I am writing these thoughts the day after the launch; rather than attempting a comprehensive survey, here I simply identify a few striking themes.
The first chapter of the letter shows the ‘dynamic character’ of social teaching: AI is not simply another theme or crisis, ‘but rather as a development that challenges the categories of Social Doctrine from within, calling for their further development in fidelity to the Gospel.’ The way we look at AI contributes to how our teaching develops and grows. We have seen this in other areas: consideration of international finance and the climate change crisis, for example, has led the Church to call more strongly as our position develops for proper international regulation.
In his letters Pope Francis used the Ignatian method to provide a scriptural basis for his reflections (e.g. the Good Samaritan parable in Fratelli Tutti). Leo’s letter is also deeply scriptural, but in a different way. He uses two contrasting Old Testament accounts: the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 and the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Nehemiah (chapters 1-2). The first is cited as an example of human pride and hubris; the second is an example of how people can co-operate properly with each other. The pope returns to both passages repeatedly in the letter.
Pope Leo has made his commitment to the synodal pathway well-known, and Leo uses the biblical account of Nehemiah rebuilding the city as a model for synodality: ‘Let us choose the “way of Nehemiah,” which highlights the importance of working together to make the City of God a safe place for returning exiles. The Church’s response to the challenges of AI has to follow a synodal methodology: dialogue, listening, avoiding harsh language are non-negotiable and have to apply worldwide. As Pope Leo wrote: ‘When it comes to decisions regarding economic flows and digital platforms, as well as the governance of data and algorithms, we cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own; instead, we must build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make them jointly responsible for the common good’.
Peace
It is becoming clearer every day that peace is a central motif of Leo’s theological vision, and this has determined his challenges to the US Administration and other governments – there is an eloquent affirmation of papal diplomacy in the letter (especially in sections 219ff).
Here he explains what ‘Disarming AI’ means:
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. To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion and debate, therefore making it human-friendly and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life. Our task today is not only ethical or technical. It is ecological in the deepest sense, for it concerns a new dimension of our common home. AI is already an environment in which we are immersed, as well as a force with which we must engage. For this reason, merely regulating it is insufficient; it must be disarmed, welcoming and accessible.
The pope’s anti-war stance, in line with his predecessors, is explored forcefully later in chapter 5. Pope Leo describes how communication networks, fragmented information environments and algorithms that reward conflict can magnify polarization and resentment and make shared discernment more difficult. We should avoid “friend-or-foe mentalities”. He expresses concern that humanity is slipping into a situation where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but is regarded as a fragile interval between conflicts.
Education
As in every other areas, ‘a measured and vigilant approach’ is needed to the application of AI in education. Pope Leo comments on the opportunities and risks of the rapid spread of AI. Regarding personal use he comments on the ease with which results can be obtained; the impression of objectivity; and the simulation of human communication. Increased speed makes life easier but might encourage excessive reliance on and search for ready-made answers. It may also be the case, the document states, that personal creativity and judgment is weakened. AI information systems may appear objective but, in fact, they can build in the biases of their creators. We must also not confuse the artificial imitation of human communication (including words of advice, empathy, friendship and even love) with a relationship with a real person.
These words illustrate challenges which many of us have met in education. Some AI tools are helpful, particularly those which assist students in writing skills (particularly those for whom English is not their first language). And yet the dangers, particularly for less academically able students, are immense. AI could help to make education increasingly shallow and ‘dumbed-down’. The pope warns:
Without careful attention, an educational system lacking in a love for truth may emerge, in which an incessant flow of information replaces the essential exercise of research, reflection and discernment. As knowledge becomes increasingly fragmented, it becomes difficult to grasp reality as a whole, to ask profound questions about meaning, or to develop authentic, critical and creative thought. Many educators already report signs of dehumanization, where people may “know many things” but struggle to find direction in their lives, partly due to an inability to connect information with deeper knowledge or maintain a sense of purpose. A genuinely healthy attitude is needed, requiring rhythms that incorporate silence, in-depth study, reading and judicious analysis, for without these elements inner freedom may be compromised.
Taking seriously the vision here should give strength and confidence to Catholic institutions – irrespective of how many Catholics there are among students or staff.
Further work needs to be done on AI, particularly in higher education. If it is the case that AI assistance in writing essays, for example, is particularly valued by less academic students, then surely teachers are failing in their responsibilities if we fail to challenge this in order to have a quiet life.
What’s not to like? What are we up against?
Pope Leo is strongly committed to fostering unity, including through the careful use of language. There are plenty of people, both inside and outside the Catholic community, who are likely to be critical of this letter. The pope’s call for accountable regulation – mirroring similar calls by Benedict and Francis – flies in the face of the Trump administration’s policies and those of their allies here. Disagreements need to be brought into the open: we do the notion of dialogue a disservice if we avoid open debate; but some will simply ignore the encyclical and hope that it is forgotten soon.
It will not be forgotten. This encyclical is not primarily about AI but, as AI becomes increasingly important, both the general messages of the encyclical and the sustained consideration and analysis of AI will resonate for decades to come.
This is an abridged version of an article that first appeared in the Pastoral Review. It is published with kind permission of the Pastoral Review.
—
