On May 15, Pope Leo XIV released his inaugural encyclical, Magnifica humanitas, a Latin phrase meaning ‘magnificent humanity.’ Unlike traditional church documents aimed solely at clergy, this letter was crafted as a moral compass for the entire global community, addressing one of the most transformative forces of our age: artificial intelligence.
Paolo Benanti, a professor of ethics of technology and moral philosophy at LUISS Guido Carli University in Rome, serves as a key advisor to both the Vatican and the United Nations on questions of artificial intelligence. His dual expertise in theological reasoning and technological analysis equips him to translate complex ethical concepts into actionable policy insights.
The encyclical format itself carries historical weight. Originally used by the Pope to communicate doctrine to bishops across the Catholic world, the encyclical has evolved into a vehicle for addressing universal moral concerns that transcend denominational boundaries. In recent decades, popes have employed this format to speak on issues such as climate change, migration, and economic inequality, framing them as challenges that require collective ethical responses.
At the heart of Magnifica humanitas lies a diagnosis of power concentration in the AI ecosystem. The Pope observes that a limited number of private corporations—often headquartered in a handful of wealthy nations—control the majority of cutting‑edge AI research, data infrastructure, and deployment platforms. This concentration means that decisions about what data is collected, how models are trained, and which objectives are prioritized are made by a relatively homogenous group of actors whose incentives may not align with broader societal welfare.
The encyclical’s critique extends to the democratic deficit inherent in current AI governance models. Pope Leo XIV points out that many consequential decisions about AI are made within corporate boardrooms or private research labs, far removed from public scrutiny, legislative debate, or international treaty processes. Unlike traditional industries that are subject to licensing requirements, safety standards, or consumer protection laws, AI systems often operate in regulatory gray areas where existing laws struggle to keep pace with rapid innovation.
A recurring theme in the encyclical is the so‑called ‘intelligence illusion’—the tendency to overestimate the cognitive capabilities of current AI systems. Pope Leo XIV cautions against conflating sophisticated pattern recognition with genuine understanding, reasoning, or moral judgment. While modern models can generate human‑like text, diagnose medical images, or optimize logistics networks, they do so without consciousness, intentionality, or an intrinsic sense of responsibility.
From a market perspective, the Pope’s warnings resonate with ongoing debates about AI concentration, regulatory fragmentation, and the societal returns on AI investment. Global private funding for AI startups surpassed $150 billion in 2024, with a significant share flowing to a handful of mega‑rounds backed by sovereign wealth funds, large tech incumbents, and venture capital firms concentrated in the United States and China.
For business leaders, the encyclical offers both a cautionary tale and a strategic opportunity. Companies that treat AI ethics as a peripheral compliance checkbox risk facing backlash when their systems produce discriminatory outcomes, violate privacy expectations, or contribute to social unrest. Conversely, firms that proactively embed ethical reflection into their AI lifecycle can differentiate themselves in markets where customers, employees, and regulators increasingly demand responsible innovation.
Addressing the challenges raised in Magnifica humanitas requires a collaborative governance model that brings together diverse stakeholders. No single entity—whether a government, corporation, or religious institution—possesses all the expertise needed to navigate the multifaceted implications of AI. Effective frameworks therefore combine regulatory safeguards, industry best practices, academic research, and civil society advocacy.
Translating ethical aspirations into concrete actions demands a shift from abstract principles to operational practices within organizations. Leaders can begin by conducting a thorough AI inventory: cataloguing all machine learning models, data pipelines, and automated decision‑making systems currently in use, along with their intended purposes and potential risks.
Individuals also play a crucial role in shaping the trajectory of AI development. As consumers, citizens, and digital natives, people can exercise influence through informed choices, advocacy, and participation in public discourse. One practical step is to cultivate a critical literacy regarding AI claims: questioning when a system purports to ‘understand’ emotions, asking for evidence of bias testing, and scrutinizing the transparency of automated decisions that affect access to loans, jobs, or services.
To conclude, the Pope’s encyclical Magnifica humanitas offers a timely reminder that the governance of artificial intelligence is ultimately a moral undertaking, not merely a technical challenge. For policymakers, the advice is clear: enact legislation that requires risk‑based assessments, mandatory audits for high‑risk AI, and meaningful public consultation before deployment; consider creating AI oversight agencies equipped with technical expertise and enforcement authority.