Luiz Eugenio Scarpino Jr.
The article provides a critical analysis of Pope Leo XIV’s recent encyclical Magnifica Humanitas concerning Artificial Intelligence. It examines how the Church, drawing upon its Social Doctrine, attempts to bridge the gap between rapid technological advancement and moral human development. The piece explores the necessity of an “ecology of communication” to combat disinformation, rejects the notion of algorithmic neutrality, and advocates for a multi-stakeholder “shared responsibility” model. Ultimately, the article argues for a human-centric governance framework to ensure technology serves the common good rather than private interests.
The Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, issued by Pope Leo XIV, proposes a profound reflection on how technology must serve human dignity, warning of the risk of an imbalance between technical power and human growth. This Catholic Church document—promised since Cardinal Prevost was chosen as the successor of the Apostle Peter—seeks to stir the historical tradition of the Holy See through its Social Doctrine, which has been influencing and shaping the way governments enact their laws and how Western society organizes itself, even among non-Catholics
Much like the ‘Rerum Novarum’ of May 15, 1891, of his predecessor Pope Leo XIII, the new Encyclical of Pope Leo XIV—whose name harkens back to the former—addresses a technological revolution of AI that promises to transform humanity in the same manner as the Industrial Revolution. To this end, the Catholic Church seeks to bring ethical foundations to this social debate. At the time of Rerum Novarum, the Church’s concern was to position itself beyond the purely spiritual realm, reaching out to influence and collaborate in social justice amidst a climate of ultra-liberal logic, without encroaching upon strictly and directly political paths (MARINI, 1991).
In that era, the ‘signs of the times’ indicated that the State should take a role in the public protection of the marginalized—who, at the time, were the precarious workers. Today, new forms of servitude and servility are practiced by a minority to the detriment of society as a whole.
As the new Encyclical states, ‘technology has the power to heal, connect, educate and protect our common home; but it can also divide, exclude and generate new forms of injustice’ (9), just as occurred in 1891 during the First Industrial Revolution
Unlike other technological breakthroughs, Floridi points out that ‘AI systems are taking over tasks traditionally performed by human beings (…) and the difference from previous revolutions—whether agricultural or industrial—lies in the fact that they required millennia and centuries, respectively, to impact society. In contrast, the digital revolution, including AI, is transforming the world within the span of just one generation: ours’ (FLORIDI, 2025, p. 27)
As the Pontiff highlights: “If technological development advances without a corresponding ethical and social progress, the result may be an increase in means without a growth in humanity” (91).
This is a substantial and historic document that warrants deep study and reflection. Notably, it includes an apology for the slavery carried out by the Church itself “ It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord. For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon “ (176) even making room to cite the author of The Lord of the Rings (in paragraph 213), emphasizing that ‘we can all do our part.’
I highlight, in this brief comment, several aspects related to the fight against disinformation and the need for rigorous Artificial Intelligence ethics.
Disinformation and the Ecology of Communication
The evolution of the Catholic Church’s Magisterium regarding disinformation reflects a transition from traditional moral critiques of mass media toward a rigorous ontological and ethical analysis of emerging digital technologies. This trajectory is anchored by pivotal milestones, such as the Message for the 52nd World Communications Day (POPE FRANCIS, 2018), which conceptualized “fake news” through a “mimetic logic” designed to erode social alterity and foster polarization. More recently, the document “Towards Full Presence” (DICASTERY FOR COMMUNICATION, 2023) and the reflections on Artificial Intelligence (POPE FRANCIS, 2024) elevated the discourse to a socio-technical level, denouncing the role of algorithms in creating “cognitive bubbles” and the risks deepfakes pose to human dignity. However, it is with the recent note “Antiqua et nova” (DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH; DICASTERY FOR CULTURE AND EDUCATION, 2025) that the Church systematizes its confrontation with automated disinformation. The document warns against the “shadow of evil” inherent in algorithmic manipulation, asserting that the erosion of truth via AI-generated content threatens both the autonomy of human judgment and the foundations of democracy. Consequently, for the Church, the struggle against disinformation is intrinsically linked to the preservation of a “human ecology” and the pursuit of the “common good” within the global infosphere.
The “Magnifica Humanitas” identifies that we live in a moment where digital tools are frequently used to “construct distorted narratives and blur the boundaries between truth and falsehood, mixing facts with opinions” (132). AI acts as an amplifier of this phenomenon, as the text points out: “Disinformation did not begin with AI, yet today it finds a powerful amplifier in AI” (132).
According to De Caro and Giovanola (2025, p. 102), AI possesses extraordinary capabilities to serve the common good; however, it can equally be turned into a powerful tool for political manipulation and totalitarian suppression.
The danger of ignoring factual truth is systemic and opens the door to authoritarian control, “Indifference to the truth leads, slowly but surely, to a descent into totalitarianism,” and citing Hannah Arendt under which the ideal subject is “people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the reality of experience) no longer exist” (134). To combat this, the encyclical argues that we must “promote an ecology of communication” (137).
AI Ethics and the End of Technical Neutrality
Extensive literature supported by UNESCO (2021) highlights that technological and algorithmic neutrality does not exist within AI systems
A central point is the demystification of technological impartiality, recognizing that technical systems carry the worldviews of their creators: “we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral. In reality, every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations” (104).
