TL;DR
Pope Leo XIV released Magnifica humanitas on May 25, framing AI as a social question about power, work, truth and war. Anthropic co-founder Christopher Olah spoke at the Vatican presentation, while OpenAI, Google DeepMind and xAI were not on the published speaker list. The document’s warning about concentrated AI power is confirmed; the Vatican’s selection process for industry voices remains unclear.
Pope Leo XIV released his first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas, on May 25, calling for artificial intelligence to be judged by its effect on human dignity and presenting the document at the Vatican with Anthropic co-founder Christopher Olah among the speakers, a pairing that matters because the text says AI power is shaped by those who build, fund, regulate and use it.
The confirmed event is the release of Magnifica humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. The Holy See Press Office said the encyclical was signed May 15, the 135th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 Rerum novarum, and published May 25.
Vatican News said the presentation took place at the Vatican’s Synod Hall with Leo present. Listed speakers included Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Cardinal Michael Czerny, theologians Anna Rowlands and Leocadie Lushombo, and Christopher Olah, co-founder of Anthropic and head of AI interpretability research. The public program did not list speakers from OpenAI, Google DeepMind or xAI.
The encyclical does not reject AI outright. It argues that AI systems can help heal, educate and protect, but warns that control over data, platforms, computing power and regulation is concentrated among a small number of private actors. It also says AI systems lack moral conscience and rejects delegating lethal or irreversible decisions to machines.
Technology is never neutral — and neither were the empty chairs
Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical casts AI as this century’s Rerum novarum moment. He presented it personally — with Anthropic’s co-founder in the room. OpenAI, Google DeepMind & xAI were not. For a “broadside against AI companies,” that guest list is itself an argument.
A Rerum novarum for the age of AI
The signing date wasn’t incidental. Leo XIV chose the 135th anniversary of Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical — and, by taking the Leonine name, cast himself as the pope who answers AI as Leo XIII answered industry.
The same move, 135 years apart
AI ethics books for developers
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
AI interpretability research books
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Five chapters, one worry: concentration
The recurring anxiety is that AI’s power lands “in the hands of only a few” — and that a more moral AI isn’t enough “if that morality is determined by a few.”
A dynamic doctrine, faithful to the Gospel
Situating AI in the Church’s social teaching — the living tradition from Rerum novarum onward.
Foundations & principles
Human dignity that is “neither acquired nor earned”; the common good; the universal destination of goods — tech must not be held by a few.
Technology & dominance
The “technocratic paradigm.” AI can simulate a person but has no moral conscience or empathy. Calls to “disarm” AI from the logic of competition.
Safeguarding humanity: truth, work, freedom
The “new ways” of working aren’t always better; AI too often makes workers adapt to machines. Warns of an “architecture of visibility.”
The culture of power & the civilization of love
The hardest charge: “no algorithm can make war morally acceptable.” Argues even “just war” theory must now be overcome.
AI regulation and policy guides
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
AI ethics and human dignity books
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Who was in the room — and who should have been
Leo XIV presented the encyclical personally (popes usually delegate). Among the AI experts: Anthropic’s Chris Olah. The other frontier labs? Empty chairs. Tap each seat.
The presentation · May 25, 2026
A defensible single invite — or a diluted broadside? Press play, then judge.
AI transparency tools
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
AI regulation and governance tools
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A broadside delivered to one delegate
The Washington Post read the encyclical as one that “fires a broadside against AI companies.” A reckoning aimed at an industry is weakened when one member — the most safety-branded one — is present to receive it.
The encyclical’s hardest charge is about AI and war — and it implicates the labs that weren’t there.
Its most uncompromising passages condemn AI-enabled weapons and the lowering of the threshold for violence. But that lands hardest on the defense-entangled players and the leaders most explicit about military & geopolitical ambitions — not the lab that showed up.
Account vs. anoint
One sympathetic guest tilts it from “the Church holding the industry to account” toward “the Church beside its preferred firm.”
Concentration, again
A text whose deepest fear is power “determined by a few” launched by elevating one company as chosen interlocutor.
ethical AI development kits
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
AI safety and control devices
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Two things are true at once
The criticism is of the exclusivity, not the inclusion. Olah in the room was fitting; Anthropic alone was incomplete.
