I don't think a day has gone by for at least the past year that I haven't read or heard something mentioned about artificial intelligence (AI) in the media or during conversations at work. I recently attended the Epic UGM conference in Verona, Wisconsin (Epic Systems Corporation is a privately held healthcare software company and currently the largest electronic health record vendors by market share in the world), and just about every session mentioned AI. There's no question that AI is transforming the world literally in front of our eyes!
It's not often that some form of technological innovation changes society to the degree that we are experiencing with AI. There was of course the invention of the wheel, the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, the microchip, and most recently, the Internet. AI is the latest in a long line of technological innovations that have changed the world as we know it. Even if AI is not a disruptive innovation in the truest sense (and I mean, according to Clayton Christensen's definition of disruptive innovation), there's no question that AI is going to - for better or for worse - "disrupt" our lives. Scott D. Anthony, Professor of Business Administration at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of Business wrote a book last year, Epic Disruptions and listed generative AI as one of eleven major innovations that shaped our modern world (some of Anthony's innovations make sense, others, including Julia Childs' The Art of French Cooking and disposable diapers were surprising to me).
I continue to be fascinated by the back-and-forth discussion on the impact of AI on productivity and employment (see two recent posts on this topic, "Will we get replaced by AI?" and "Fewer jobs, more machines"). I am by no means an expert on this topic (not even close), but I hope to re-visit this topic in a future post soon. Today, I want to talk about Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas. The encyclical was published on May 25, 2026, and given the topic ("Safeguarding the human person in the age of artificial intelligence"), I read it shortly after its release. Notably, the date of the encyclical's publication was selected to fall on the 135th anniversary of the publication of Rerum novarum, the landmark encyclical regarding industrialization and its impact on humanity, written by Pope Leo XIII. "Rerum novarum" is Latin for "revolutionary change", so the juxtaposition of these two encyclicals is as intentional as it is appropriate.
Pope Leo XIV starts off his encyclical by stating, "Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world." He argues that society today faces a monumental choice between constructing a "new Tower of Babel" or building "the city in which God and humanity dwell together." Recall that the Tower of Babel is a biblical story in chapter 11 of the Book of Genesis, in which a united human race all speaking the same language decide to build a tower that was tall enough to reach heaven. The God of the Old Testament watches them closely and, remarking on humanity's power in unity, suddenly makes them all speak different languages so that they can no longer understand each other. He then scatters them around the world, and the tower goes unfinished. Pope Leo writes, "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 God's blessing."
Pope Leo goes on to contrast the Tower of Babel story with another story from the Old Testament - the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, which appears in the Book of Nehemiah. The walls of Jerusalem were destroyed by the Babylonians and had lay in ruins for over 150 years. The Israelites return to Jerusalem to rebuild the ancient city. They are led by the prophet Nehemiah, but Nehemiah does not lead by authority (as Pope Leo states, "He did not impose solutions from above"). Here we have yet another great example of the HRO principle of "Deference to Expertise", but I digress. Instead, he charges all the families to each work to rebuild a different section of the wall. Nehemiah coordinates their efforts, so that everyone, together, rebuilds the wall. Pope Leo writes, "The narrative shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all."
It's an apt metaphor. With AI, we have the power to collectively transform all of society. It's not a choice between "yes" and "no" to AI, but instead, whether we use AI to construct a metaphorical Babel or the metaphorical walls of Jerusalem. Pope Leo writes that the choice is one "between a power that claims to dominate the heavens" versus one in which we all work together "to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence." AI has the power to unite us or separate us. AI has the power to build or destroy. We should avoid at all costs what Pope Leo calls the "Babel syndrome", which he describes as "the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language - even a digital one - can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance."
Pope Leo has two major concerns with AI. First and foremost, he is worried about AI replacing human persons, and I don't mean from a labor standpoint. He writes, "The use of AI is never a purely technical matter: when it enters processes that affect people's lives, it touches on rights, opportunities, status and freedom. Important and sensitive decisions - concerning employment, credit, access to public services or even a person's reputation - risk being fully delegated to automated systems that do not know 'compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change,' and can therefore give rise to new forms of exclusion." He expands on this point, "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."
Pope Leo is increasingly concerned that the design (and governance) of AI is increasingly being placed in the hands of just a few. He writes, "When such power [referring here to the power to design AI, including what data and models are used in that design] is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities." Margherita Stancati and Sam Schechner from The Wall Street Journal reported that Pope Leo said, "Artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed, freed from the logic that turned it into an instrument of domination, exclusion and death...It must be at the service of all, and of the common good." His solution is to place the design and governance of AI in the hands of the public (by which he means the government). While I share his concerns, I do not believe that government-run technology is the answer.
John Thornhill from The Financial Times agrees to some extent with the Pope and writes, "AI systems may present themselves as objective but they reflect and reinforce ideological bias and power structures. Given the concentration of corporate power and the possibilities of exploiting personal data to create a new form of digital colonialism, the pope rightly fears that innovation can become an accelerator of injustice." The editorial board at The Wall Street Journal wrote a review and opinion piece entitled "Pope Leo's AI Manifesto" shortly after the encyclical became public. They emphasize that the pope's concerns are real and perhaps legitimate, but his faith in the state to regulate AI and technology is misplaced.
Pope Leo's second major concern involves what he calls the "dignity of work" - here is where he argues against AI replacing human workers. He writes, "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 fulfillment...While AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work." His concerns are legitimate, and as I have shared in previous posts, I have these same concerns. However, I do not think that the question of whether automation technology and specifically AI will result in loss of employment has been fully or adequately answered. Pope Leo further writes, "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."
I will end today's post by suggesting that Pope Leo's first encyclical makes for an interesting and compelling read. I don't think we can know for sure what lies ahead, but it is good that these concerns are voiced and further studied. We owe it to ourselves, and ultimately, to society at large, to make sure that AI is leveraged for the common good.
