Can Pope Leo Help Stop the ‘AI Arms Race’?
Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical *Magnifica Humanitas* urges international cooperation to curb AI risks. The Pope’s moral authority and global reach could position the Vatican as a mediator in the AI arms race between major powers. Experts argue that the Church is uniquely equipped to lead a moral discussion on AI, as no other religion has comparable central authority. Tech companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic are already calling for coordinated global action, creating an opening for Vatican involvement.
4 months ago
Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, urges worldwide collaboration to curb the rapid growth of artificial‑intelligence (AI) technologies, framing the issue as an “AI arms race” that threatens human dignity and global stability. The article outlines the Pope’s moral appeal, expert commentary on the Vatican’s unique diplomatic role, and the challenges facing any international AI‑governance effort. 1
The encyclical warns that AI development is proceeding at “lightning‑fast, drastic and possibly catastrophic” speed. In the United States, leading firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic compete to create ever more autonomous “frontier models,” while the government hesitates to regulate in order to stay ahead of China. The competition is likened to the Cold‑War nuclear arms race, with some theologians suggesting humanity’s survival could be at stake. 1
Experts quoted in the article argue that the Catholic Church, through the Holy See, possesses a global reach, moral authority, and lack of temporal interests that could make it an effective mediator. Brian Green of the Markkula Center notes that no other religion has a comparable central authority to lead a moral discussion on AI. 1 The Vatican’s past diplomatic work on nuclear non‑proliferation and human‑cloning is cited as precedent for facilitating cooperation on emerging technologies. 1
Magnifica Humanitas repeatedly invokes the biblical Tower of Babel as a metaphor for the chaotic pursuit of AI supremacy. The Pope calls for a united effort that includes not only major AI powers (the United States and China) but also smaller nations and the global South, emphasizing that every human being has a stake in the outcome. 1 He proposes the Vatican could host summits, provide neutral ground for talks, or work behind the scenes through its diplomatic corps. 1
The article presents a sober assessment of the likelihood of success. China’s reluctance to cede AI advantage and its strained relations with the Holy See are identified as major hurdles. Additionally, waning confidence in multilateral institutions such as the United Nations complicates any coordinated response. 1 Some commentators, like Vatican diplomacy expert Victor Gaetan, doubt that the Pope will pursue active mediation in the near term, suggesting the encyclical’s primary purpose is to shape discourse rather than negotiate treaties. 1
U.S. Vice President JD Vance described the encyclical as “profound,” while Anthropic co‑founder Christopher Olah attended its launch, indicating growing interest from Silicon Valley. 1 Nonetheless, experts warn that the rapid pace of AI development shortens planning horizons for governments and companies, increasing pressure for immediate action. 1
---*
Pope’s moral authority can mediate global AI risk governance
The claim is broadly consistent with how the Church—especially the Holy See—understands its public, international moral contribution: the Pope’s authority can help mediate AI governance by offering ethical criteria grounded in human dignity, the common good, and justice, and by encouraging cooperation that resists an “armed competition” logic in technology.
Catholic teaching distinguishes between the Church’s spiritual mission and direct political power. The Church does not present itself as seeking “goals of power,” privileges, or political dominance; rather, it serves persons and offers a specific contribution to the political community “whose soul is justice,” helping reason recognize what is just and enabling it to be effectively pursued.
Benedict XVI likewise describes the Church’s international role as reaffirming fundamental principles and “help[ing] ‘to form consciences in political life’,” rather than replacing legitimate political responsibility.
This supports a key nuance for your thesis: the Pope’s moral authority can mediate by shaping conscience, offering shared ethical language, and promoting justice, while governments and other competent bodies retain the direct duty to legislate and implement.
Pope Leo XIV’s framework is not limited to technical safety; it explicitly treats AI as a governance question tied to anthropology and rights.
Leo XIV states that “The use of AI is never a purely technical matter”: when AI enters processes affecting people’s lives, it “touches on rights, opportunities, status and freedom,” and sensitive decisions risk being delegated to automated systems that do not embody the human virtues of “compassion, mercy, forgiveness… [and] hope that people are able to change.”
He adds that even when AI systems present themselves as “neutral and objective,” they can still reinforce stereotypes and ideological bias from their creators.
This is highly relevant to mediation: AI risk governance needs common standards about rights, exclusion, bias, and accountability, not only error rates or computational limits.
Leo XIV also links AI governance to the environment: AI requires “enormous amounts of energy and water,” significantly influencing carbon emissions and increasing demands on natural resources; therefore “it is essential” to develop more sustainable solutions to protect the common home.
So mediation is not only about preventing harm to users, but also about preventing AI from becoming an ecological injustice.
In Magnifica Humanitas, Leo XIV uses the language of “to disarm,” aiming to free AI from a mentality of “armed” competition—an economic and cognitive phenomenon driven by the pursuit of dominance through more powerful algorithms and datasets.
He clarifies what this implies for governance: “To disarm does not mean rejecting technology,” but preventing it from dominating humanity, discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern, and making technology “human-friendly” and accessible.
This directly fits the mediation thesis: when international stakeholders adopt a dominance-driven posture, they lose the moral basis for compromise. A Pope’s moral authority can reframe the discussion away from “who wins” toward what protects human dignity and justice, creating the ethical space needed for coordination.
In a message for the “AI for Good Summit 2025,” Pope Leo XIV (through the Secretary of State) explicitly calls for coordinated local and global governance of AI “based on the shared recognition of the inherent dignity and fundamental freedoms of the human person,” and he links governance to an ethical aim beyond “utility or efficiency.”
That is precisely what mediation needs: a common value-anchoring rather than purely sectoral or national optimization.
The Holy See’s mediating role in international disputes is not presented as a new invention. John Paul II, for instance, describes how the Church has “consistently supported” peaceful conflict resolution through international arbitration and justice and recalls the Holy See’s historical function as a mediator.
Applying that pattern to AI risk governance: AI creates cross-border and cross-sector risks (security, employment, information integrity, ecological costs), so the moral impetus for dispute-resolving cooperation is analogous—even if the “conflict” is governance fragmentation rather than battlefield war.
A Catholic analysis should also set boundaries so the thesis doesn’t overreach:
So, yes: the Pope’s moral authority can plausibly mediate global AI risk governance—not by replacing secular regulators, but by offering a shared ethical foundation (human dignity, freedom, justice, common good), urging a move from “armed” competitive logic toward “disarmament,” and promoting coordinated international frameworks that are accountable not only to efficiency but to compassion, equity, and ecological responsibility.