I trust you have heard about Pope Leo’s just released Papal Encyclical. Entitled Magnifica Humanitas, or “Magnificent Humans” in English, the lengthy document outlines principles for “safeguarding the human person in the time of Artificial Intelligence.” It’s quite a beautiful and moving document, which you can read in full at this link.
As a humanist to my core, I strongly agree that the AI revolution will only succeed if it serves humanity and helps build a better future for all of us and all of life.
The encyclical is 42K words long, so I have taken the liberty of extracting below some of the passages which I found most interesting and significant. In the ancient Talmudic tradition, I have also included my short reflections in a bullet point after each bit of papal text.
The document does an excellent job of applying both Church and universal principles to the challenges accompanying the AI and other technological revolutions. I wish the it said more about the incredible potential benefits of these capabilities for human health, agriculture, and building a more sustainable future. If you’d like to learn more about these, I invite you to read my book Superconvergence: How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World.
People who are not Catholic may also feel that some of the assertions do not apply to them, but the document makes a good faith effort to stretch Catholic principles toward acceptance and universality, even if atheists, members of the gay and lesbian community, and others will likely feel excluded from a few of the passages.
This tension between individual traditions and universal, common principles is the core of my new book, The AI Ten Commandments: A New Moral Code for Humanity, which I see as being highly complementary to the Papal Encyclical. The book will be coming out in Italian later this year and will be distributed widely in the Vatican community.
I hope that the encyclical will spur us all to explore our thoughts and engage others in our lives in meaningful and fruitful dialogue that will inspire each and all of us to do our part building the type of future we would like to inhabit.
—
“In recent years, it has become increasingly evident how rapidly and profoundly digitalization, artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics are transforming our world. Technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity. On the contrary, it has formed part of our history since the beginning as “a profoundly human reality, linked to the autonomy and freedom of man.” Over the centuries, technological development has significantly improved the living conditions of humanity. At the same time, each phase of progress has also revealed the ambiguity of tools that can cause harm when not oriented toward the good… The danger of humanity becoming a victim of its own achievements was already clearly recognized by Saint Paul VI, who warned that “the most extraordinary scientific progress, the most astounding technical feats and the most amazing economic growth, unless accompanied by authentic moral and social progress, will in the long run go against man.” … If technological development advances without a corresponding ethical and social progress, the result may be an increase in means without a growth in humanity: “having more” without “being more.””
- JM: This is an essential point. As I have said many times: Every technology in all of human history has been used for good and for all. No technology comes with its own built-in value system. It’s up to us to ensure that our most sacred values guide the applications of our most powerful technologies.
“It is necessary to establish adequate regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the distorting effects of technological power. Nevertheless, the issue is not limited to regulation. As Pope Francis warned, we must realistically ask ourselves who holds this power today and how they use it: “It must also be recognized that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our own DNA, and many other abilities which we have acquired… have given those with the knowledge, and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world.” In the past, it was largely up to the State to guide and direct innovation. Today, however, 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. Technological power thus takes on an unprecedented, predominantly “private” aspect, which makes it even more challenging to discern, govern and direct such power toward the common good.”
- JM: While government regulation is important, it is only one part of the broader systems of governance that are requires to optimize the benefits and minimize the harms associated with our revolutionary technologies. I was a member of the World Health Organization expert advisory committee on human genome editing, and our most significant recommendation made this essential point.
“We must… avoid the “Babel syndrome,” namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance. The risk of dehumanization — of building a future that excludes God and reduces the other to a means — is an ancient and ever-new temptation that today takes on a technical guise.”
- JM: We definitely need to make sure that the goal of our technology is to serve human life, and all of life for that matter. My friend Fei-Fei Li has been a champion of this principle. You can learn more about the Stanford Human-Centered AI initiative here.
“Building a world in which everyone can flourish requires shared responsibility and courage.”
- JM: This sounds simple but it is not. We are well on our way to building a world in which only a few have the means to truly flourish while billions of people suffer in abject poverty. AI and other tools can help alleviate this disparity, but only if we use these tolls to achieve that goal. If not, they can just as easily (or more easily) make our dangerous divisions far worse.
“We cannot condone naïve enthusiasms, nor fuel unfounded fears. Instead, let us establish standards for discernment — the dignity of the human person, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, care for our common home and peace — and let us translate these standards into practices such as responsible planning, the assessment of human and social impact, the inclusion of the most vulnerable, the promotion of digital literacy and guiding research and industry toward justice and peace… [H]uman rights are not an external addition to the person, but an expression of intrinsic human dignity, which the international community is called to protect and promote.”
- JM: Universal rights must be the natural inheritance of all people. To prevent declarations from becoming empty, they must be realized in the real world.
“I… have reaffirmed that the Church “does not claim to possess a monopoly on truth,” because truth is not a territory to be defended, but a good to be shared.”
