Extract from Eureka Street
- Home
- Vol 36 No 10
- Pope Leo's first encyclical is a challenge to technocratic power
- Andrew Hamilton
- 03 June 2026
At first reading, Pope Leo XIV’s first Encyclical reminded me of a fast bowler walking back to the fence before running in to bowl. Over a third of the document had passed before AI was discussed. The structure of the Encyclical on which I shall focus in this article, however, does more than deal with AI. It also lays out the Pope’s way of proceeding in reflecting on any issue in society and in the Church. His concern will be to ask the deeper human questions behind the immediate topic, to focus on the persons affected by it, to draw on the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, and to engage with the wider world.
In the introduction to the Encyclical, Pope Leo encapsulates the deeper issues raised by AI in two Scriptural stories to which he often returns. They represent two ways of developing the world: the building of the Tower of Babel and Nehemiah’s reconstruction of the Temple after the Jewish Exile. Pope Leo sees in the Tower an exercise of technology in the service of uniformity without reference to God. Nehemiah’s work involved careful discussion among all the people, sharing tasks and listening to complaints, prayer, and shared responsibility.
These represent the drama of our times: the conflict between two visions. One is driven by greed and the desire for power. It imposes developments on people as necessary or as inevitable. The other is discerning, consultative, seeks agreement and is attentive to the effects of projects on human beings. The subsequent treatment of AI makes clear what these two approaches involve and the seriousness of the choice between them.
Pope Leo then claims his right to share in the public conversation about AI. He responds to those who claim that the Church is authoritarian or that it has no place in public conversation about economics, technology or war by insisting that the duty of the Church is to reflect on faith as it is lived in concrete human situations. It also contributes to the necessary public deliberation about human development. Christian faith clearly inspires the vision of humanity presented in the Encyclical, which, however, is designed to encourage, not to conclude, serious conversation.
The Encyclical then rehearses the tools needed to build the kind of society in which AI will serve the growth of human beings. Their relevance extends beyond the Encyclical to the Pope’s address to other issues. He outlines the Catholic reflection on society by Popes and other Christians, known as Catholic Social Teaching (CST). Beginning with his namesake, Pope Leo XIII, it is enshrined in the statements by Popes, Church Councils and agencies responding to changing social developments in the world. All but a few footnotes in the Encyclical refer to these Catholic sources. The principles developed in this engagement provide a grid of questions for reflecting on the multiple challenges posed by AI to human society.
"These represent the drama of our times: the conflict between two visions. One is driven by greed and the desire for power. It imposes developments on people as necessary or as inevitable. The other is discerning, consultative, seeks agreement and is attentive to the effects of projects on human beings."
The core principles of CST are the inalienable value of each human being and the interdependence essential for their growth. From these flow the need in any society to seek the common good, the consequent limitations of the right to private property, the importance of social organisation beginning at family level and rising to national and international governance, the interdependence of all in society, and the responsibility to meet the needs of those most in need. Each of these principles needs to be embodied in personal commitment and the structured relationships in society.
In the body of the Encyclical, Pope Leo draws on the principles of social justice to reflect on the effects of AI on humanity in the present state of the world and on how to respond to them. He addresses particularly the prevailing technocratic paradigm: “the tendency to let the logic of efficiency, control and profit alone shape personal, social and economic decisions.” He describes its dire effects in increasingly strong terms in the course of the document.
He begins by considering the technology of dominance and the relationships that threaten the human world in the interconnected spheres of truth, work, education and international relationships, including war. In each sphere he sets the human vision of respect and cooperation and its way of proceeding against the rule of technology built around control, wealth and power. These considerations lead to the central concern of the Encyclical about how humanity can be safeguarded by disarming words, peace through justice, seeing the world through the eyes of victims, negotiation, diplomacy and multiculturalism. He concludes by again contrasting the culture of power and the civilisation of love.
The Encyclical does not dictate how Pope Leo will respond to further issues concerning the world and the Catholic Church. It suggests, however, his future way of proceeding, deciding what questions he will ask and the shape of the answers to them. In the Encyclical, for example, his emphasis on the necessity of a transparent exchange of experience and accountability in human affairs underlies his brief endorsement of synodality and of the accountability of ministers in the Church.
Subsidiarity becomes the guiding principle for governance and pastoral life. It involves recognising and supporting the faithful and intermediary ecclesial organisations as they carry out their responsibilities, valuing charisms and skills and avoiding any form of paternalism that suffocates evangelical freedom. In practical terms, the participation of the baptized in decision-making processes and their shared responsibility in the mission are achieved through genuine, rather than merely nominal, participatory bodies. (87; see also 89.)
These are part of a properly human and Christian way of proceeding in contrast to one based on power and secrecy.
More centrally in the Encyclical, his treatment of gender fluidity, the use of technology to replace human agency and intelligence, and the removal of the human limits inherent in life and death are based on a high understanding of human dignity and of the unique value and path of each human being. We should expect that in future treatments of social issues the Pope will reflect the same understanding of human development, one that includes acceptance of the human condition with its limits, mortality and griefs.
When judged by political grids such as the dichotomies between progressive and conservative or left and right, Pope Leo’s attitudes will defy any simple characterisation. When judged by the more subtle and full understanding of humanity developed in the Encyclical, however, his positions will seem coherent and predictable, even if many people will not accept them. Such differences, however, are to be welcomed. They are the stuff of the respectful public conversation that the Encyclical demands.
No comments:
Post a Comment