The fact that Pope Leo XIV has devoted his first Encyclical Letter to Artificial Intelligence is, in itself, a signal of enormous significance.
Promulgated in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on 15 May 2026, Magnifica Humanitas (MH) is structured into an Introduction, five chapters, and a Conclusion, for a total of 245 paragraphs.
The Pope’s approach is rooted in the Social Doctrine of the Church: it does not merely offer a sociological reading, but interprets the res novae of our time in the light of revealed Truth, in dialogue with the human sciences.
The Encyclical thus enters the heart of the debate on AI, reframing it around issues of responsibility, limits, and the common good. Following its narrative arc, this instalment moves through the ideological crossroads of our time, the critique of the technocratic paradigm, its impact on work and war, and finally the call to “disarm” AI in order to build a new civilisation of love.
The Ideological Crossroads: Babel or Jerusalem?
Faced with the pervasiveness of emerging technologies, the Encyclical warns that we are not called to a simplistic ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (MH, para. 9). Instead, the Pope outlines two powerful biblical images that define our era: we may either build a new Tower of Babel or rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (MH, para. 7).
The “Babel syndrome” embodies the dark side of technological power: a grand project based on the claim of a single language—the digital one—capable of translating everything, even the mystery of the person, into mere data and performance (MH, paras. 7, 10). It is the illusion of absolute efficiency that flattens differences, excludes the spiritual dimension, and sacrifices the most vulnerable and human dignity on the altar of profit and standardisation (MH, para. 10).
Conversely, the “Nehemiah path” for the reconstruction of Jerusalem offers the paradigm of shared responsibility (MH, para. 8). In this vision, renewal does not rest on top-down uniformity or blind algorithmic logic, but on collective work in which diversity becomes harmony and action is oriented toward the common good (MH, paras. 8, 10). The task today is to prevent the pluralism of the person from being reduced to lines of code, choosing instead to build a society in which technology serves humanity rather than rules it (MH, para. 10).
This alternative between absolute efficiency and equity oriented toward the common good is not confined to a symbolic or spiritual level. A meaningful parallel can already be found in the European Artificial Intelligence framework, which does not treat innovation as an unconditional value but subjects it to a graded risk assessment and, crucially, prohibits uses incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights (Reg. (EU) 2024/1689, Art. 1; Art. 5). This is a highly significant normative choice: the EU legislator recognises that technical efficiency cannot be the supreme criterion for organising social life and that certain AI applications must be excluded outright, particularly those that manipulate behaviour, exploit vulnerability, or introduce forms of undue surveillance and social classification (Reg. (EU) 2024/1689, Art. 5). Even at the secular level of law, therefore, a parallel line of reasoning emerges alongside the Encyclical’s insight: to set legal limits where technological power threatens to cross the threshold of human dignity.
This first turning point is followed by the Encyclical’s anthropological core: the critique of the technocratic paradigm and the reaffirmation of the irreducible uniqueness of the human person.
