Why the Vatican Invited Anthropic to the Pope’s AI Encyclical Presentation | WIREDSkip to main contentMenuSECURITYPOLITICSTHE BIG STORYBUSINESSSCIENCECULTUREREVIEWSMenuAccountAccountNewslettersSecurityPoliticsThe Big StoryBusinessScienceCultureReviewsChevronMoreExpandThe Big InterviewMagazineEventsWIRED InsiderWIRED ConsultingNewslettersPodcastsVideoLivestreamsMerchSearchSearchDaniele PolidoroBusinessMay 26, 2026 4:46 PMWhy the Vatican Invited Anthropic to the Pope’s AI Encyclical PresentationPope Leo’s first encyclical marks an unprecedented alliance between the Church and Silicon Valley.Pope Leo at the presentation of his first encyclical in the Vatican: Magnifica Humanitas.Photograph: Elisabetta Trevisan/Getty ImagesCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyWhen Pope Leo XIV presented his first encyclical on artificial intelligence at the Vatican on Monday, he invited Christopher Olah, cofounder of Anthropic, to speak. The move signaled an unprecedented alliance between the Catholic church and Silicon Valley. But to understand how this partnership came about, we need to go back to Anthropic's founding.Why Anthropic?Anthropic launched in 2021 after a group of OpenAI researchers, including Dario and Daniela Amodei, left to form a rival lab. They did so with a clear conviction: Artificial intelligence models were becoming too powerful to be developed exclusively according to the logic of competition and speed.Since then, Anthropic has built its public image around the concept of AI safety. The company aims to build not just powerful models, but ones that are controllable and guided by ethical principles. This is where the concept of Constitutional AI comes from: the idea of training systems using a kind of constitution composed of principles and rules, instead of just manually correcting the most risky and dangerous responses.Pope Leo XIV attends the presentation of his first Encyclical Letter, Magnifica Humanitas, focused on the rise of artificial intelligence, in the Vatican on May 25, 2026.Photograph: Alberto Pizzoli/Getty ImagesHow the Convergence With the Vatican BeganOlah's presence at the Vatican was obviously not accidental, nor the result of a last-minute symbolic gesture. It was the outcome of a deliberate, long-term effort in which the Vatican has progressively sought to transform itself from a moral observer of technology into a direct interlocutor with the AI industry.The first major step came in 2020 with the Rome Call for AI Ethics, an initiative promoted by the Pontifical Academy for Life together with Microsoft, IBM, and other international organizations. The goal was to establish a shared foundation of ethical principles for the development of AI, including transparency, inclusion, and accountability.At the time, the Vatican appeared to be operating primarily in the realm of bioethics and moral questions. In the years that followed, however, the context changed dramatically. The rise of ChatGPT, the struggle for technological leadership between the United States and China, and the growing power of Big Tech gradually convinced the Holy See that the issue was no longer just about tech ethics, but about the very future of humanity.In this sense, Anthropic has come to be seen by the Vatican as a particularly important interlocutor. Unlike other Silicon Valley companies that have built their reputations primarily around innovation and growth, Anthropic has made AI safety a core part of its identity.In recent years, the Vatican has followed one specific strand of the technology debate with particular attention: the alignment of AI models.Olah’s RoleThis is where Christopher Olah comes in. Unlike the Amodei siblings, who are more exposed to the media, Olah represents the more theoretical and almost philosophical side of AI research. He is one of the world's best-known researchers on the topic of model interpretability, or the effort to understand what really happens inside increasingly complex neural networks.Christopher Olah
Photograph: Alessia Giuliani/Getty ImagesOn his personal website, Christopher Olah describes himself as someone trying to “transform neural networks into algorithms understandable to human beings.” And it is difficult to imagine a figure more aligned with the core of Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical: a reflection centered on the risk of building technologies that become too powerful to be understood, controlled, or governed.According to various journalistic sources, the contacts between circles close to the Holy See and Anthropic may have intensified right during the global summits on AI safety. The Vatican saw in Anthropic a company at least willing to publicly acknowledge that the problem of artificial intelligence cannot be solved by the technology industry alone.This is a point emphasized both in the text of the encyclical and during its presentation. The document repeatedly insists on the idea that technology is not neutral, and that algorithms inevitably embody a particular worldview. Through its Constitutional AI project, Anthropic is attempting to do precisely this: explicitly introducing values, rules, and principles into the behavior of AI models.In essence, the connection between the Vatican and Anthropic lies in a shared fear: that increasingly powerful systems could end up shaped solely by the economic, geopolitical, and competitive incentives driving the global AI race.Reputation as ProductThe story also has an industrial dimension, not just a spiritual one: For Anthropic, its relationship with the Vatican inevitably carries enormous reputational value. At a moment when artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly central to debates about labor, national security, surveillance, and military power, the image of an “ethical AI company” is a significant advantage.Claude, Anthropic’s chatbot, was built precisely around the idea of trust with users. The model “responds” to an ethical constitution, the company’s public language continually revolves around responsibility and safety, and ethics itself becomes part of the product’s symbolic infrastructure.The text of Pope Leo XIV's encyclical Magnifica Humanitas.
