Introduction
On 25 May 2026, Pope Leo XIV presented his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas [Magnificent Humanity] at the Vatican. During the presentation, a sentence he said captured the document’s most urgent demand: “The artificial intelligence should be disarmed.” The pope admitted that he was aware that the word was too strong, yet he was using it consciously, by choice, to emphasise the urgency of the matter. It was a direct call to strip AI of its capacity to dominate, exploit, and kill.
Equally striking was the presence on the dais of Christopher Olah, cofounder of Anthropic, the AI company that famously refused to license its models to the Pentagon for autonomous weapons development. He made a quiet but remarkable admission: developers themselves are not fully aware of what takes place inside an AI machine. They do not have full control.
Pope Leo reveals his mind that technology, in itself, is neither destructive nor redemptive [MH, 4, MH, 9]. It is a profoundly human reality that can heal or harm depending on the vision that guides it. The danger is not the machine but the mentality—the technocratic paradigm that makes efficiency the sole measure of worth and reduces persons to data.
He frames the current human predicament with two biblical images: the Tower of Babel and Nehemiah rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem [MH7, 10]. Babel represents the idolatry of power—a single language, a single technology, a single direction, built without God and ending in confusion. Nehemiah represents the patient, shared work of reconstruction, where each family rebuilds its own section of the wall, listening, praying, and taking responsibility.
The encyclical calls these our “construction sites” [MH, 90]. Every AI project, every data centre, every line of code is either a brick in Babel or a stone in Jerusalem. There is no third option.
Pope Leo reveals his mind that technology, in itself, is neither destructive nor redemptive [MH, 4, MH, 9]. It is a profoundly human reality that can heal or harm depending on the vision that guides it. The danger is not the machine but the mentality
What it means to “disarm” artificial intelligence
The pope’s call to disarm AI [MH, 110] has an urgency to it. The encyclical unequivocally states that “it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems” [MH, 198]. Autonomous weapons that select and engage targets without realtime, meaningful human control are morally unacceptable.
AI that lowers the threshold for war [MH197]—making conflict faster, cheaper, and less psychologically costly for the attacker—must be prohibited. The pope warns that when killing becomes a calculation performed by a machine, the intrinsic inhumanity of war is not removed but hidden.
The encyclical insists that truth cannot be sacrificed to speed or efficiency. Every AI system—especially those involved in communication, journalism, education, or public debate—must be designed with transparency and verifiability as nonnegotiable principles.
The danger of unaccountable private power
Pope Leo evaluates that AI is not primarily in the hands of governments. Rather, “the main drivers of development are private, often transnational, parties that are endowed with resources and the capacity to intervene that surpass those of many governments” [MH, 5]. Technological power has taken on an unprecedented, predominantly “private” aspect.
The encyclical insists that truth cannot be sacrificed to speed or efficiency. Every AI system—especially those involved in communication, journalism, education, or public debate—must be designed with transparency and verifiability as nonnegotiable principles
This is a grave danger. Private companies are not elected. They are not subject to public oversight in the same way as democratic institutions. When such entities control the infrastructure of AI—the data, the algorithms, the computing power—they can shape information, influence elections, manipulate consumer behaviour, and even determine who gets access to credit, housing, or medical care, all without democratic accountability. He calls for robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, and the treatment of data as a common good [MH, 108–109].
Humanity’s expiry date: nuclear, ecological, and evolutionary
The pope describes transhumanist and posthumanist ideologies that treat Homo sapiens as a transitional stage—a prototype to be surpassed through genetic engineering, brain-computer interfaces, or AI integration [MH116]. In this view, current humanity has an expiry date: the day when “enhanced” posthumans render unenhanced humans obsolete.
The encyclical rejects this narrative with theological precision. Human nature is not a rung on a ladder; it is a gift. “If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy” [MH, 117].
The weak, the disabled, the elderly—those who cannot afford “upgrades”—become expendable. That is not progress. It is eugenics renewed.
The pope does not reject technology. He rejects the idolatry that mistakes technical power for salvation. AI can be a tool for healing, education, and justice, but only if it remains subordinate to the irreducible worth of every human person, especially the weakes
Transhumanism promises a “more than human” future through technology. The encyclical agrees that humanity is called to surpass itself—but not through engineering. The authentic “more than human” is grace [MH, 127–128]. “We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves” [MH, 128].
The pope does not reject technology. He rejects the idolatry that mistakes technical power for salvation. AI can be a tool for healing, education, and justice, but only if it remains subordinate to the irreducible worth of every human person, especially the weakest.
The invisible workforce and digital colonialism
Pope Leo warns of a new colonialism. “Even today, colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data, transforming personal lives into exploitable information. … Health data, epidemiological profiles, genetic maps … have become the new ‘rare earths’ of power” [MH, 178].
And here the private, unaccountable nature of AI power is most visible. The same companies that refuse to disclose their algorithms also refuse to disclose their supply chains. The same corporations that lobby against regulation also subcontract their labour to the most vulnerable populations on earth. The encyclical names this as a sin—a structural sin—and calls for conversion.
The civilisation of love as a concrete alternative
The encyclical is not merely a warning; it is a blueprint. The positive vision is the “civilisation of love” [MH, 186]— a phrase borrowed from Pope St. Paul VI but given new urgency in the digital age. Most fundamentally, the civilisation of love demands a commitment to truth—not as a slogan, but as an operational principle.
The pope warns that “those who command powerful technological and economic resources … can influence a significant number of people concerning the truth about humanity, the world, the meaning of existence, the family and even God. This is pure power detached from truth” [MH,133].
Even today, colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data, transforming personal lives into exploitable information. … Health data, epidemiological profiles, genetic maps … have become the new ‘rare earths’ of power
Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas [178]
When AI systems are designed to maximise engagement, they inevitably amplify partial truths, sponsored lies, and outrage—because those generate more clicks. The encyclical calls this a sickness of the soul and a mortal danger to democracy.
For engineers and policymakers, this translates into concrete practices: participatory design, algorithmic impact assessments, meaningful recourse for those harmed by automated decisions, public oversight of systems that affect fundamental rights, and a binding ethical requirement that no AI system may deliberately or negligently distort the truth.
Conclusion
Magnifica Humanitas is not a document for passive admiration. It is a call to action. The pope’s emphatic sentence— “The artificial intelligence should be disarmed”—is not a slogan. It is a programme. The answer will determine whether the t21stwentyfirst century is remembered as humanity’s finest hour or its final mistake.
Father Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries
