Pope Leo XIV released a sweeping 43,000-word encyclical Monday that frames artificial intelligence as a civilizational danger on par with the biblical Tower of Babel, a technology that, left unchecked, risks reducing human beings "to mere cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency."
The document, titled "Magnifica Humanitas" ("Magnificent Humanity"), is the first encyclical from the 70-year-old Chicago-born pontiff and is expected to define his papacy. It represents one of the highest forms of papal teaching, addressed to the Catholic Church's 1.4 billion members worldwide.
At its core, the 235-page booklet demands that governments impose strict ethical limits on AI, particularly its use in warfare, and warns that the technology "threatens to normalize an anti-human vision" if it remains in the hands "of a few" private actors. The encyclical puts the Vatican on a direct collision course with Silicon Valley and, as the New York Post reported, places the Holy See at further odds with the Trump administration's hands-off approach to AI regulation.
The encyclical's most striking passage compares the current AI race to the Tower of Babel, the Genesis story of a doomed attempt by people to "make a name" for themselves by building a single power structure reaching to Heaven. Pope Leo cast it as a warning against any plan that "dominates and ultimately dehumanizes."
"The primary choice is not between a 'yes' or 'no' to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem."
That line captures the pope's approach throughout the document. He does not reject technology outright. He rejects the idea that technology is morally neutral. Every AI tool, he wrote, "embodies choice and priorities through what it measures, ignores, and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations."
Pope Leo has previously pushed back on criticism from Washington, and this encyclical suggests he has no plans to soften his public positions on matters where Catholic teaching and American policy diverge.
The pope also invoked his papal namesake's legacy. As Fox News reported, Leo XIV drew a deliberate parallel to Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical "Rerum Novarum," which addressed the upheaval of the Industrial Revolution. "Today we find ourselves facing a transformation of similar magnitude, with perhaps even greater consequences," he wrote.
Among the most consequential sections of "Magnifica Humanitas" is the pope's declaration that the centuries-old "just war" theory of Christian doctrine is "now outdated." Military force, he argued, can only be used for "self-defense in the strictest sense."
That claim carries real geopolitical weight. The pope has already clashed with the Trump administration over joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. Vice President JD Vance previously called on the pope to "be careful when he talks about matters of theology" in response to those criticisms, a relationship that has oscillated between tension and diplomatic courtesy.
The encyclical's call for AI in warfare to be subject to "the most rigorous ethical restraints" is not abstract. Fox News noted the pope specifically warned about autonomous weapons systems operating beyond meaningful human control. He also flagged AI-driven bias in healthcare, employment, and security access, areas where algorithmic decisions already shape millions of lives.
Pope Leo framed the stakes in blunt moral terms: AI, like nuclear energy, "must be at the service of all and of the common good."
The encyclical's release was paired with an unusual scene at the Vatican. Chris Olah, co-founder of AI company Anthropic, appeared alongside the pope to address the audience. His remarks were strikingly candid for a tech executive.
"Every frontier AI lab, including Anthropic, operates inside a set of incentives and constraints that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing."
Olah went further, saying decisions about AI's future "should not be left to people in the industry" and instead require a collective resolution. He outlined three principles: a "duty to the global poor," "moral imagination and ambition," and the "need for discernment."
The Anthropic connection adds another layer. The company has been in a legal dispute with President Trump's administration over the use of its technology in military and defense operations. The pope's decision to feature Olah at the encyclical's unveiling was, at minimum, a pointed choice. Newsmax reported on the pope's broader call for AI developers to put humanity before profit, a message Olah's presence seemed designed to underscore.
The Vatican's willingness to engage directly with a company locked in a legal fight with the White House fits a pattern. The pope has rebuked Washington on Iran policy and then, at other moments, extended diplomatic olive branches, a rhythm that suggests calculation, not impulse.
Pope Leo did not stop at diagnosis. He laid out a framework for what he believes responsible governance of AI requires:
"What is needed is a more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating."
He called for "robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility." The encyclical also critiqued transhumanism and posthumanism, ideological movements that embrace merging humans with technology or surpassing human biology altogether.
The pope insisted that AI's development must be shaped by diverse opinions and groups, not concentrated among a handful of corporations. That message, delivered from the Vatican, landed squarely on Silicon Valley's doorstep.
Just The News reported on the encyclical's warnings about AI's power to eliminate jobs and automate warfare, concerns that cut across partisan lines but carry particular urgency as governments worldwide race to adopt the technology faster than they can regulate it.
There is much in "Magnifica Humanitas" that conservatives can take seriously, and some that deserves scrutiny.
The pope is right that AI is not morally neutral. He is right that autonomous weapons raise grave ethical questions. He is right that concentrating transformative power in the hands of a few unaccountable tech executives is a recipe for abuse. And his insistence that political leaders not "abdicate responsibility" to industry is a message both parties in Washington need to hear.
But declaring "just war" doctrine "outdated" is a theological and strategic claim that will not sit well with many faithful Catholics, or with anyone who believes that lawful self-defense sometimes requires more than the narrowest possible definition. The Church's own tradition on this point is deep, and setting it aside in a single encyclical is a bold move that invites serious debate.
The pope has previously described AI as the biggest challenge facing humanity. This encyclical makes clear he intends to lead that conversation, not from the sidelines, but from the center of it. His diplomatic outreach to Washington has been real, but so has his willingness to challenge American policy when he believes the moral stakes demand it.
Breitbart's coverage noted the encyclical's call for robust regulation, language that will make free-market conservatives uneasy, and understandably so. Government regulation of a fast-moving technology carries its own risks: stifling innovation, empowering bureaucrats who understand neither the technology nor the market, and handing competitive advantage to China and other adversaries who will not slow down because the Vatican asked them to.
The pope frames the choice as Babel or Jerusalem. Fair enough. But the harder question, the one no encyclical can answer, is who gets to decide which is which.
When the Vatican says "independent oversight," conservatives should ask: independent of whom? Oversight by whom? Accountable to whom? The instinct to protect human dignity is sound. The instinct to hand that mission to international regulatory bodies with no democratic accountability is not.
Pope Leo XIV has staked his papacy on the claim that technology without moral limits will devour the people it was supposed to serve. History suggests he is not wrong about the danger. The debate worth having is over the remedy, and whether the cure leaves citizens freer or less free than they were before.
A pope warning the world about unchecked power is nothing new. The question is whether the world's governments will use that warning as an excuse to grab more of it.