Photograph: Alberto Pizzoli/Getty Images“Magnificent” HumanityThe very title of the encyclical revolves around a specific tension: The human being is described as “magnificent,” yet at the same time capable of creating new forms of dehumanization. Seen from this perspective, artificial intelligence is not evil in itself. It is a mirror of the people who build it.For this reason, the Vatican repeatedly warns about the risk of a new, “digital Babylon”: a society that reduces people, relationships, and even truth itself to data, performance, and efficiency.In the text, Pope Leo XIV speaks explicitly about the concentration of technological power in the hands of a small number of transnational private actors. It is a critique that echoes many contemporary debates around AI governance: Who controls the models? Who decides the criteria by which they are trained? Who owns the infrastructure of the future?During the presentation of the encyclical, Christopher Olah said something unusual for a tech executive: He openly acknowledged that even companies most attentive to ethics remain immersed in economic, geopolitical, and competitive incentives that can conflict with “doing the right thing.” In doing so, he publicly recognized that the problem of artificial intelligence cannot be left to the self-regulation of technology companies alone.The “Hiroshima of the 21st Century”In debates about AI, comparisons to the atomic bomb return again and again. The difference is that nuclear technology was controlled by states, whereas AI is being developed primarily within private companies. This is one of the central points of the encyclical: Today, “technological power takes on a new face, one that is predominantly private.”And this is where a shared fear emerges—expressed in very different language both by the Vatican and by the parts of the AI world most focused on safety: that increasingly powerful systems, like those now being developed, could end up guided by distorted human incentives.From this perspective, the “Hiroshima of the 21st century” might not be a single catastrophic event, but rather a slow process of social automation in which human beings begin delegating to machines the ways they think, choose, inform themselves, and relate to one another. In other words, the risk is that Magnifica humanitas could transform into something terribilis.CommentsBack to topTriangleYou Might Also LikeHow to find us: Add WIRED.com to your preferred sources in GoogleHow the Canvas hack threatened thousands of schoolsBig Story: I've covered robots for years—this one is eerily lifelikeOrbs, saucers, and flashes on the moon—here’s what’s in the UFO filesTake our survey: What does “home” mean to you?Daniele Polidoro writes for WIRED Italia. ... Read MoreTopicsAnthropicreligionSilicon Valleyartificial intelligencealgorithmsethicsRead MoreWhat Pope Leo XIV’s First Encyclical Says About the Power of AIIn Magnifica Humanitas, the Pope decries the concentration of technological power in a few global players.Elena BettiElon Musk Seemingly Admits xAI Has Used OpenAI’s Models to Train Its OwnWhile answering questions under oath, Musk argued it’s standard practice for AI labs to use their competitors’ models.Maxwell ZeffMira Murati Wants Her AI to ‘Keep Humans in the Loop’The Thinking Machines Lab founder and former CTO of OpenAI tells WIRED she isn’t interested in automating people out of jobs. Instead, she’s building AI that can collaborate.Will KnightUS Law Enforcement Warns of ‘Anti-Tech Extremism’ as AI Hatred GrowsAs Americans stew over the looming risk of job-stealing AI and data centers in their back yards, the feds are raising the alarm about a new category of threat, documents obtained by WIRED show.Daniel BoguslawNick Bostrom Has a Plan for Humanity’s ‘Big Retirement’The philosopher thinks humans should pursue advanced AI and the promise of a “solved world.”Steven LevyOverworked AI Agents Turn Marxist, Researchers FindIn a recent experiment, mistreated AI agents started grumbling about inequality and calling for collective bargaining rights.Will KnightThe Man Behind AlphaGo Thinks AI Is Taking the Wrong PathDavid Silver has a new billion-dollar company that aims to build AI “superlearners.”Will KnightUsing AI for Just 10 Minutes Might Make You Lazy and Dumb, Study ShowsNew research suggests that reliance on AI assistants can have a negative impact on people’s ability to think and problem solve.Will KnightGoogle DeepMind Workers Vote to Unionize Over Military AI DealsUK staff of Google’s AI research lab hope to block the use of the company’s artificial intelligence models in military settings.Joel KhaliliAnthropic Gets in Bed With