What Pope Leo XIV’s First Encyclical Says About the Power of AI | WIREDSkip to main contentMenuSECURITYPOLITICSTHE BIG STORYBUSINESSSCIENCECULTUREREVIEWSMenuAccountAccountNewslettersSecurityPoliticsThe Big StoryBusinessScienceCultureReviewsChevronMoreExpandThe Big InterviewMagazineEventsWIRED InsiderWIRED ConsultingNewslettersPodcastsVideoLivestreamsMerchSearchSearchElena BettiBusinessMay 26, 2026 4:17 PMWhat 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.Anthropic cofounder Chris Olah shakes hands with Pope Leo XIV ahead of the presentation of the first encyclical.Photograph: Alberto Pizzoli/Getty ImagesCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyAn algorithm decides what we see, another filters what we read, and still others enter into the processes that govern work, information, and collective choices. In the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. the first signed by Pope Leo XIV and published on May 25, artificial intelligence is not viewed as just another technology; it is part of the invisible infrastructure of our contemporary daily lives.But the text is not conceived as an exclusively technological reflection. Pope Leo XIV places the issue of AI within the tradition of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church and directly invokes—while updating it—the Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII (published on May 15, 1891) in the year of its 135th anniversary. That encyclical addressed the question of labor at the height of the industrial revolution in the late 19th century.If the “res novae” of that time were factories, labor, and industrial capitalism, today the new issues revolve around digital platforms, algorithms, data, and automation systems that are reshaping power, the economy, and social relations. For this reason, the encyclical does not present itself as a technical text about innovation, but rather as an attempt to interpret the digital transformation in light of human dignity and the common good. Technology, the Pope writes, is not evil in itself; on the contrary, it belongs to human history and creativity. But the current situation is different in both scale and depth: “Never has humanity had so much power over itself,” the text observes, describing technologies that now shape decisionmaking processes, the collective imagination, and social life in an increasingly pervasive way.It is from this point that Robert Francis Prevost chose to begin: from the growing concentration of power exercised through systems that are increasingly opaque yet increasingly decisive, and from the question that runs throughout the encyclical: What remains of human dignity, the protection of truth, work, social justice, and peace when decisions are transferred into algorithmic logic?Disarming TechnologyIn the encyclical there is an expression that becomes the key to interpreting the entire scenario: “disarming technology.” The meaning is far removed from any attempt to slow the development of artificial intelligence or to deny its potentially transformative impact for good. For Robert Francis Prevost, disarming AI means preventing it from becoming a form of power capable of dominating human existence.For Leo XIV, the point is not the technology itself, then, but its organization and application. AI, the pope writes, is part of a global race today to the “highest-performing algorithm” and the “largest data center,” where competitive advantage also becomes geopolitical. In this context, a few players concentrate digital infrastructure, data, and computing capacity, which affects information, economics, and even democracy.Disarming means breaking this equation between technical power and the right to govern. “As happens with every major technological turning point, AI tends above all to increase the power of those who already possess economic resources and access to data,” the pontiff explains.In explicit terms, the encyclical states that it is not enough merely to regulate technology: It must be taken away from monopolies, made transparent and open to challenge—that is, made “habitable” by a plurality of actors. Above all, AI must be prevented from becoming an instrument of economic, political, or military domination by a select few. This is not a moral metaphor: It is a call to prevent the logic of competition from transforming a shared infrastructure into a system of control.Truth Within the Systems That Select RealityIf technology concentrates power, one of the first concrete effects concerns the way in which collective truth is formed. The encyclical addresses the issue of disinformation, but in a decidedly deeper way because perceived reality, or rather experience, is increasingly filtered by systems that decide what to show and what to hide.It is not just about fake news or fake content in various forms. The problem is that platforms and algorithms select information based on criteria of maximizing attention and engagement. In other words, what becomes visible is not necessarily what is most true, but what works best in generating reactions. In this way, truth does not disappear, but it becomes dependent on opaque systems that influence opinions, perceptions, and collective choices without it always being clear how.This is why the encyclical insists on a very concrete cultural and educational responsibility: to train people capable of recognizing these mechanisms and not to entrust the construction of public judgment only to digital infrastructures that respond to market or power logics.Pope Leo XIV signs the Magnifica Humanitas in the Apostolic Palace on May 25, 2026, in Vatican City.