Ideally, AI systems should adopt an ‘Ethics by Design’ framework (DE CARO; GIOVANOLA, 2025, p. 63), integrating ethical principles directly into the design phase. The goal is to foster AI for Good, where transparency, inclusion, accountability, impartiality, reliability, and safety are guaranteed, as outlined in the Rome Call for AI Ethics (Pontifical Academy for Life, 2020)
As highlighted by Paolo Benanti (2026, p. 7), “technocracy strips politics down to a mere technical issue, disregarding the nuances, values, and inherent conflicts of interest that reside at the very core of every society”.
The ethics of AI demands that fundamental human decisions are not automated: “it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems. No algorithm can make war morally acceptable. AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; indeed it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence, transforming defense into threat prediction and thus reducing victims to data” (198). For this, the concept of human responsibility, transparency and the governance of AI is vital: “his is where accountability becomes crucial: the possibility of identifying who must ‘account’ for decisions, justify them, monitor them, and, when necessary, challenge them and remedy any harm cause” (105). The ultimate goal must be to “disarm AI”, removing it from the logic of competition and to “it is necessary that decisions be understandable, contestable and subject to oversight, so that individuals are not reduced to mere profile” (164).
As Paolo Benanti points out (2026, p. 213), “the true greatness of our time will not be measured by the speed of our processes or the amount of data we can process, but by our ability to confront the ethical challenges that computational power imposes upon us.” He continues: “The future of our democracy and social justice depends on how we respond to these questions” .
Shared Responsibility in the Digital Age
Luciano Floridi (2025, p. 34) posits that solutions to AI-related problems will stem from a new “conceptual design,” aimed at fostering foundational solutions for a sustainable and socially preferable future. This approach is more likely to succeed through the broad engagement of stakeholders, encompassing all actors involved.
The adoption of collaborative, multi-stakeholder solutions is a cornerstone of contemporary digital governance. As established in the NETmundial Statement (2014), internet governance must be multistakeholder—a principle that UNESCO (2019) further expands by linking multi-stakeholder participation to the protection of human rights and universal access to knowledge.
The Encyclical proposes a “shared responsibility” (181), in which each social actor plays a specific role:
- States and Supranational Institutions: They are called to “ensure fair rules and effective safeguards” (72), preventing technological power from becoming “concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight” (95).
- Developers and Scientists: They bear a “particular ethical and spiritual responsibility, for every design choice reflects a vision of humanity” (111).
- Schools and Universities: They have the task of promoting digital literacy, understanding that “educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used” (140).
- Families: They act as the “first environment in which all persons develop their potential […] and learn the earliest forms of truth and goodness” (165).
- Individuals: They are called to cultivate digital moderation: “Let us disarm words and we will help to disarm the world” (214).
In short, the transition to the era of AI is an invitation for humanity to act with courage: “Let us not be afraid to get our hands dirty on the ‘construction site’ of our time” (16). The permanent challenge is to provide clear direction for “technological progress without allowing the heart to regress” (126).
Conclusions
Moving beyond pessimistic or euphoric views of AI, the Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas provides a powerful breath of life from a centuries-old institution, urging an ethical discourse grounded in human-centricity amidst the rampant development of AI.
New debates and further insights will be necessary; a major undertaking lies ahead for scholars and academics to drive discussions with civil society and policymakers. This serves as a way to provide enforcement against the few voices of big tech that, until now, have monopolized the agenda regarding the kind of society we want for the future.
References
Benanti, P. (2026). La nuova logica del dominio: Potere computazionale, democrazia e condizione umana. Editori Laterza.
De Caro, M., & Giovanola, B. (2025). Intelligenze: Etica e politica dell’IA. Mulino.
Dicastery for Communication. (2023). Towards Full Presence: A Pastoral Reflection on Engagement with Social Media. Vatican City.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith & Dicastery for Culture and Education. (2025). Antiqua et nova: Note on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence. Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Floridi, L. (2025). La differenza fondamentale. Artificial Agency: una nuova filosofia dell’intelligenza artificiale. Mondadori.
Francis. (2018). Message for the 52nd World Communications Day: “The truth will set you free” (Jn 8:32). Fake news and journalism for peace. Vatican City.
Francis. (2024). Message for the 58th World Communications Day: Artificial Intelligence and the Wisdom of the Heart: For a Fully Human Communication. Vatican City.
Leo XIV. (2026, May 15). Magnifica humanitas [Encyclical letter]. The Holy See.
Marini, F. (1991). La questione sociale a 100 anni dalla “Rerum Novarum”. Riflessioni dal sindacato. Stampa Romana.
NETmundial. (2014). NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement. São Paulo, Brazil.
Pontifical Academy for Life. (2020). Rome Call for AI Ethics. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pont-acd_life_doc_20202228_rome-call-for-ai-ethics_en.pdf
Pontifical Council for Social Communications. (2002). Ethics in Internet. Vatican City.
UNESCO. (2019). Steering AI and advanced ICTs for knowledge societies: A Rights, Openness, Access, and Multi-stakeholder perspective. UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.
