How Catholics reacted to Pope Leo’s teachings on AI

Catholic reactions to Pope Leo XIV's encyclical "Magnifica Humanitas" have ranged from praise for its balanced approach to AI to criticism that it did not go far enough in addressing existential threats. The 42,000-word document, released alongside Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah, acknowledges AI's potential in science and innovation while warning it can advance inequality and erode human dignity. Some Catholics have turned reading the encyclical into social events, while others, like The Lamp editor Matthew Walther, argued in The New York Times that the pope's concerns did not fully grapple with technology's dangers.

This article was first published in the State of Faith newsletter . Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each Monday night. A week after the release of Pope Leo’s sprawling, nearly 42,000-word encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html , the conversation about the document is still going strong. The encyclical sparked lively discussions about the new intersection of religion and technology, notably because Leo unveiled it alongside Chris Olah, the co-founder of Anthropic, one of the world’s leading AI companies. First of all, a papal encyclical is a big deal for Catholics. I’ve seen it described as something awaited with a similar anticipation as Christmas. Some have even turned the reading of the encyclical into a social event https://www.tiktok.com/@isabelthurston real/video/7645036682915417358?is from webapp=1&sender device=pc&web id=7438698351023130142 . Plough magazine editor Susannah Black Roberts posted on X https://x.com/suzania/status/2059272755820876063 that she was heading to a hotel lobby to read the encyclical and was wondering if anyone wanted to join her. One Catholic theologian offered https://withintheaction.substack.com/p/how-to-read-an-encyclical-in-ten?r=1ttyhu&triedRedirect=true thoughts on how to read the encyclical. Take the time to digest it, pay attention to the structure, create a dialogue to interpret the text. I wrote about the document https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/05/25/pope-leo-encyclical-teaching-catholic-church/ and what stood out to me on my first engagement with the text on the day it came out. But I’ve been returning to it and finding things that I’d missed or skipped over. Pope Leo dives into a lot: the dignity of work, economic inequality, privacy, misinformation, education, democracy, warfare, environmental costs and the concentration of technological power in the hands of a few companies. “In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human,” Leo writes. Prior to the release of the encyclical, many on the right expected a “holy war against AI,” said Christopher Hale, a senior fellow at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good who authors a Substack, “Letters from Leo,” in a Newsweek interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx4lqLhNsMQ . What they got was not that. “You really saw the middle way,” he said. Pope Leo acknowledges AI’s potential in science and innovation while also sounding the alarm that technology can advance inequality and erode human dignity and relationships. To Leo, AI can be a valuable tool that “calls for a measured and vigilant approach.” Catholics praised the timely and thorough engagement with the moral implications of AI on various aspects of life. “From here on, I don’t think anyone will be able to speak meaningfully about the future of humanity in the age of AI without coming to terms with this document and taking it seriously,” Notre Dame Law School professor Paolo Carozza said in a statement https://news.nd.edu/news/notre-dame-experts-respond-to-pope-leo-xivs-encyclical-magnifica-humanitas/ . “While it is very direct about the many dangers already arising out of algorithmic technologies, it is decidedly not an anti-technology document. The real question is not whether AI is good or bad, but whether the ways we develop and deploy the technology help individuals and communities become more humane, just and participatory, or whether instead they foster exclusion, control and inequality.” But for some Catholics, Pope Leo didn’t go far enough in grappling with the existential and technological threats of AI on humanity. Matthew Walther, the editor of the Catholic literary journal The Lamp, wrote https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/26/opinion/pope-leo-encyclical-ai.html in The New York Times: “Despite voicing concerns about the dangers that A.I. poses to humanity, the encyclical nonetheless seems to envision a world in which it is simply a tool, rather than an evil that all people should reject.” Walther writes that the document underestimates AI’s potential to make existing social problems worse — for instance, the potential of AI to transform medicine from a “humanistic profession” into “an algorithmic conception of health care.” Some technologists took issue that the document didn’t address what getting to Artificial General Intelligence would do to humanity, The Verge noted https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/937933/pope-ai-encyclical-tech-industry-reactions?utm source=chatgpt.com . Dean W. Ball, a senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation quoted in the story, wrote https://x.com/deanwball/status/2058922191278755962?s=20 on X that the encyclical could have been “more engaged with where AI is headed.” The choice not to delve into doomsday scenarios is perhaps the practical approach, several commentators noted, with the goal to root the believers into here and now. One of the points from the encyclical that I have continued to think about was not so much about AI directly, but instead, what life would look like without some of the experiences it threatens to eliminate and how that would change our values and relationships. In his teaching, Pope Leo invited believers to embrace human weakness and its limitations, and avoid rushing to have the uncomfortable, inefficient and painful features of humanity corrected by technology and machines. “Today, the human desire for fullness of life is at risk of being misled by deceitful goals, such as the prospect of a technology that promises to free us from all weakness, and models of well-being that leave behind entire populations. All too often, we place our hope in unlimited ‘upgrades,’ in forms of progress that exacerbate inequalities, and in immediate solutions incapable of healing people’s wounds,” Pope Leo wrote. Experiences of suffering, aging and physical weakness are not “defects,” as the technocrats might want us to believe, but “a reality through which our humanity matures.” The pope also defended human errors: “For an algorithm, an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, however, an error can be a catalyst for profound change.” Human limitations and suffering create space for compassion for others, generosity, and closeness with the divine. Accepting these limitations could be the origin of strength. For people of faith, it’s through the understanding of human limitations that faith and a relationship with the divine are made possible. Fresh off the press I attended former Utah Sen. Mitt Romney’s address to the Harvard Business School graduates https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/05/27/mitt-romney-harvard-business-school/ during the Class Day celebration. He talked about focusing less on money and business, and more on people and family. Two pieces that I’d been working on for weeks and months came out this weekend. - I wrote about the seven-day Jewish mourning ritual of sitting shiva https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/05/29/grief-jews-mourning-ritual-sitting-shiva/ after my friend Vera died last month from cancer. It was such a beautiful experience and taught me about the power of physical presence in mourning and also about the way that the rhythms of tradition can fill our very human needs. In some ways, I feel like this essay about sitting shiva is in conversation with Pope Leo’s defense of human dignity and embodied, communal experiences that are often slow and inefficient, but that nonetheless deepen human connection. - In March, I traveled to Ukraine, where I grew up, to report on the destruction of religious sites https://www.deseret.com/magazine/2026/05/30/ukraine-war-destruction-of-religious-places/ and what the damage and loss of houses of worship mean for local communities. My talented editors made this great video about it. The meaning of rest I was delighted to hear from several State of Faith readers about what the day of rest looks like for them. One theme across the messages was simplicity and connection. - “I cherish my time to relax and snuggle with my cat on the recliner,” Sheryl Parsons wrote. “Being intentional about how we honor the sabbath has helped so much in how the upcoming week goes. We need the spiritual and physical rejuvenation which honoring the sabbath day can supply.” - “A day of rest for me, on Sunday, is worshipping, participating, and teaching at church and/or in someone’s home; walking around the neighborhood with my husband; light cooking and cleaning; planning lessons and working on my callings; ministering through visiting, drop offs, preparing mailings, texting/calling; praying and scripture reading; listening to Tabernacle Choir on Temple Square or Gospel Stream regular LDS music; practicing musical instruments; family history; planning for the upcoming week with other family members; watching and listening to Church You Tube Channels.” The list kept on going for Michele Bourque. - “I think rest has intrinsic value on its own. Rest for the sake of rest. When I take protracted periods of rest now. My mind and body are renewed,” Darrin Simpson wrote to me. “I often find this is the greatest period of creativity. ... After the creation of the world, God did not rest so he would be more productive. Rest has value beyond increased capacity.” End note A couple of my Latter-day Saint friends have launched a new project that invites members of the faith to write and publish fiction writing. It’s called “Still Small Stories,” https://stillsmallstories.substack.com/ and it’s lovely. I especially loved this piece about a ghost boy who lives in an amusement park https://stillsmallstories.substack.com/p/the-happiest-place-on-earth and the strange space of living between two worlds. They’re looking for submissions that are “family-friendly, uplifting and inspiring.”