MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS:  THE CALL TO ARMS

1 June 2026 by Andrew Dolan

MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS:  THE CALL TO ARMS

Undoubtedly, the first encyclical from Pope Leo XIV, entitled ‘Magnifica Humanitas’, will stimulate a whole new level of debate about Artificial Intelligence and the future of humanity.  The document was concerning and insightful in equal measure, and it was interesting that he raised at the outset, a question on many people’s lips – what are we building?

There appeared to be something for everyone within its covers; the importance of Catholic Social Teaching and the doctrinal fundamentals, which underpin it, featured prominently.  So too did the theological and philosophical context of what it means to be human in the age of machine intelligence.  A range of potential risks, including future conflict and dominance also featured large.

However, arguably it was the potential risk associated with AI technology which caught the eye.  Much of this had been in the public space for some time now but it was nevertheless quite sobering to have it laid out, not in an overly alarmist fashion but rather in a measured and almost pragmatic approach, noting that the range of risks and challenges were real, possibly quantifiable but none of them likely to improve the lot of man – unless of course the man in question was a tech company director or investor.

For those who study AI risk, I guess that there would have been a recognition that the encyclical ‘nailed’ the most relevant amongst them, whether it was the fear of a concentration of power in a small number of unelected entrepreneurs, to states involved in AI Arms Races or simply a seeming inability to distinguish truth from fake news and disinformation.  These and many more like them were addressed systematically in the document but absent emotion.

For me, however, two critical points jumped off the pages.  The first was the Pope’s call for continued scientific and technical research.  It was no accident that he addressed the issue of machine intelligence designers not fully understanding what processes had taken place when AI teaches itself.  If I read the encyclical correctly, such reinforced research is fundamental to not only understanding and appreciating the nature of the risk but to be able to prioritise one risk over another.  Pope Leo’s call for understanding and discerning the risk should be taken to mean we are only at the beginning of the process of appreciating what responses are necessary to manage AI, whether this be regulation, new guardrails or in some cases, international treaty.

The second notable issue that caught my attention is less straightforward and possibly more philosophical in nature, namely is humanity already hurtling towards an eventual transhumanist or post humanist future.

It is difficult enough to engage in what might be considered a herculean task – namely the management and resolution of AI risk – but in a fractured and at times bellicose world, how can we find any semblance of stability in which to consider humanity’s future?

The speed of transformation caused by AI does not allow for a measured and well thought out approach to the change being initiated by a raft of AI-enabled emerging technologies and their ubiquitous platforms.  Equally, it doesn’t help that global military conflicts are like magnets for AI-enabled Arms Races, which in turn impacts on the commercial fortunes of Big Tech and their associates in the rare earth and chip manufacturing world. 

It was no surprise, therefore, that the encyclical, in citing emerging technological risks such as biotechnology, nanotechnology or quantum computing, seems to be suggesting that beyond forms of AI, other challenges are forming up.

Magnifica Humanitas is the start of a journey.  The AI risk terrain must be adequately mapped, although it seems to me that the encyclical is alerting us to the necessity of navigating using not one map but many and occasionally spread out on top of one another.  

It was the great American statesman and academic, Henry Kissinger, who, in an early foray into AI affairs, speculated that perhaps we will need to look to theologians and philosophers for the answers to AI.  I would hazard a guess and say that Pope Leo probably shares this view.  One thing is certain, however, that those who pay lip service to risk in their drive to create a machine intelligence future will not be paying attention to philosophers and theologians anytime soon.  Perhaps Pope Leo’s first problem is to find out who is listening?