Reflections on the Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this open conversation, which is intended as an invitation to explore Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, on the protection of the human person in the age of artificial intelligence (AI), as a letter addressed to all of us.

It is a letter to the entire People of God and to all people of good will—a letter that deserves to be read and reflected upon, and to which we must encourage one another to respond from within our own respective realities.

Less than a month after its publication and trusting that we will learn from one another as we share this panel, I propose six general considerations as contributions and points for reflection.

1. The Foundation of Human Dignity

As we have all observed, the central theme of the encyclical is not AI, but rather the foundation of human greatness and “magnificent humanity”—the intrinsic dignity of the human person as the guiding principle for technological progress.

We are unique and irreplaceable, singular, and exclusive—created by God in his image and likeness—and we all deserve respect for our dignity.

“The dignity of each person does not depend on the abilities they possess, their wealth, or the role they play, nor on the right or wrong decisions they make; rather, it is a gift that precedes and transcends them.” MH 50

Etymologically, the word “dignity” means “value.” Although circumstances are often undignified due to violence, slavery, manipulation, poverty, marginalization, discrimination, no person loses their value or dignity.

Without this reference point, progress runs the risk of reducing the person to a mere function, a statistic, or a performance metric. Technology is called to serve, not to replace, the person.

2. The Civilizing Choice

From the outset, Pope Leo XIV proposes a “civilizing” option, which he reiterates throughout the document, using the biblical images of the Tower of Babel, where everyone “looks out for themselves,” driven by power and pride, and “every man for himself”; and the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the Holy City, where everyone is needed, where everyone counts, is cared for, and the city is built piece by piece, with patience.

He thus offers the key to discerning the entire document: the choice is not between accepting or rejecting technology, nor is it between technological fascination, which is often the enemy of reflection, and technophobia, but rather between a use of technology that disintegrates and one that safeguards what is human.

And so he asks: where are we headed? Which direction should we choose as a human community, as a people?

“In this sense, the real choice is not between enthusiasm and fear, but between two ways of building: progress that serves the person and peoples, or progress that subjugates them to the logic of power.” MH 129

“Progress is measured by respect for the dignity of each person and by the good of peoples.” MH 12

Thus, the concrete invitation is to “build the good.” MH 14

3. The Signs of the Times

The encyclical is a concrete response to the signs of the times, giving real primacy to reality as it is, recognizing a profound “change of era,” marked by the emergence of artificial intelligence and the technocratic paradigm, in line with what Pope Francis has expressed in Evangelii Gaudium, Laudato Si’, and Fratelli Tutti.

It offers everyone a means of discernment based on the Church’s magisterium as a systemic, spiritual, and pastoral perspective. It invites us to listen, engage in dialogue, discern, and interpret our times in the light of the Gospel, so that we may offer and bear witness to revealed truth in contemporary language.

4. Integral Human Development

It proposes five principles of the Church’s Social Doctrine, presenting them not as static, monolithic teachings but as “living wisdom,” a “living body of truths” MH 3, essential for guiding humanity in the age of artificial intelligence and major technological transformations.

Common Good

This is a non-negotiable value; it is the set of conditions that enable each person to attain their own perfection. In the digital age, this includes the right of access to technologies and the protection of personal data.

“To speak of the common good means to unmask this new epistemic, economic, and political asymmetry by naming the new monopolies of AI.” MH 109

Universal Destination of Goods

The Earth’s goods, including digital assets and innovation, belong to everyone. Economic profit cannot be the sole criterion; innovation must reduce inequalities, not increase them.

“Speaking of the universal destination of goods means finding ways to ensure universal access to technologies and education.” MH 109

Subsidiarity

Subsidiarity safeguards the freedom of individuals and intermediate groups against interference by powerful entities, whether state or private.

“Speaking of subsidiarity requires protecting communities’ ability to decide and make corrections, without relegating their role to mere oversight after the fact, once standards have been established elsewhere.” MH 109

Solidarity

Each person’s destiny is linked to the destiny of all: no one is saved alone.

“Solidarity requires that decisions regarding data, algorithms, platforms, and AI consider not only the immediate benefit to some, but also the impact on all people and on future generations.” MH 76

“Speaking of solidarity compels us to recognize the invisible, often exploited labor that fuels algorithmic models.” MH 109

Social Justice

Social justice refers not only to a more equitable distribution of goods, but also to active participation and transparency in decision-making processes, including those guided by algorithms.

Social justice is thus recognized by the capacity of a social, economic, and political order to enable everyone—and in particular the most vulnerable—to live in a truly humane way, without anyone being left behind.

“Speaking of justice requires questioning the geographies of power that define who can program the models and who is merely the object of that programming, and recognizing that social justice is not merely a goal to be safeguarded after technologies are adopted, but a condition that must be put into practice from the very outset of their design.” MH 109

Taken together, these principles form a social ethic capable of humanizing modernity and promoting the integral human development of every person, without excluding anyone, and of communities.

