In May 1891, Pope Leo XIII published Rerum Novarum, the landmark encyclical that established the foundations of modern Catholic social teaching. Written during the upheavals of industrial capitalism, the document addressed a broad range of economic, social and political consequences of mechanization. More than a century later, in May 2026, Pope Leo XIV published his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas. This encyclical revisits the impacts of technology on society under profoundly different historical conditions. The digital revolution, artificial intelligence, algorithmic governance, automation, hybrid wars and the concentration of technological power have become “the new things” of the 21st century. 

However, Magnifica Humanitas is not merely a religious reflection on artificial intelligence. Nor is it a simplistic rejection of technological progress. At its core, the encyclical is a warning against technological determinism: the belief that technology drives every aspect of society, and therefore society must inevitably accept technological systems as they are. The document argues instead that technological progress must always be guided by human dignity, moral responsibility and the common good.

Technological progress produces two paths

The opening pages of the encyclical introduce a powerful metaphor that structures the entire document. Today, humanity must make a choice between either rebuilding the Tower of Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem. The reference is not accidental. The story of the Tower of Babel symbolizes hubris — a civilization organized around concentrated power, excessive self-confidence and exploitation attempts to build a tower to reach God. The reference to Jerusalem, “the city in which God and humanity dwell together,” by contrast, represents humility, openness to the divine, fraternity and collaboration.

For Pope Leo XIV, the central issue is therefore not whether humanity should say “yes” or “no” to technology. The deeper question is what kind of civilization technological power will produce. Will artificial intelligence serve inclusive and integral human development, or will it deepen socio-economic inequalities, human exploitation and political domination?

This distinction is crucial because the encyclical does not portray technology itself as inherently negative. On the contrary, it explicitly recognizes technology as what Pope Benedict XVI, in his Caritas in Veritate, calls “a profoundly human reality, linked to the autonomy and freedom of man.” However, the Pope warns that when technology becomes “the standard by which everything is judged,” human beings risk being reduced to “mere cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency.”

The critique is therefore directed not at innovation itself, but at what the encyclical calls the “technocratic paradigm.” When efficiency and profits become the supreme criteria of economic and social systems, they gradually displace human dignity and the common good. The danger, as the document repeatedly emphasizes, is dehumanization, or the reduction of persons to data or functional units within systems designed primarily for performance and profit. This inevitably leads to loss of dignity and exacerbation of inequalities. 

In many ways, the encyclical echoes concerns already articulated by twentieth-century thinkers such as Romano Guardini. Guardini’s observation that “‘contemporary man has not been trained to use power well’” (as quoted in Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si’) functions almost as a diagnosis of the present technological age. Humanity has acquired unprecedented technical capabilities without equivalent moral and political guardrails. 

This concern becomes particularly acute given the changing nature of economic power in the digital age. Today’s new technological capabilities are increasingly controlled by a few private actors whose influence often surpasses that of governments themselves. The encyclical explicitly acknowledges this transformation, warning that technological power now assumes “an unprecedented, predominantly ‘private’ aspect,” thereby making democratic oversight and accountability increasingly difficult. The Vatican recognizes that artificial intelligence is developing within a global order characterized by concentrated digital power and weakened public oversight. The risk is not simply technological inequality, but the emergence of new forms of dependency, exclusion and manipulation.

The digital has a profound impact on human social reality

At the same time, Magnifica Humanitas expands the discussion beyond economics and governance into the broader social consequences of digital transformation. One of its most striking arguments concerns the relationship between truth and democracy. The encyclical describes truth as a “common good” increasingly threatened by disinformation and commercialization. Digital systems, it argues, shape collective imagination, public discourse and social trust itself. 

The transformation of labor constitutes another major concern. Here, the historical parallel with Rerum Novarum becomes especially clear. Just as industrial mechanization disrupted workers’ lives in the nineteenth century, artificial intelligence and automation are now reshaping the meaning of work in the twenty-first century. The encyclical warns that societies risk creating economies in which efficiency is prioritized over human dignity and labor becomes increasingly disposable.

It also addresses what it calls “new forms of slavery.” Labor is increasingly linked to digital dependency and behavioural manipulation. The Pope also urges people to consider the consequences of technological production — harsh mining labor and profiling techniques for trafficking are just two examples. The “commodification of persons” becomes increasingly easy with AI and digital progress.

In an era increasingly defined by the commercialization of human attention, the Pope insists on the enduring importance of relationships, care and human recognition. Human beings continue to seek attentive minds and authentic solidarity, which are realities that no machine can fully replicate. The encyclical also underscores the responsibility for the inclusive and dignified use of language in communication. 

Technology exacerbates gaps in global power structures

Perhaps the most consequential sections of Magnifica Humanitas, however, concern geopolitics. Here, the encyclical situates artificial intelligence within a rapidly deteriorating international environment characterized by great power rivalry and the normalization of war. The document argues that the digital revolution is transforming the nature of warfare itself through cyberattacks, information manipulation, automated strategic systems and hybrid forms of conflict.

These examples of new warfare point to the growing gap between technological capability and moral responsibility. Detached from ethics, technology risks rendering life-and-death decisions “more rapid and impersonal” while presenting the use of force as an immediate and viable option. Artificial intelligence thus becomes an accelerant within an already unstable geopolitical order.

This leads the Pope to one of the encyclical’s most controversial but intellectually significant critiques: the rejection of what he calls a “false realism.” The document argues that modern political culture increasingly treats war and confrontation as inevitable conditions of international life. Diplomacy and peace are dismissed as naïve aspirations, while permanent preparation for conflict is normalized as responsible statecraft. The encyclical does not deny the reality of geopolitical rivalry or power politics. Rather, it rejects the fatalistic assumption that humanity must permanently organize itself around domination and strategic competition. In this sense, Magnifica Humanitas identifies a profound tension between two competing logics of human development.

On the one hand stands the deterministic logic embedded in modern economics, technological competition and international relations. This is a logic driven by survival, accumulation, deterrence and strategic advantage. On the other hand, the moral and spiritual vision advanced by the encyclical is centered on responsibility, dignity, coexistence, peace and the possibility of solidarity even amid conflict and transformation.

We must choose human dignity over unhindered digital progress

Importantly, the document does not propose centralized technocratic control as the solution to these challenges. Nor does it advocate for regulatory maximalism. Instead, the encyclical repeatedly emphasizes shared responsibility. Governments, businesses, schools, intermediary institutions, families and citizens all bear responsibility for shaping the ethical direction of technological development. The challenge posed by artificial intelligence is not merely technical or regulatory, it is profoundly educational and civilizational. The key question is whether societies can still form morally responsible individuals in environments increasingly shaped by commercial algorithms and digital fragmentation.

The encyclical’s concluding metaphor powerfully captures this vision. Pope Leo XIV invokes the biblical figure of Nehemiah rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem “brick by brick” after devastation. Humanity, he argues, should not become passive spectators of social and cultural fractures, nor merely commentators on civilizational decline. Instead, individuals and institutions alike are called to participate actively in rebuilding the social foundations threatened by technocratic mentality and partisan interests.

Ultimately, Magnifica Humanitas raises a question that extends far beyond the Catholic Church or even secular debates over artificial intelligence. The central issue is not whether humanity can create increasingly powerful technologies. It is whether humanity can preserve moral judgment, human dignity and social responsibility while doing so. In an age increasingly shaped by algorithmic systems and concentrated technological power, the encyclical warns that progress without ethical orientation risks producing not a new Jerusalem, but a new Babel.

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.