those who remain on the margins. Moreover, care for the Common Home and responsibility towards the poor and towards future generations demand that the use of the goods of creation and the new possibilities offered by technology be regulated in such a way as to respect the environment, avoid waste and new forms of plunder".

Finance untethered from moral foundations produces abuses

Finance,' writes Leone, 'has gained increasing relevance in recent years and has also experienced strong innovation following the introduction of cryptocurrencies. The reflections of his predecessors have highlighted how the functioning of financial intermediation 'when it has been untied from adequate anthropological and moral foundations, has not only produced blatant abuses and injustices, but has also proved capable of creating systemic crises of global proportions'.

And it is equally true that capital income risks replacing labour income, which is often confined to the margins of the main interests of the economic system. Yet savings that are transformed into credit for the real economy, and thus for creating both employed and self-employed work, remain central to the development and investment that must accompany the transitions underway. The social function of credit remains irreplaceable. Finance for finance's sake is quite different from finance for development and for the creation and evolution of work.

The dignity of the person starts from an assumption: the person is created in the image and likeness of God. It is necessary to remember this," says the document, "since 'the pressure of new ideologies and certain powerful interests' can reduce the person to 'a resource to be used and exploited' or to 'what he or she makes or produces'. On the contrary, "the fundamental dignity of each person is neither acquired nor deserved, nor does it need to be demonstrated". A second foundation of the Social Doctrine is the inviolability of human rights, among which the first is that to life "from conception to its natural conclusion": in this regard, Leo XIV defines provoked abortion, the killing of innocents and euthanasia as "gravely illicit choices".

Furthermore, the recognition of the rights of minorities is reiterated, with particular attention to women: in their favour, Leone urges 'concrete choices' in laws, work, education, social and political responsibilities, so that they are truly listened to and valued. Connected to this is the principle of social justice: in the digital age, it must guarantee equal access to opportunities for all, protect the most fragile, fight hatred and disinformation, and subject the use of data and technologies to public scrutiny, "so that the criterion is not just profit, but the dignity of each person and the good of peoples".

A 'decisive test' concerns migrants, refugees, displaced persons: the way society treats them shows 'whether the idea of justice is driven by fear or fraternity'. Hence the call both to safeguard "the right to hope" of those who are forced to leave, guaranteeing them safe and legal routes, a dignified welcome and integration; and to promote "the right to remain" each in their own land in peace and security, addressing "the root causes" of migration.

Politics without vision reduced to short-term calculations

On the subject of politics, Leo writes that the state has the task of guaranteeing cohesion, unity and a just organisation of civil society, so that the common good can be truly pursued with the contribution of all. In concrete terms, this means that public power has the delicate task of 'harmonising the various interests at stake with justice', seeking a balance between particular goods and the good of the whole, without leaving the weakest behind. "When politics renounces a long-term vision and is reduced to short-term calculations or sterile polarisations, discourses on the common good lose credibility, and at the same time inequalities and social fractures grow".

And this also applies to international politics. "As the distances between peoples increase, logics of confrontation and aggression make their way, and the difficult path towards a more united and fraternal world suffers new and painful setbacks. In this context, to speak of a shared path towards a more just development for the entire human family 'sounds like a delirium'. However, we cannot lose hope. I invite everyone to think of more effective forms of cooperation and international institutions, capable of safeguarding the global common good without annulling the legitimate plurality of peoples and states. Indeed, the promotion of the common good can never be separated from respect for the right of peoples to exist, to preserve their identity and to contribute their originality to the family of nations. Any attempt or plan to eliminate or subjugate a nation is gravely immoral and therefore unacceptable'.

The concept of a "just war" has (long since) been surpassed

Leon XIV then tackles the issue of war: "The digital revolution is changing the grammar of conflicts" and without an ethical approach, decisions on people's lives and deaths will be increasingly impersonal, with recourse to force seen as an "immediate and viable option". Underlying it all is a 'culture of power' that normalises war and rehabilitates it as an 'instrument of international politics', encouraging rearmament. On public opinion, which in the past saw belligerence only as extrema ratio, today polarising media narratives also weigh heavily, as well as "a worrying loss of historical memory" that renders one deprived of a long-term vision. Consequently, peace today is no longer understood as a task to be undertaken, but as a precarious interval between conflicts. For this reason, Leo XIV reiterates that - without prejudice to the right to legitimate defence in the strictest sense - the theory of the 'just war' must be overcome, promoting instead dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness.

No algorithm makes war morally acceptable

Leone deplores the growth of the war industry, the nuclear arms race, and the emergence of new armed actors - including jihadists - who aim to perpetuate conflicts as a source of power and revenue. There is no algorithm that can make war morally acceptable', on the contrary: technology 'does not subtract conflict from its intrinsic inhumanity, it can only make it quicker and more impersonal, lowering the threshold of recourse to violence and transforming defence into operational prediction, with victims reduced to data. Thus,' he continues, 'it accustoms us to the idea that violence is inevitable and should only be optimised'.

Therefore, strict, internationally shared ethical constraints are needed, based on personal responsibility and the protection of civilians, because 'any technology that makes it easier to strike without seeing the other's face lowers the moral threshold of conflict'.

Designing person-centred systems

Then the subject of work: in the 'fourth industrial revolution' represented by the digital transition, the Pontiff emphasises the importance of protecting the dignity and value of work: 'New ways of working are not necessarily better,' he explains, since technology can de-qualify workers, relegate them to marginal functions, subject them to automated surveillance. On the contrary, it is necessary to design systems centred on the person and not only on performance, because technology can certainly relieve humans from heavy or repetitive tasks, but it must absolutely not lead to unemployment in the name of cost reduction and increased profit. In a scenario where more poverty and inequality are looming, caused by automated systems taking over from man, Prevost also calls for a renewal of trade union organisations. Moreover,' he notes, 'the digital transformation must be governed in advance through stable social criteria, accessible and continuous training for workers, and corporate responsibility. Leone also notes the need to go beyond GDP as a parameter of a country's degree of development, focusing instead on the dignity of work, shared prosperity, reduction of inequalities, and environmental protection.

Finance for finance's sake is in fact different from finance for development. And in the wake of Saint Paul VI, the interdependence between peace and development is emphasised, calling for international cooperation capable of defining common strategies "especially in favour of the most vulnerable countries and groups", because prosperity contributes to peace "only if it is widespread, inclusive and sustainable".

Tornielli: applying the principles of the Social Doctrine to our time

"In the time of artificial intelligence, with human dignity in danger of being obscured by huge concentrations of technological power beyond control, and by new forms of dehumanisation, Pope Leo calls us back to the 'urgent duty' of remaining profoundly human," writes the Holy See's editorial director, Andrea Tornielli, in a commentary. "Magnifica humanitas, the first encyclical of Leo XIV, is not first and foremost an analytical text on artificial intelligence, it does not go into the details of processes that are constantly evolving. Rather, it is a 'summa', which applies the principles of the Social Doctrine to our time, which is the time of AI, consolidating and actualising the Magisterium's pivotal points. It is a text that also puts an end to the misunderstanding of those who, trusting in the absolute freedom of markets and new technologies, tend to dismiss the papal magisterium on the call for a shared human governance of AI, on integral ecology, on economic structures that become "structures of sin", on the no to war as questionable teaching".