by Elisabeth Hellenbroich
Wiesbaden, June 2th, 2026
The first encyclical written by Pope Leo XIV (Rome, 15th of May 2026) is very complex and inspiring: It invites us to reflect about the most urgent challenges which mankind is facing today. This includes at present atrocious and inhumane wars all over the globe, in particular the raging war in Ukraine and the permanent war in the Mideast. But it also includes a profound civilizational and cultural crisis that has been unleashed in the last years by the impact of Artificial Intelligence (exemplified by the AI Tech- billionaires in the US Silicon Valley that concentrate their power in private economic high- tech data companies with which they hope to transform the global economy and culture.) The pope, who is principally not against technological progress, however strongly warns about the social and economic consequences, if there is overreliance on AI, as can especially be seen in the ongoing wars and the production of advanced “autonomous weapon” systems, that are opening a dangerous path for humanity.
The Church Social Doctrine as “Corpus of truth”
According to Pope Leo XIV’ encyclical, “Human dignity”, which according to the Gospel refers to man and woman ,being created in the image of God with the task to responsibly enrich and multiply God’s creation, is the compass for humanity. He clearly rejects all contemporary dreams based on “Transhumanism” and “Posthumanism”- which suggest that man can surpass himself in a God- like way and “optimize” the human species, where only the fittest will survive. The encyclical calls instead for an anthropocentric approach which puts the respect for “human dignity as ontological dignity” at the center of a “just world order” in which a much stronger role should be given to “diplomacy” to end the wars and bring about peace on earth.
The very condensed encyclical that is based on 5 chapters, regards the Social Doctrine of the Church as a guideline, as a “corpus of truth” concerning the notion of “Human Dignity”. In his encyclical the pope offers a comprehensive analysis of the history of the Church’ Social Doctrine that starts with Pope Leo XIII’ “Rerum Novarum” (1891) which at the time reflected about the conflict between capital and labor, the question of workforce and economic and social transformation. “Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum constitutes a milestone in the development of the Church’ social teaching,” the pope states in paragraph 30. “The document places the dignity of work and of workers at the forefront of its reflection; affirms the right for a fair wage to oneself and one’s family; recognizes that persons have a fundamental value that takes precedence over capital and profit; defends private property along with its indispensable societal role; esteems workers’ associations; and proposes form of cooperation between the different components of society as an alternative to the mentality of the class struggle: (…) What remains from Leo XIII’ insight is: the primacy of human labor over any mindset focused solely on finance or productivity, with the consequent attention to the people and families most susceptible to exploitation and the inseparable link between proclaiming the Gospel and pursuing more just social order.” A new phase began with the Second Vatican Council and the writings related to Pope Saint John XXIII who placed greater emphasis on the global dimension of social issues and the language of rights.
Of immense importance is the attention which Pope Leo’s encyclical pays to Paul VI encyclical “Populorum Progressio”, in which Pope VI affirmed that “development is the new name of peace (!)” because it aims to eradicate the roots of injustice and conflict and creates opportunities for a more dignified life for all. Pope John Paul II later talked about the “structures of sin”- in reference to those economic and financial mechanisms, managed by the strongest economies, that structurally would favor their own interests.
Pope Benedict XVI in “Caritas in Veritate” sought to reassess and expand the concept of “development” presented in “Populorum progressio”, interpreting it in light of globalization. He noted that such development should translate into “real growth, of benefit to everyone and genuinely sustainable.” In addition, he observed that the new global and economic and finance system, marked by a vast mobility of capital and means of production, as Pope Leo’s encyclical notes, reduces the power of states and their ability to influence economic process. Benedict claimed that the economic activity should be ordered toward the common good. He placed “charity” at the center of his analysis and stated that this is the heart of the Church’s social doctrine.
Pope Francis’ social teaching develops along the lines of “Gaudium et spes” that merges with particular clarity in “Evangelii Gaudium” where he states that “the Christian proclamation has an intrinsic social dimension and calls for a church capable of listening to the cry of the poor, migrants and victims of new forms of slavery,” the encyclical emphasizes. In “Laudato Si” he provides the first significant systematic treatment of the environmental crisis and in “Fratelli tutti” he thought about how to revive the dream of a humanity that opts for “social friendship and universal fraternity.”