SpaceX as the AI Race Turns WeirdIn an unexpected turn, the two companies signed a deal for Anthropic to use computing resources from Elon Musk’s xAI.Lauren GoodeAI Just Isn’t RightCan AI do fact-checking? A WIRED fact-checker fact-checks.Meghan HerbstWhat Microsoft Executives Really Thought About OpenAI in 2018Leaders at the tech giant were skeptical of OpenAI—but wary of pushing it into the arms of Amazon, according to evidence revealed during the Musk v. Altman trial.Maxwell ZeffWIRED is obsessed with what comes next. Through rigorous investigations and game-changing reporting, we tell stories that don’t just reflect the moment—they help create it. When you look back in 10, 20, even 50 years, WIRED will be the publication that led the story of the present, mapped the people, products, and ideas defining it, and explained how those forces forged the future. WIRED: For Future Reference.More From WIREDSubscribeNewslettersLivestreamsTravelFAQWIRED StaffWIRED EducationEditorial StandardsArchiveRSSSite MapAccessibility HelpReviews and GuidesReviewsBuying GuidesStreaming GuidesWearablesCouponsGift GuidesAdvertiseContact UsManage AccountJobsPress CenterCondé Nast StoreUser AgreementPrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy Rights© 2026 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad ChoicesSelect international siteUnited StatesLargeChevronItaliaJapónCzech Republic & SlovakiaFacebookXPinterestYouTubeInstagramTiktok

The invitation extended by the Vatican to Anthropic, the company associated with Christopher Olah, for the presentation of Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical on artificial intelligence represents a significant convergence between the Catholic Church and Silicon Valley. This alliance stems from a shared concern regarding the development and governance of powerful artificial intelligence systems. Anthropic’s foundation is rooted in a commitment to AI safety, emphasizing Constitutional AI, which involves training systems using predefined principles and rules rather than relying solely on manual error correction, reflecting a philosophical stance on controlling powerful technology.

The relationship between the Vatican and the AI industry developed through a progressive effort by the Holy See to transition from a moral observer of technology to a direct dialogue partner with the AI sector. This trajectory began with initiatives like the Rome Call for AI Ethics in 2020, promoted by the Pontifical Academy for Life alongside major international organizations, aimed at establishing shared ethical foundations for AI development, including transparency and accountability. As the context of the technology debate shifted due to the rise of technologies like ChatGPT and the geopolitical competition between nations, the Vatican recognized that the issue extended beyond mere technological ethics into the fundamental future of humanity. Anthropic became an increasingly important interlocutor because its identity is centered on AI safety, setting it apart from other technology firms focused primarily on growth and innovation.

Christopher Olah’s involvement highlights a specific alignment with the encyclical’s themes. As a researcher focusing on model interpretability, Olah embodies the philosophical contemplation inherent in the encyclical, which reflects on the risks of creating technologies that become too powerful to understand or govern. Olah publicly acknowledged that even ethically oriented companies remain subject to economic, geopolitical, and competitive incentives, underscoring the necessity of moving beyond self-regulation within the technology sector. The Vatican viewed Anthropic as a party willing to acknowledge that the problem of artificial intelligence cannot be resolved solely by industry self-regulation.

The core message of the encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, frames AI not as inherently evil, but as a mirror reflecting the builders, warning against a potential “digital Babylon” where human values are reduced to data and efficiency. The text critiques the concentration of technological power among a few transnational private actors, prompting questions about who controls the models and the criteria for their training. This perspective aligns with the broader concern, referred to as the “Hiroshima of the 21st century,” which posits that technological power is increasingly held in the private sphere rather than by states. This shared apprehension is that powerful systems, shaped by distorted human incentives in the global race for AI dominance, risk transforming the ideal of magnificent humanity into something less desirable.