Vatican: The Voice of Reason on Artificial Intelligence
Anne Beaufre: France’s Special Envoy for Artificial Intelligence and Chair of the Board of the École Normale Supérieure.
As artificial intelligence bewilders us and throws us off balance, many question the role humanity will play in a technological revolution that is already underway. Societies are divided, economic models are faltering, and politicians are floundering. Amid all this confusion, a unique voice emerges: the voice of the Vatican.
I just returned from Rome, where I participated in the Minerva Dialogues—meetings between theologians, thinkers from around the world, and technology leaders, especially from Silicon Valley. For nearly a decade, the Holy See has been promoting a coherent dialogue on artificial intelligence and fostering deep reflection on an issue that often generates binary positions.
Much like with climate change, the late Pope Francis was eager to initiate and engage in such dialogue, and his efforts have resulted in successive commitments to put “humans at the center” of technological developments. This was the motto that underpinned his messages on issues of public concern, including in his address to world leaders who gathered in Apulia last year for the G7 Summit.
Pope Francis sought to deepen and expand our perspective. He urged us to critically consider artificial intelligence, warning of its risks while also emphasizing its potential benefits to society.
Now, his successor, Pope Leon XIV, has reinforced this perspective. The new name he chose for himself, Leon, references Pope Leo XIII, the author of the encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor) in 1891, or the foundational text of Church doctrine in dealing with social issues, formulated in the wake of the social disruptions unleashed by the Industrial Revolution. Leon sees a clear similarity between the conditions faced by his namesake and the contemporary challenges posed by artificial intelligence. Since becoming Pope, Leon has repeatedly called for an ethical and structural response to technology.
At a time when industrialization was creating the working class and condemning many to poverty and exploitation, the encyclical Rerum Novarum sought to find balance. It drew a clear line between communism and capitalism, rejecting class struggle while recognizing private ownership as a natural right that allows people to enjoy the fruits of their labor. However, it also condemned the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few industrialists, encouraged workers to form unions, and acknowledged the role of the state in providing social protection.
Rerum Novarum represented a turning point in the Church’s life, which had previously sought to distance itself from many forces unleashed by modernity. With Leo XIII’s encyclical, the Church formulated its own social doctrine, which later led to legislation protecting Sunday rest, introducing family allowances, the emergence of labor unions, and ultimately, the foundational concepts of Christian democracy, which became a leading political force in Europe after the war.
Today, artificial intelligence raises similar questions about work, inequality, and the human condition. What does the dignity of work mean in the age of artificial intelligence? This revolution is not so much about material production as it is about intellectual labor. Does the proliferation of technology lead to wage reductions for the middle class? Does technology threaten sources of meaning and community, reducing humans to mere servants of technology? How can we maintain humanity’s capacity for judgment and creativity in the face of technology that is already being used to replace such roles? The crucial economic question is whether technology can be designed to complement human work rather than replace it.
This technology also raises new questions. What should we do about artificial intelligence applications that simulate “conversations” with the deceased, based on videos and audio recordings of the departed? What impact will this have on children’s learning? And how can we ensure that interaction with these tools is not limited to a few languages? Scientific consensus confirms the existence of about 7000 languages (not to mention thousands of other dialects) around the world, yet most large language models are trained on only a small fraction of the total.
Leon XIV, who has a background in mathematics, is neither a technology enthusiast nor a lover of it. He calls for a prudent and discerning approach: spending enough time to understand before passing judgment, humanizing dialogue rather than contributing to polarization. Like his predecessor Pope Leo XIII, he intends to take measures that ensure this technological revolution serves workers and the common good of society.
While the Vatican’s entry into such discussions may seem unexpected, it is certainly warranted. The world has about a billion Catholics, and the Church has a direct impact on over 200,000 kindergartens, schools, colleges, high schools, and universities, as well as more than 100,000 health institutions, care centers, and hospitals on every inhabited continent. It is poised to play a greater role, compared to many other institutions, in ensuring that artificial intelligence is employed as a powerful tool for inclusion. Through its words, it can remind us that technology should serve people and society, not the other way around.
The moral responsibility cannot be left solely to governments or technology giants. Creating fair, inclusive, and sustainable artificial intelligence requires bringing together diverse—sometimes marginalized—voices. Achieving this goal lies precisely in the spirit of the Minerva Dialogues run by the Vatican, a matter that concerns each of us, whether we are believers or not.
Indeed, the age of algorithms revives age-old and fundamental questions about the place of humans in the systems we create ourselves. The answers remain for us to find.
