Old and New: The American Pope Takes on AI

Pope Leo XIV addresses the media from around the world who were present in Rome to cover the conclave that elected him as pope. (Photo: CNS/Lola Gomez)

Pope Leo XIV surprised the cardinals with the choice of his papal name and then did the same when he announced his intention to focus on the AI Revolution. When he addressed the College of Cardinals the day after his election, he explained these choices:

“Sensing myself called to continue in this same path, I chose to take the name Leo XIV. There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII, in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum, addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution. In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor.”

Coming from America, the land of Silicon Valley and the tech revolution that has flowed from it, it seems fitting that Leo has taken on a burning issue of our day. Much of the pre-conclave speculation focused on the ecclesial divisions of the past century. Leo, who repeatedly has emphasized unity, including at his inaugural Mass, has immediately transcended this divide by pointing to the Church’s task of addressing the pressing issues of the day. It’s not a matter of simple politics or attempts to remain relevant to a secular world, because digital technology has already fundamentally impacted the daily lives of Christians. And many challenges await us as AI and genetic modifications promise to impact human life in previously unimaginable ways.

Pope Leo XIII awoke the Church from its slumber to address a fundamental shift occurring during the Industrial Revolution, using timeless truths from the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas to address new problems. Building on this legacy, Leo XIV addressed our current context with the members of the “Centesimus Annus Pro Pontifice” foundation on May 17th:

“Pope Leo XIII, who lived in an age of momentous and disruptive change, sought to promote peace by encouraging social dialogue between capital and labor, technology and human intelligence, and different political cultures and nations. In the context of the ongoing digital revolution, we must rediscover, emphasize and cultivate our duty to train others in critical thinking, countering temptations to the contrary, which can also be found in ecclesial circles.”

It's not that the Church hasn’t addressed AI previously, but it’s undoubtedly becoming an even more pressing issue. While Pope Francis frequently spoke about the ramifications of AI after its rise in the early 2020s, the Dicasteries for both the Doctrine of Faith and Culture and Education released a joint document in January as the Church’s most official teaching on the topic to date. Antiqua et Nova, “Old and New Things,” which lays a philosophical foundation and offers practical application, will undoubtedly provide a framework for Pope Leo’s approach. The document makes four key points on the proper approach to AI.

1. Computer intelligence is not human intelligence. While AI, particularly language models, seems to imitate human thinking effectively, the comparison doesn’t reach beneath the surface. AI “learns” by recognizing patterns in existing data, not by sensing, abstracting and judging. Antiqua et Nova says that “AI’s advanced features give it sophisticated abilities to perform tasks, but not the ability to think” (§12). This reflects a metaphysical difference as well as a technical one: “Since AI lacks the richness of corporeality, relationality and the openness of the human heart to truth and goodness, its capacities ... are incomparable with the human ability to grasp reality” (§33).

   
   

2. AI is merely a tool. Because of its human-like appearance, it’s easy to view AI as an autonomous entity that confers benefit or inflicts harm. However, even though it imitates human actions, “it must be understood for what it is: a tool, not a person” (§59). Because it is a tool, an ethical approach to AI involves not a moral judgment of AI itself, but a conscious consideration of how to use it in a way that contributes to the common good and respects human dignity.

   
   

3. AI should not replace human relationships. While it might be metaphysically true to say that AI has the same standing as a lawn mower, electric oven or computer — tools that assist and promote human labor — to leave things at that would be naive. In its treatment of AI in the economy, healthcare, education, privacy and warfare, Antiqua et Nova warns about the replacement of essentially human aspects of society with AI. Work is a vocation to steward God’s creation, and putting AI in the place of a doctor or teacher misunderstands that these roles reach beyond the utilitarian and require personal care and formation.

   
   

4. AI should not become idolatry. In its concluding sections, Antiqua et Nova notes that “as society drifts away from a connection with the transcendent, some are tempted to turn to AI in search of meaning or fulfillment” (§104). But “the presumption of substituting God for an artifact of human making is idolatry,” and “it is not AI that is ultimately deified and worshipped, but humanity itself” (§105). This deification threatens us with a subconscious pitfall against which we must consciously guard ourselves and our communities.

Pope Leo will undoubtedly expound and reiterate these topics, but Antiqua et Nova is not comprehensive. Most of us are not executives, administrators or legislators in a position to decide how AI will be used. While the document provides philosophical guidance, it leaves practical questions open. Is our use of AI a matter of personal discernment, or are there moral parameters that must shape our decision-making? How should our personal and communal approach to AI proceed to avoid the alarms that some are sounding? Hopefully, Pope Leo will offer decisive guidance so that we can make the best use of this new, powerful tool and avoid the serious dangers that await its misuse.

I’d like to thank my son, Daniel, an aspiring writer and computer programmer, for his help with this article.