The most significant AI reckoning yet by a global moral institution
It grounds a critique of concentration, dehumanized work & algorithmic warfare in a tradition stretching back to 1891. Its core insight — technology carries its makers’ values — is exactly the right place to start.
A broadside should be delivered to the industry, not its most palatable face
The choice to present alongside Anthropic alone — defensible, probably well-intentioned — undercut the encyclical’s own insight about whose values get associated with the message.
A beginning, not an endpoint
The same month, Leo XIV approved an Interdicasterial Commission on Artificial Intelligence — a standing body with room for many voices over time. If it brings the whole industry into uncomfortable dialogue, the narrow first launch reads as a first step, not a pattern.
Why It Matters
The development matters because the Vatican is placing AI inside the Church’s social teaching tradition, treating it as a question of labor, political power and peace rather than only a technical field. That gives the document weight beyond Catholic audiences, especially as governments debate AI regulation and major labs seek public trust.
The guest list adds a second issue. If the encyclical’s central claim is that technology reflects those who make and finance it, then the choice of which AI builders appear beside the pope becomes part of the message. Anthropic’s inclusion is defensible, given its public safety focus, but its solo industry role also narrows the encounter with the sector the document criticizes.
Background
Leo’s timing was deliberate: Rerum novarum addressed the Industrial Revolution’s impact on work, capital and human dignity. By signing Magnifica humanitas on that anniversary, Leo cast AI as a comparable social rupture for the 21st century.
The document’s main worries are concentration of power, worker displacement, surveillance, truth, dehumanized decision-making and AI-enabled war. Its argument is most direct where it warns that making AI more moral is inadequate if the moral framework is set by only a few actors.
Sources reviewed include the Holy See Press Office notice at https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2026/05/25/260525e.html, Vatican News at https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-05/pope-leo-xiv-first-encyclical-magnifica-humanitas.html, and the official encyclical text at https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html.
“technology is never neutral”
— Pope Leo XIV, in Magnifica humanitas
“No algorithm can make war morally acceptable.”
— Magnifica humanitas, on AI and war
“artificial intelligence now demands to be ‘disarmed'”
— Pope Leo XIV, at the Vatican presentation
“We need informed critics who will tell the labs when we are failing.”
— Christopher Olah, Anthropic co-founder
What Remains Unclear
It is not yet clear how the Vatican chose the technology voices for the presentation, whether OpenAI, Google DeepMind or xAI were invited, or whether any absence reflected scheduling, policy disagreement or Vatican preference. The published speaker list confirms Anthropic’s role and does not list those other labs, but it does not provide a full invitation record.
It is also unclear how much practical policy influence the encyclical will have. It is a major Catholic teaching document, but AI rules will still be shaped by governments, courts, companies and international bodies.
What’s Next
The next test is whether the Vatican follows the encyclical with broader meetings involving rival AI labs, labor groups, civil society and defense policy voices. Policymakers and Catholic institutions are also likely to cite the document in debates over AI safety, worker protections, surveillance and military use.
Key Questions
What exactly happened?
Pope Leo XIV released his first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas, on May 25 and presented it at the Vatican. The document addresses AI’s effect on human dignity, work, truth, power and war.
Was the encyclical anti-AI?
No. The document says technology is not inherently evil and can serve human needs. Its warning is aimed at concentrated control, opaque systems and uses of AI that weaken human freedom or responsibility.
Why did Anthropic’s presence draw attention?
Anthropic was represented by co-founder Christopher Olah at an event where the encyclical warned about AI power in the hands of a few. OpenAI, Google DeepMind and xAI were not listed on the public program.
What remains unknown about the absent companies?
The available Vatican materials do not say whether those companies were invited, declined, or were not asked to participate. That makes the guest list’s meaning partly unresolved.
Why does this matter outside the Catholic Church?
The encyclical gives a major global religious institution’s view of AI governance at a time when governments are writing rules and companies are racing to deploy more powerful systems.
Source: Thorsten Meyer AI