Photograph: Simone Risoluti/Getty ImagesWork as a Fault LineThe same dynamic runs through the world of work, and it is one of the most concrete points of the encyclical. Artificial intelligence is described not only as automation, but as a force that can redefine who works, how they work, and with what margins of autonomy.In the text, the Pope speaks explicitly about the risk of a “social calamity” related to technological unemployment, when innovation is driven primarily by cost-cutting and increased profits. In this scenario, many activities may be replaced or emptied of human content, with workers reduced to repetitive or rigidly controlled functions.The encyclical also goes into detail about new forms of control: automated surveillance, fragmentation of tasks, and loss of a sense of autonomy. It is not only the loss of jobs that is of concern, but the transformation of work into something less human, less creative, and therefore less free.And it is here that the connection with the social doctrine of the Church, invoked from the very beginning of the document, reemerges. Just as the Rerum Novarum sought to interpret the effects of the industrial revolution on people’s concrete lives, Magnifica Humanitas attempts to do the same with the digital revolution. In this vision, work is not merely economic production or a performance to be optimized, but a space through which the person expresses dignity, responsibility, and participation in social life.For this reason, if artificial intelligence ends up reducing the worker to a measurable, controllable, and replaceable function, the problem is not merely economic or technological; it becomes a social, political, and profoundly human issue.War as an Automated Space of ConflictThe most radical aspect of the text emerges when technology enters the dimension of conflict. Pope Leo XIV questions the entire architecture of the idea of a “just war,” which he considers increasingly inadequate to describe contemporary reality. Not because the right to self-defense is denied, but because the very nature of conflict is changing.War today is already permeated by automated systems that influence information, strategy, and the perception of the enemy. Algorithms do not fight, but they enable a new form of distance in which decisionmaking is progressively removed from the human body and from human responsibility.This is why the encyclical sets a clear limit: It is not acceptable to entrust lethal or irreversible decisions to artificial systems. Moral responsibility cannot be delegated, nor can it be dissolved in automated chains. In this passage, the concept of “disarming technology” returns and becomes a concrete principle in which the importance of taking away the ability of machines to enter into the decision about life and death is stressed.An Open Construction SiteThe final image of Magnifica Humanitas is that of a construction site. Not a closed system or an already defined model, but a process still under construction. And within this “construction site” technology, economics, information, and conflict are intertwined. Not because everything is the same, but because everything today is connected within the same digital infrastructure and power relations.Here ends the point of the encyclical: The problem is not artificial intelligence as a technical object, but the type of world it is helping to build. It is one in which the decisive question is no longer just about what the technology can do, but who controls it, with what interests, and according to what idea of human being.This story originally appeared in WIRED Italia and has been translated from Italian.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?Elena Betti is a WIRED Italia contributor. ... Read MoreTopicsartificial intelligenceEuropereligionRead MoreNick 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 KnightMira 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 KnightGen Z Is Pioneering a New Understanding of TruthThe first generation to truly grow up online, Generation Z and their cohort live in a social media ecosystem that blends facts and feelings. It’s significantly shifting how they understand what’s true.Steven RosenbaumA Kid With a Fake Mustache Tricked an Online Age-Verification ToolTo stop children from bypassing its age checks, Meta is revamping its age-verification tools with an AI system that analyzes images and videos for “visual cues,” such as height and bone structure.Fernanda GonzálezUS 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 BoguslawSubmit Your Questions: AI Is Changing Your Job—Now What?Pose your questions ahead of our May 27 livestream AMA, where a panel of WIRED experts will discuss how AI is transforming work.Reece RogersMeet Rassvet, Russia’s Answer to StarlinkWith the launch of the first 16 satellites, Russia begins construction of a network for satellite internet that aims to cover the entire country by 2030. But getting there won’t be easy.Lucia BellinelloI Am Begging AI Companies to Stop Naming Features After Human ProcessesAnthropic announced “dreaming” for AI agents to sort through “memories” at its developer conference. Can we not?Reece RogersElon 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 ZeffUsing 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 KnightAI Just Isn’t RightCan AI do fact-checking? A WIRED fact-checker fact-checks.Meghan HerbstWIRED 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

Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, addresses artificial intelligence not merely as a technological development but as an integral part of the invisible infrastructure of contemporary life. The document positions the discussion within the tradition of the Catholic Church’s social doctrine, updating the principles of Rerum Novarum from Pope Leo XIII to consider the digital revolution. This contextualization stems from the recognition that while previous societal transformations centered on the industrial revolution, the current era is defined by digital platforms, opaque algorithms, data management, and automation systems that fundamentally reshape power structures, economies, and social relations.

The encyclical moves beyond a purely technical reflection, instead focusing on interpreting this digital transformation through the lens of human dignity and the common good. The foundational concern, as articulated by Robert Francis Prevost, is the growing concentration of power exercised through systems that are increasingly decisive yet opaque. This leads the encyclical to pose critical questions about the remaining elements of human dignity, the protection of truth, social justice, and peace when critical decisions are delegated to algorithmic logic.

A central imperative presented in the text is the call to disarm technology. This concept is not an advocacy for slowing down AI development but rather a demand to prevent it from becoming a mechanism capable of dominating human existence. The Pope emphasizes that the issue is less about the technology itself and more about its organization and application. AI’s current trajectory involves a global race for the "highest-performing algorithm" and the largest data centers, which intertwines technological power with geopolitical competition. Therefore, disarming technology requires breaking the equation between technical power and the right to govern, demanding that these systems be liberated from monopolies, made transparent, and opened to challenge by a plurality of actors. The goal is to prevent the logic of competition from creating a system of control over shared infrastructure.

The encyclical further examines the effect of concentrated power on collective truth, noting that perceived reality is increasingly filtered by systems that select information based on maximizing attention and engagement. This dynamic raises concerns regarding disinformation, as algorithms determine what is visible and what is hidden, meaning that truth becomes dependent on these opaque systems that influence collective opinions and choices without clear oversight. Consequently, the document calls for a concrete cultural and educational responsibility: training individuals to recognize these mechanisms rather than entrusting the construction of public judgment solely to digital infrastructures operating under market or power logics.

In the realm of labor, the encyclical analyzes the profound implications of artificial intelligence on work, describing it not just as automation but as a force reshaping who works, how they work, and their autonomy. The text articulates the risk of a "social calamity" stemming from technological unemployment driven by profit maximization. This scenario involves the potential replacement of human content with automated functions, reducing human roles to repetitive or rigidly controlled tasks, leading to a transformation of work into something less human and less free. This addresses the connection with the social doctrine of the Church, positing that work should be understood as a space for expressing dignity and social participation, rather than merely an economic performance or optimization.

The implications extend to conflict, as the encyclical questions the architecture of the concept of a "just war" in the context of automated conflict. Modern warfare is increasingly mediated by automated systems that remove decision-making from human responsibility. The text firmly asserts that lethal or irreversible decisions must not be entrusted to artificial systems, emphasizing that moral responsibility cannot be delegated or dissolved within automated chains. The principle of disarming technology is thus reiterated as a concrete limit against machine intervention in life and death decisions.

Ultimately, the encyclical frames the current situation as a construction site where technology, economics, information, and conflict are deeply intertwined within a single digital infrastructure. The ultimate point is not a critique of artificial intelligence as a technical object, but an examination of the type of world it is helping to build. The core challenge is determining who controls this infrastructure, with what interests, and according to what conception of the human being.