- JM: This is a radical departure from past declarations by the Catholic Church of a single, universal truth. Personally, I believe Isaiah Berlin was right when he wrote that “One belief, more than any other, is responsible for the slaughter of individuals on the altars of the great historical ideals — justice or progress or the happiness of future generations, or the sacred mission of emancipation of a nation or race or class, or even liberty itself, which demands the sacrifice of individuals for the freedom of society. This is the belief that somewhere, in the past or in the future, in divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker, in the pronouncements of history or science, or in the simple heart of an uncorrupted good man, there is a final solution.”
“Today, among the goods that are universally intended for everyone, we must also include new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data. In a context where the wealth of nations depends increasingly on knowledge and technology, when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without adequate forms of sharing and access, a new imbalance is created that contradicts the universal destination of goods. In turn, it widens the gap between the included and the excluded, between those who can participate in the digital revolution and those who remain on the margins… When it comes to decisions regarding economic flows and digital platforms, as well as the governance of data and algorithms, we cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own; instead, we must build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make them jointly responsible for the common good.”
- JM: I’m not sure this is a Marxian call to control the means of production, but it is a recognition that we can’t allow a world where a tiny number of largely unaccountable people monopolize public goods, and our attention, for their own benefit.
“It is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. What can be stated, however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of “intelligence” with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences.”
- JM: This is a debatable point. We don’t really know how our AI systems will evolve. My new novel, Virtuosa, coming February 2027, is all about this. Set in the Berlin Philharmonic, it explores the intersection of AI, robotics, and classical music and what it means to be truly human in an age of creative (what Ray Kurzweil might call spiritual) machines.
“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. In the name of progress, “necessary sacrifices” may begin to be justified, placing the burden on the most vulnerable in pursuit of a supposed optimization of the species… Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis today. Everything that appears as a “limit” — incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability — tends to be seen primarily as a defect to be corrected, rather than as a reality through which our humanity matures and opens itself to relationship. And yet we must remember that humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them… For an algorithm, an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, however, an error can be a catalyst for profound change.”
- JM: Isn’t vaccination a form of surpassing our innate humanity? I definitely agree that we need to be deeply concerned by the specter of Eugenics as we enter our new age of genetic modification, but we also can, and in my view should, explore how we can best use our new capabilities to save lives and decrease suffering. For far more on this, I hope you will read by book Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity. Also, after giving a talk in the Vatican on these issues, I was (graciously) invited to write a paper for the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture. You can find that test here.
“At this time of transition, it is not enough to react only when jobs disappear; we must oversee the transformation in advance. One viable path is, first of all, to establish social criteria for innovation. Here, every introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining and participation of workers. In this way, technology will be oriented toward freeing up human time and capabilities, rather than producing exclusion.”
- JM: I agree. We will all be beneficiaries of these technologies, but the costs will be unevenly distributed. There is no AI button we can turn off, but we can, and must, do everything possible to ease this transition, particularly for the most vulnerable. A recent California executive order is designed to be a preliminary step in that direction.
“In antiquity and the Middle Ages many individuals and even ecclesiastical institutions had slaves. Already in the early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to requests from Sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, the enslavement of “infidels.” It was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated, notably under Pope Leo XIII. This development offers a clear example of the Church’s growth in understanding the perennial truths of Revelation that she safeguards… It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord. For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon.”
- JM: This is a big deal. Pope Nicholas V in 1452 issued the papal bull Dum Diversas giving the Portuguese king and his successors the right “to invade, conquer, fight and subjugate” and take all possessions of “Saracens, and pagans, and other infidels, and enemies of the name of Christ” anywhere and “to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.” This formed the basis of the Doctrine of Discovery that legitimized the colonial-era seizure of land in Africa and the Americas. The Catholic church has supported some pretty awful stuff in the past, from the Spanish Inquisition to colonialism and slavery. The WWII record of Pope Innocent XII is deeply concerning, the sexual abuse of children has been catastrophic, and condoms could have saved many lives during the height of the AIDS crisis. Having said all of this, I believe the church is sincerely striving to help build a better world.
“In an increasingly interdependent world, peace is not simply one issue among others, but a prerequisite for the universal common good and a test of the moral maturity of peoples, especially of those who bear responsibility for governing.”
- JM: This is the foundation of OneShared.World movement. I invite you to learn more.
“A subtle temptation may emerge, namely the thought that the problems are too big and we are too small, and that our choices, therefore, cannot make a difference. This is a polite form of resignation, often disguised as realism. Certainly, not everyone has the same power to make a difference. There are those who govern, make investment decisions, lead institutions, conduct research, educate, produce or provide information, and then there are those who only seem to live their daily lives. Yet, no one is without responsibility. We all have our own areas for action, and it is precisely there — and nowhere else — that we must choose whether to fuel the mentality of force (even if only through indifference, cynicism, lies or hatred), or to preserve the mindset of peace (with truth, moderation, closeness and care)… The twentieth-century Catholic author J.R.R. Tolkien, in the words of a protagonist in one of his novels, described our responsibility in this way: “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.””
- JM: Not only do I agree with this, but hats off to the Pope for quoting The Hobbit!