All these encyclicals, including the newest from Leo XIV entitled “Magnifica Humanitas,” saw man’s uniqueness, his “human dignity” as the central stone, on which the entire social doctrine is based. Its main principles are: the principle of the universal destination of goods, of subsidiarity, of solidarity and the principle of social justice.
Avoid “Tower of Babel” Syndrome!
“Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice,” the new encyclical states in the introduction. “Either to construct a ‘Tower of Babel’ or to build the city, in which all people participate and in which God and humanity dwell together.” Dialogue based on justice is what should lead all men and women to jointly build a future for the Common Good. 135 years after pope Leo XIII published his encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, which founded the Social Doctrine of the Church, according to Pope Leo XIV, “today the Social Doctrine of the Church is the legacy of wisdom, where we find principles for thought, criteria for discernment and judgement and concrete guidelines for action. Founded on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and in engagement with the sciences, it helps us clearly interpret the challenges of the present and identify appropriate ways for living out a clear Christian witness, with joy and in service to the world.”
The encyclical points to the ambiguities that go along with rapid technological advances. It states that technology should not be regarded as “antagonistic” to humanity and that over centuries technology has improved the living conditions of humanity. But there also has been an ambiguity of these tools that “can cause harm when n o t oriented toward the good.”
Hence the choice which mankind is confronted with, is not between “yes” or “no” to technology, but “between the power that claims to dominate the heavens (the tower of Babel) and a people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence (the destroyed walls of Jerusalem).The pope recalls two biblical metaphors: The building of the tower of Babel and the reconstruction of the ruined walls of Jerusalem according to the narrative of Nehemiah. He warns therefore that “we must avoid the ‘Babel syndrome’, namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language – even a digital one- can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, in data and performance. The risk of “dehumanization”- of building a future that excludes God and reduces the other to a means- is an ancient and ever- new temptation that today takes on a technical guise. Instead let us choose the “way of Nehemiah,” he suggests, “which highlights the importance of working together to make the ‘City of God’ a safe place for returning exiles.”
Critical examination of Artificial Intelligence
The encyclical warns about, what in Pope Francis’ words is called “technocratic paradigm” in our globalized world. This according to Leo XIV has spread rapidly in recent years, fueled in part by the “expansion of artificial intelligence, cognitive science, nanotechnology, robotics and biotechnology. In themselves the innovations can greatly serve integral human development and the care of our common home. What is required in answer to this is a new spiritual, ethical and political framework – an “anthropological vision that guides technological progress.”
The pope correctly warns that “in many cases within the digital context, control over platforms, infrastructure, data and computing power does not rest with states, but with major economic and technological actors. These entities effectively set the conditions for access, determine the rules of visibility and shape the very possibilities for participation. When such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evades public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulation and inequalities.”
The pope underlines that “it is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated, however is, that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of ‘intelligence’ to that of human beings. These systems merely imitate (!) certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligence do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature enough through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. Even when tools are described as capable of “learning”, their way of doing is so different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather it is a form f statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.” (!)
Responsibility, transparency and the governance of AI
The pope warns of harmful uses of AI, that may involve sensitive decisions concerning employment, credit, access to public services or even a person’s reputation. The risk being that they are fully delegated to automated systems that do not know “compassion, mercy, forgiveness.” It also can give “rise to new forms of exclusion.” There are clearly harmful uses, such as the manipulation of information or violations of privacy. Yet there is also a subtler danger, for when AI systems present themselves as neutral and objective, they end up reflecting and reinforcing the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers and developers.”
The pope states therefore insists that one must examine “how” that system (of AI) is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it. He calls for “disarming” the AI: “Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of ‘armed’ competition, which today is not limited simply to the military context, but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon. This entails a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire to secure geopolitical of commercial dominance. To ‘disarm’ means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion and debate, therefor making it human -friendly and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life.” This could be seen like a hint at the dangers implied in the “Silicon Valley” research of people like Alex Karp, Peter Thiel and others.
