An algorithm decides what we see, another filters what we read, and still others enter into the processes that govern work, information, and collective choices. In the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. the first signed by Pope Leo XIV and published on May 25, artificial intelligence is not viewed as just another technology; it is part of the invisible infrastructure of our contemporary daily lives.

But the text is not conceived as an exclusively technological reflection. Pope Leo XIV places the issue of AI within the tradition of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church and directly invokes—while updating it—the Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII (published on May 15, 1891) in the year of its 135th anniversary. That encyclical addressed the question of labor at the height of the industrial revolution in the late 19th century.

If the “res novae” of that time were factories, labor, and industrial capitalism, today the new issues revolve around digital platforms, algorithms, data, and automation systems that are reshaping power, the economy, and social relations. For this reason, the encyclical does not present itself as a technical text about innovation, but rather as an attempt to interpret the digital transformation in light of human dignity and the common good. Technology, the Pope writes, is not evil in itself; on the contrary, it belongs to human history and creativity. But the current situation is different in both scale and depth: “Never has humanity had so much power over itself,” the text observes, describing technologies that now shape decisionmaking processes, the collective imagination, and social life in an increasingly pervasive way.

It is from this point that Robert Francis Prevost chose to begin: from the growing concentration of power exercised through systems that are increasingly opaque yet increasingly decisive, and from the question that runs throughout the encyclical: What remains of human dignity, the protection of truth, work, social justice, and peace when decisions are transferred into algorithmic logic?

Disarming Technology

In the encyclical there is an expression that becomes the key to interpreting the entire scenario: “disarming technology.” The meaning is far removed from any attempt to slow the development of artificial intelligence or to deny its potentially transformative impact for good. For Robert Francis Prevost, disarming AI means preventing it from becoming a form of power capable of dominating human existence.

For Leo XIV, the point is not the technology itself, then, but its organization and application. AI, the pope writes, is part of a global race today to the “highest-performing algorithm” and the “largest data center,” where competitive advantage also becomes geopolitical. In this context, a few players concentrate digital infrastructure, data, and computing capacity, which affects information, economics, and even democracy.

Disarming means breaking this equation between technical power and the right to govern. “As happens with every major technological turning point, AI tends above all to increase the power of those who already possess economic resources and access to data,” the pontiff explains.

In explicit terms, the encyclical states that it is not enough merely to regulate technology: It must be taken away from monopolies, made transparent and open to challenge—that is, made “habitable” by a plurality of actors. Above all, AI must be prevented from becoming an instrument of economic, political, or military domination by a select few. This is not a moral metaphor: It is a call to prevent the logic of competition from transforming a shared infrastructure into a system of control.

Truth Within the Systems That Select Reality

If technology concentrates power, one of the first concrete effects concerns the way in which collective truth is formed. The encyclical addresses the issue of disinformation, but in a decidedly deeper way because perceived reality, or rather experience, is increasingly filtered by systems that decide what to show and what to hide.

It is not just about fake news or fake content in various forms. The problem is that platforms and algorithms select information based on criteria of maximizing attention and engagement. In other words, what becomes visible is not necessarily what is most true, but what works best in generating reactions. In this way, truth does not disappear, but it becomes dependent on opaque systems that influence opinions, perceptions, and collective choices without it always being clear how.

This is why the encyclical insists on a very concrete cultural and educational responsibility: to train people capable of recognizing these mechanisms and not to entrust the construction of public judgment only to digital infrastructures that respond to market or power logics.

Work as a Fault Line

The same dynamic runs through the world of work, and it is one of the most concrete points of the encyclical. Artificial intelligence is described not only as automation, but as a force that can redefine who works, how they work, and with what margins of autonomy.

In the text, the Pope speaks explicitly about the risk of a “social calamity” related to technological unemployment, when innovation is driven primarily by cost-cutting and increased profits. In this scenario, many activities may be replaced or emptied of human content, with workers reduced to repetitive or rigidly controlled functions.

The encyclical also goes into detail about new forms of control: automated surveillance, fragmentation of tasks, and loss of a sense of autonomy. It is not only the loss of jobs that is of concern, but the transformation of work into something less human, less creative, and therefore less free.

And it is here that the connection with the social doctrine of the Church, invoked from the very beginning of the document, reemerges. Just as the Rerum Novarum sought to interpret the effects of the industrial revolution on people’s concrete lives, Magnifica Humanitas attempts to do the same with the digital revolution. In this vision, work is not merely economic production or a performance to be optimized, but a space through which the person expresses dignity, responsibility, and participation in social life.

For this reason, if artificial intelligence ends up reducing the worker to a measurable, controllable, and replaceable function, the problem is not merely economic or technological; it becomes a social, political, and profoundly human issue.

War as an Automated Space of Conflict

The most radical aspect of the text emerges when technology enters the dimension of conflict. Pope Leo XIV questions the entire architecture of the idea of a “just war,” which he considers increasingly inadequate to describe contemporary reality. Not because the right to self-defense is denied, but because the very nature of conflict is changing.

War today is already permeated by automated systems that influence information, strategy, and the perception of the enemy. Algorithms do not fight, but they enable a new form of distance in which decisionmaking is progressively removed from the human body and from human responsibility.

This is why the encyclical sets a clear limit: It is not acceptable to entrust lethal or irreversible decisions to artificial systems. Moral responsibility cannot be delegated, nor can it be dissolved in automated chains. In this passage, the concept of “disarming technology” returns and becomes a concrete principle in which the importance of taking away the ability of machines to enter into the decision about life and death is stressed.

An Open Construction Site

The final image of Magnifica Humanitas is that of a construction site. Not a closed system or an already defined model, but a process still under construction. And within this “construction site” technology, economics, information, and conflict are intertwined. Not because everything is the same, but because everything today is connected within the same digital infrastructure and power relations.

Here ends the point of the encyclical: The problem is not artificial intelligence as a technical object, but the type of world it is helping to build. It is one in which the decisive question is no longer just about what the technology can do, but who controls it, with what interests, and according to what idea of human being.

This story originally appeared in WIRED Italia and has been translated from Italian.