“Development, for both individuals and nations, is both a task and a right; it requires minimum conditions that enable every person and every people to flourish in accordance with their inherent dignity, without being kept in a state of dependence or excluded from access to necessary goods. Development is truly human when it places people at the center rather than the accumulation of goods, and when it also concerns people, not just individuals. Justice demands the recognition of social rights and the rights of people and includes responsibility toward those who will come after us. For this reason, development is not human if it increases the consumption of some at the expense of costs and harm to others, or if it relegates entire regions to subordinate roles, preventing them from expressing their own potential. Development is integral when it is not reduced to the economic sphere, but rather promotes quality of life in its spiritual, cultural, moral, and relational dimensions, with respect for our Common Home, the diversity of people, and their ways of life.” MH 83

5. Priority Areas

A key aspect of Magnifica Humanitas is its exploration of the relationship between technology, power, and the human person. Although Pope Leo acknowledges the value of technological development as a manifestation of human creativity and all its benefits in various fields, he warns against the risk of it becoming an absolute criterion of judgment.

Artificial intelligence, lacking experience, values, and feelings, cannot and must never assume a role of responsibility and supremacy over human intelligence.

The document focuses on three areas:

• Truth: in an era in which everything is susceptible to manipulation, we must safeguard a critical education that allows us to distinguish the true from the false.
• Work: when efficiency becomes the dominant criterion, work runs the risk of losing its human and relational value.
• Freedom: threatened by digital addictions and mass data collection; its defense requires fair regulation, shared responsibility, and education.

“Work is not a mere instrument, but rather expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a need inherent to the human condition, a natural path toward maturity, development, and personal fulfillment.” MH 149

6. Embrace Complexity

Far from self-referentiality and ideology, the Pope critically analyzes reality by presenting a concrete alternative to the culture of power as domination and war: the civilization of love founded on justice, dialogue, shared responsibility, and peace.

He also denounces the fact that “in the name of progress, one might come to think of necessary sacrifices” and make the most vulnerable pay the price for a supposed optimization of the species. MH 117

Citing transhumanism and posthumanism, he warns against currents that presuppose “the centrality of technology and the dream of overcoming the limits of the human condition.” MH 116

As a good leader, he embraces complexity without fear of uncertainty; alongside clear definitions, he asks questions and invites us to work together—and to do so immediately.

“I think the encyclical is very courageous—very courageous indeed. It starts from the premise that artificial intelligence is not merely a technology, but an infrastructure of power. It does not shy away from addressing any of the fundamental issues: the impact on the economic model, the means of work, the relationship between humans and machines, human dignity, the impact on truth, and, consequently, on the media and freedom.” Carme Artigas

On Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence is considered the leading emerging technology experiencing exponential growth, with a profound impact on organizations and on society’s daily work.

Far from being an abstract concept, AI is already a reality; every day it seems as though we are at a new starting point. It is a creation of human talent, not a magical phenomenon or an inevitability of fate.

“Technology can heal, connect, educate, and care for our Common Home; but it can also divide, discard, and generate new injustices. In the abstract, technology, in and of itself, is not a solution to humanity’s problems, nor is it an evil in itself; but, in concrete terms, it is not neutral, because it takes on the face of those who conceive it, finance it, regulate it, and use it.” MH 9

The key lies with us: in the human heart, in the decisions of leaders, in the actions of organizations, companies, and governments, and in working to ensure that development is truly human and integral.

It lies in how we reclaim our capacity for critical thinking and relative autonomy over AI systems, giving meaning to technology through responsible and restrained use while simultaneously enhancing our human intelligence in all its facets: multifaceted, collective, emotional, and spiritual.

This tool can be wonderful if we integrate it intelligently and responsibly.

“Artificial intelligences do not experience life, do not possess a body, do not experience joy or pain, do not mature through relationships, nor do they know from within what love, work, friendship, and responsibility mean.” MH 99

This impacts our efforts to accept reality as it is, with its possibilities and limitations, and to provide a clear response as leaders, one oriented toward integral development and the common good.

Technology advances very rapidly, exponentially, while governments tend to move more slowly, linearly, as does society, as if we were “trailing behind” technology.

We must establish ethical awareness and appropriate regulation before it is too late at every stage of the AI models’ life cycle, from design to maintenance.

“It is essential that responsibilities be clear at every stage: from those who design and program the systems to those who use them and those who decide to entrust specific decisions to them.” MH 105

We tend to believe that “any increase in power constitutes, without further ado, progress—an increase in security, utility, well-being, vital energy, and the fullness of values,” as Romano Guardini puts it, but “more powerful does not necessarily mean better.” MH 93

Disarming Artificial Intelligence

I conclude with the Holy Father’s call, which from the beginning of his pontificate has challenged us to seek a peace that is both unarmed and disarming:

“Finally, I would like to use a word that is very important to me: ‘disarm.’ Disarming AI means removing it from the logic of the arms race, which today is no longer merely military but also economic and cognitive. It is the race for the most effective algorithm and the most extensive database, to consolidate a geopolitical or commercial advantage over everyone else.

Disarming means breaking this equivalence between technological power and the right to govern. Disarming does not mean renouncing technology, but rather preventing it from dominating humanity. It means removing it from the grasp of monopolies, making it open to debate, refutable, and therefore livable, thereby restoring within it the plurality of human cultures and ways of life.

The task today is not merely ethical or technical; it is ecological in the most radical sense, because it challenges a new dimension of our Common Home. AI is already an environment in which we are immersed and a power we must confront. That is why it is not enough to regulate it; we must disarm it and make it welcoming.” MH 110