The first papal encyclical on artificial intelligence, Magnifica Humanitas (May 15, 38,000 words), contains lots of truisms but also a bit of everything and nothing.
The central contradiction of Magnifica Humanitas
is that it condemns centralized technological power and “Babel-like”
global systems, while simultaneously demanding supranational governing
structures to regulate AI worldwide.
In the encyclical, "Babel"
becomes a symbol of a civilization built on centralized power,
uniformity, and human self-sufficiency.
§5 warns that private,
often transnational actors possess “resources and capabilities superior
to those of many governments,” giving them “impressive power over all of
humanity.”
However, the proposed solution is stronger international coordination and global governance of AI.
The
encyclical calls for an “international order” (§33), “universal
fraternity” (§44), and globally shared moral principles for governing
AI.
§64 calls for “more effective forms of cooperation and
international institutions capable of safeguarding the global common
good.”
§72 demands supranational institutions able to guarantee
just rules over data management, digital environments, and algorithmic
decision-making worldwide.
Most significantly, §226 effectively
calls for a strengthened United Nations with authority over global
digital systems, universal AI standards, and transnational enforcement
mechanisms.
The contradiction is obvious. The encyclical fears
concentrated technological authority and digital oligarchies, yet
repeatedly demands global regulation and multilateral governance —
without seriously addressing who governs the governors.
Other Contradictions in the Encyclical
- AI is neutral — AI is not neutral
§9 says of AI: “Considered abstractly, it is in itself neither a solution to humanity’s problems nor an evil.”
Yet §104 states: “We cannot consider AI to be morally neutral.”
- The Church does not possess the truth — yet prescribes in detail
§25
states that the Church does not claim to possess a monopoly on truth.
Yet this is followed by dozens of specific policy prescriptions and
moral judgments. One example is §107, which states that “what is needed
is a more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things
down.”
- Just war is overcome — while just war criteria remain
§192 calls for “the overcoming of the theory of the ‘just war,’ which has too often been invoked to justify every kind of war.”
Yet
§199 preserves classical just-war principles such as proportionality,
civilian protection, accountability, and distinctions between combatants
and noncombatants in AI warfare.
en.news