At the Web Summit, Bishop Paul Tighe, spokesperson for the Vatican, shares Pope Leo XIV’s vision on artificial intelligence : amid risks for jobs, democracy, and human dignity, the Catholic Church urges not to leave the future of AI in the hands of a few tech companies.
And what if the future of artificial intelligence were questioned not only by scientists, entrepreneurs, and governments, but also by the Catholic Church?
An unusual interlocutor in a debate dominated by OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and the big Silicon Valley companies. In fact, the Vatican has decided to step directly into the conversation on artificial intelligence, with a position that deserves attention even outside the religious world.
At the center of the discussion on the Lisbon stage is Magnifica Humanitas , the first encyclical of Pope Leo XIV, dedicated to the protection of the human person in the age of artificial intelligence.
The message is clear: AI can represent an extraordinary opportunity for humanity, but its development must not be left exclusively in the hands of those who own the technologies, the data, and the economic power to build it.
And above all, according to the Vatican, the fact that a machine can replace a human being does not necessarily mean that it should.
Why did Pope Leo XIV dedicate his first encyclical to artificial intelligence?
The decision to dedicate the first encyclical to artificial intelligence is not accidental.
According to Paul Tighe, even the name chosen by the new Pontiff already indicated his priorities. Leo XIII, the last Pope to bear that name before him, addressed the consequences of the Industrial Revolution with the encyclical Rerum Novarum , focusing mainly on workers’ conditions and on economic and social transformations.
Today, more than a century later, humanity is facing another revolution: the cognitive and technological one.
If the Industrial Revolution transformed manual labor and production systems, artificial intelligence is also intervening in intellectual professions, communication, education, and human relationships.
Tighe acknowledges that AI can produce extraordinary results, but warns that its consequences could go far beyond technology and the economy.
The reference is to what is called an anthropological disruption: a transformation of the way in which human beings build their identity, live in community, and develop their abilities.
The issue, therefore, is not only to understand what artificial intelligence will be able to do, but, according to the Vatican, also to understand what might change in the way we live.
The Vatican’s 5 principles for artificial intelligence in the service of humanity
But what does it actually mean to develop human-centric artificial intelligence?
It is an expression now used by many tech companies, which claim they want to put people at the center of their products and services.
For the Vatican, however, it is not enough to make AI easier to use or more efficient. We must start from a broader reflection on what allows human beings to live and thrive.
During the panel, Tighe outlined five fundamental dimensions of Pope Leo XIV’s vision.
1. Human dignity
The value of a person cannot depend on their productivity, their economic usefulness, their level of education, or their professional position.
This principle is particularly important at a time in history when artificial intelligence can perform activities that until recently necessarily required human intervention.
If an algorithm can do a person’s job faster and more cheaply, this does not mean that the person has less value.
2. Community and social relationships
Human beings do not live in isolation. Family, work, and social institutions are fundamental environments for individual and collective growth.
Technology should strengthen these relationships, not weaken them.
3. Solidarity and mutual care
No one is completely self-sufficient. Human beings depend on one another throughout their entire lives.
The risk is that artificial intelligence will help create an increasingly individualistic society, in which collaboration is replaced by competition.
4. Inclusiveness and diversity
The benefits of AI should not be reserved for the richest countries, large corporations, or the most technologically advanced communities.
Tighe also highlighted the risk of losing minority languages, cultural traditions, and knowledge systems that have never been digitized and therefore risk being excluded from the data used to train artificial intelligence systems.
5. Environmental sustainability
Artificial intelligence requires enormous amounts of energy, water, and natural resources.
Technological development must therefore also take into account its environmental impact, especially in relation to the growth of data centers and the infrastructure needed to power AI models.
These five Vatican principles outline a vision of artificial intelligence that is much broader than mere technological efficiency.
The Vatican and Silicon Valley: a dialogue that began ten years ago
The relationship between the Catholic Church and the tech industry did not begin with ChatGPT.
Tighe recounted that the first dialogues between the Vatican and some representatives of Silicon Valley began about ten years ago.
Even then, some leading figures in the tech sector had turned to the Church to signal that artificial intelligence was entering a new phase of development and that its social consequences could be enormous.
One of the first topics addressed was precisely the future of work.
The same representatives of the tech industry had predicted that AI could replace not only manual tasks, but also intellectual professions such as lawyers, accountants, and other skilled workers.
Among the possible solutions discussed was also universal basic income.
But according to Tighe, this perspective risks overlooking a fundamental aspect: work is not only about earning a salary.
It is also a source of identity, dignity, relationships, and personal fulfillment. Through work, people build friendships, participate in society, and feel that they can make a concrete contribution to the world.