Underlying narratives: Transhumanism and posthumanism
The pope puts emphasis on the underlying narratives of AI, which is “transhumanism and posthumanism”. Both forms dream of enhancing the power of human being through technologies, such as biomedicine, body engineering and algorithms that are supposed to increase performances and capabilities of man. increasing performance and capabilities. “Posthumanism”, especially in its more radical forms, the pope states, “goes further: It challenges anthropocentrism and envisions a hybridization of human beings, machines and the environment, even anticipating the threshold where humanity surpasses itself in a new evolutionary stage.”
But the problem of these underlying paradigms is that they think that if the “human being can be treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy.(…) If there is call for sacrifices and the thinking that the species has to be optimized, then Paul VI had great foresight: ‘Indeed, scientific and technological advances, when detached from moral and social progress, end up turning against humanity.’
While disinformation did not begin with AI, yet today it finds a powerful amplifier in AI. “The ability to manipulate content, images and videos exposes people to biased or misleading perspectives. This problem has both cultural and moral dimensions, since the quality of public communication depends directly on social trust.” At the same time truthful information does not arise from centralized or automated control. “Only the shared pursuit of the veracity of facts, perceived as a common good, can provide a solid foundation for just communication.”
An educational alliance – seeking the truth
The pope demands a particular education that must be given by the family and schools to young people so as to avoid that the pervasiveness of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper-stimulation, which gives rise to fatigue, boredom and apathy concerning the effort required for seeking the truth. Hence the responsibility of schools that are not called to follow the pace of the digital world, but to “offer that which the digital sphere by itself cannot provide, namely a shared time for learning and developing trustworthy relationships.”
The pope particularly warns of a new form for “colonialism” by stating: “Even today colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data, transforming personal live into exploitable information. Entire regions, especially those marked by structural fragility and limited geopolitical relevance, are currently subjected to a new mindset of extraction: that of health data, epidemiological profiles, genetic maps and demographic information. These have become the rare earths of power: vital data which, once aggregated and analyzed, can be used to train predictive models, guide investment strategies, anticipate crises and, above all, determine who and what is deemed to matter. Those who control the health data of entire peoples – often collected under the pretext of aid, research or innovation – possess a structural leverage over the future, for they can shape the needs and markets. They can also decide, before other, to whom medicines and investments and protections will be allocated. Here lies one of the most urgent moral challenges of our times, to ensure that shared knowledge becomes a true common good rather than an instrument of dominance. “
It goes together with the spread of a “collective identity” in opposition to an enemy and the reduction of complex issues into simplistic categories in given war conflicts: “Me first”, “friend or foe”, “us or them” – facilitates decisions that are often irresponsible and undermine mutual trust among nations. The force of international law is thus replaced by the claim that “might makes right”. Consequently, “tribunals that are competent for settling disputes between states or dealing with war crimes, are often weakened or bypassed, with devastating ramifications for political culture and social cohesion.”
War is never inevitable – revive the dialogue of peace
The pope reminds how Pope Pius XII, on the eve of the Second World War, affirmed that “nothing is lost with peace, whereas with war everything can be lost. He insisted that people must return to speaking with one another, because a sincere and persevering dialogue always opens up the possibility of an honorable solution.”
He ends his encyclical by addressing “those who have the honor and responsibility of governing.” Hence he states that he “would like to repeat the words that I spoke at the start of my Pontificate. The peoples of our world desire peace, and to their leaders I appeal with all my heart: Let us meet, let us talk, let us negotiate! War is never inevitable. Weapons can and must be silenced, for they do not resolve problems but only increase them. Those who make history are the peacemakers, not those who sow seed of suffering. Our neighbors are not our first enemies, but our fellow human beings; not criminals to be hated, but other men and women with whom we can speak. Let us reject the Manichean notions so typical of that mindset of violence that divided the world into those who are good and those who are evil.”
