Pope Leo’s encyclical a call to ‘recover the mystery’ of humans, says Eastern Catholic scholar
Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical "Magnifica Humanitas" addresses artificial intelligence and calls for grounding it in human dignity. Eastern Catholic scholar Ines Murzaku explains that the encyclical is not anti‑technology but critiques a Babel‑like pursuit of power without communion. The Eastern perspective emphasizes that AI should shape rather than reduce the human person, viewing humans as icons, hearts, and bodies. Murzaku stresses that Eastern Catholic insights are essential to fully grasp the encyclical, reflecting the universal Church’s catholicity.
4 months ago
Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, calls the Church to “recover the mystery of the human person” amid the rise of artificial intelligence. Eastern Catholic scholars stress that the document is not anti‑technology but a warning against a Babel‑like use of AI that severs communion and reduces people to data. Their apophatic theology, ascetic practices, and the witness of martyr Churches offer concrete ways to keep human dignity, conscience, and the heart at the center of digital life1.
The Eastern Catholic view frames the encyclical as a contrast between Babel (technological power without communion) and Jerusalem (patient, prayerful rebuilding). It asks whether AI forms or deforms the person, urging that the human should be seen as “icon, heart and body,” not merely a function or media profile1.
Apophatic (negative) theology teaches that God cannot be fully grasped or mastered, and likewise the human person cannot be exhausted by data. This perspective reinforces the encyclical’s claim that algorithms may predict behavior but cannot reach the “hidden center” of the heart (CCC 2563) or conscience1.
Eastern Catholicism proposes “digital asceticism” as disciplined freedom, not a rejection of technology. Three practical steps are suggested:
Additional guidance includes verifying information before sharing and using AI only as an assistant, never as a substitute for conscience1.
Eastern Catholic and Eastern Christian communities, many of which have endured war and persecution, are called to speak against AI‑driven warfare. The encyclical warns that lethal decisions must not be entrusted to machines, emphasizing that moral judgment requires human conscience and cannot be reduced to calculation1. Their lived experience provides an “embodied memory” that counters the abstraction of data‑driven conflict.
The Eastern contribution underscores that the Church’s catholicity is incomplete without the East’s theology of mystery, icon, asceticism, martyrdom, and theosis. If AI remains a tool that respects the person as image‑bearer of an incomprehensible God, it can serve humanity; otherwise it risks creating a new Babel, alienating the heart and conscience of the faithful1.
Pursuing AI must preserve human dignity, per Catholic doctrine
Pursuing AI while preserving human dignity is not an optional “nice-to-have” requirement in Catholic doctrine; it is a direct consequence of how the Church understands the human person and judges new technologies. The key claim—AI must serve the person, not reduce the person to a data-point or tool—is repeatedly emphasized by recent papal teaching on technology and artificial intelligence.
Catholic social teaching grounds human dignity in the person’s intrinsic worth, with rights that are prior to society and therefore cannot be overridden by technological systems or policies. The Catechism states:
“Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it.”
From the same source, the Catechism also notes that when a society refuses to recognize these rights, it undermines its moral legitimacy and may rely only on force.
So, in Catholic terms, “preserving dignity” means more than preventing overt abuse; it requires that AI deployments recognize and protect fundamental human rights rather than treat humans as raw material.
The Church does not teach that technology is inherently evil. Pope Francis teaches that policy should not aim at “curbing technological advances,” but at ensuring that innovations do not become threats to dignity when left to market forces or inadequate governance.
Likewise, Pope Francis links science/technology to human dignity as a God-given creative capacity, while still warning that technological power can endanger dignity and the common home.
Recent magisterial teaching adds an important anthropological warning: if technology becomes the ultimate criterion, the human person can be reduced to something lesser—“a cog in a machine or a commodity.”
This connects with a practical ethical point: AI systems are not morally neutral in their impact, because they can reshape how people are evaluated, employed, governed, educated, and even how they understand themselves.
Across the sources, Catholic doctrine converges on several criteria that must guide AI development and use.
Pope Leo XIV explicitly states that judgment criteria in the digital world include the inalienable dignity of the human person and other principles of Catholic social doctrine (common good, universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity, social justice). These criteria determine whether digital power and algorithms truly foster participation and protect the vulnerable.
This directly supports the thesis you stated: AI must be pursued in a way that is subordinate to dignity, not the other way around.
Pope Francis emphasizes that prudent legislation should protect dignity and guide technology toward “integral human development and peace,” not treating “progress as an end in itself.”
This is not abstract. It connects with the Catechism’s insistence that human dignity requires working for the common good and building institutions that improve human life conditions.
A major Catholic concern is that AI can operate opaquely, making it hard to assign responsibility. Pope Leo XIV highlights that for AI to respect dignity and serve the common good:
“responsibility must be clearly defined at every stage… [and] accountability becomes crucial: the possibility of identifying who must ‘account’ for decisions, justify them, monitor them, and, when necessary, challenge them and remedy any harm caused.”
Similarly, Pope Francis insists on safeguarding “a space for proper human control,” stating that no machine should ever choose to take the life of a human being.
These points clarify what “preserving dignity” concretely requires: clear responsibility, effective oversight, and non-delegation of core human moral agency in grave matters.
Pope Francis warns that even well-intentioned AI can produce injustice by incorporating prejudices embedded in data categories—especially when a system effectively makes or heavily influences decisions about people’s futures.
Pope Francis also places specific dignity threats at the center of regulation: “child pornography,” “misuse of personal data,” attacks on critical infrastructures, and “false information on social media.”
In Catholic moral logic, preserving dignity includes resisting systems that enable exploitation, surveillance abuse, discriminatory reduction of persons to attributes, or systematic misinformation.
Pope Leo XIV states that it is desirable for technology to relieve harsh tasks, but:
“the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule.”
He adds that profit-seeking cannot justify sacrificing jobs, because “the human person is an end, not a means,” and the economic order must remain subordinate to dignity and the common good.
This coheres with the Catechism’s teaching that dignity entails reducing excessive inequalities and eliminating “sinful inequalities” that contradict the Gospel.
The Church’s approach is best summarized as: pursue AI, but under moral governance that protects dignity and the common good.
Pope Leo XIV says that if technology is integrated with a “wise perspective,” it can become an instrument of growth, justice, and fraternity.
The same source warns that when technology becomes the ultimate criterion, the human person risks being reduced to data or commodity.
Pope Francis ties ethical outcomes to responsible action and adequate formation, insisting that “freedom and peaceful coexistence are threatened” by selfishness and power, and that AI development must be directed toward peace and the common good.
He also emphasizes values that should guide AI—“inclusion, transparency, security, equity, privacy and reliability.”
Your statement is strongly aligned with Catholic doctrine: the Church treats human dignity as the non-negotiable standard for evaluating AI. Recent magisterial teaching stresses that AI must be pursued only under conditions of human control, accountability, rights protection, justice, and orientation to the common good, lest technology reduce persons to data or commodities.