Replacing a salary does not necessarily replace everything a person loses when their job disappears.
This is a particularly important reflection in the current debate on automation, where there is frequent talk of productivity and cost savings, but much less of the social and psychological consequences of replacing human labor.
“Silicon Valley does not have a monopoly on what is good for humanity”
One of the most interesting parts of Paul Tighe’s speech concerns the power of large tech companies.
The bishop acknowledges that the people who work in Silicon Valley are extraordinarily competent and well-prepared. But this does not mean that they automatically have all the answers about what is best for humanity.
Through his encyclical, Pope Leo XIV invites us not to consider the development of artificial intelligence as an inevitable process, in front of which society can only watch and hope that everything turns out for the best.
On the contrary, according to Tighe, it is necessary to understand how these technologies work, to observe the consequences of the decisions made by companies, and to create mechanisms that make it possible to hold them accountable.
The risk is that a relatively small group of companies and privileged individuals will end up deciding the future of billions of people, without necessarily representing their interests.
The Vatican is therefore calling for a much broader discussion, involving governments, businesses, researchers, civil society, and especially communities that usually have no voice in decision-making processes.
This is not about stopping innovation, says Tighe, but about questioning the idea that those who build technology should also be the only ones to decide how to use it.
Can artificial intelligence put democracy at risk?
Another topic addressed during the Web Summit was the relationship between artificial intelligence and democracy.
According to Tighe, political and social polarization had already been growing long before the arrival of generative AI.
Social media helped amplify pre-existing divisions, encouraging the creation of communities in which people mostly interact with those who share their opinions.
Artificial intelligence could further worsen this situation.
The ability to generate increasingly realistic fake images, videos, audio, and content makes it easier to spread disinformation and manipulate public opinion.
Tighe distinguishes between disinformation, namely the intentional creation of false content to cause harm, and misinformation, that is, the unintentional spread of incorrect information by people who believe it to be true.
In the Pope’s open letter, the concept of disarmament of artificial intelligence appears again, which does not concern only the use of technology to build weapons, but also the need to disarm a mentality that is increasingly inclined to see those who think differently as enemies.
Tighe proposed a very simple reflection: when we find content on social media that perfectly confirms our opinions, we should be even more careful before sharing it.
The speed of digital communication risks eliminating a fundamental space for human beings: that of reflection, analysis, and critical thinking.
The Vatican wants to listen also to those excluded from the AI revolution
The Catholic Church’s commitment to artificial intelligence is not limited to publishing documents and statements.
Tighe explained that several Vatican dicasteries are studying the consequences of AI in their respective fields, including education, healthcare, work, and war.
A particularly interesting aspect, however, concerns the attention to people who normally do not participate in discussions about artificial intelligence.
Tighe cited the example of New York delivery riders, about 60,000 workers who deliver food by bicycle through digital platforms.
Algorithms can turn these workers into competitors, assigning deliveries to those who are faster and cheaper. A system that risks destroying human relationships and fueling constant competition.
Yet these communities have begun to organize through collaborative initiatives, cooperatives, and forms of association to protect their interests and improve working conditions.
The bishop also mentioned the growing debate in the United States on the construction of data centers, infrastructure that is essential for the development of artificial intelligence, but that raises questions about energy consumption, environmental impact, and the ability of local communities to influence the decisions of large tech companies.
Will artificial intelligence ever be as intelligent as a human being?
Towards the end of the panel, a particularly interesting question arose: if artificial intelligence is now able to solve extremely complex mathematical and scientific problems, could our idea of human intelligence change?
Human intelligence, he explained, is not only mathematical, scientific, or rational. It also includes intuition, relational ability , empathy, and an understanding of what allows people to grow together.
These are dimensions that, according to the bishop, cannot simply be replicated through calculations and sequences of data.
This distinction is also present in the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas : artificial intelligence systems can imitate some functions of human intelligence and surpass people in speed and computational power, but they do not live experiences, they do not know pain and joy, they do not mature through relationships, and they do not possess a moral conscience.
The Catholic Church does not fear AI. It fears that humanity will forget itself
It is striking to see the Vatican enter so directly into a discussion usually dominated by tech entrepreneurs, investors, and researchers.
The Catholic Church does not propose abandoning artificial intelligence or giving up technological progress. On the contrary, it recognizes its enormous potential for healthcare, education, scientific research, and many other sectors.
But it questions an increasingly widespread assumption in the tech industry: if something can be automated, then it must necessarily be automated.
Who decides what progress means? Who reaps the benefits? Who pays the costs? And what happens to people who risk no longer being considered economically useful?
