Strange times, indeed, when the Catholic Church releases an unprecedentedly current encyclical regarding artificial intelligence (AI), human dignity, and the continued impact of environmental destruction (Magnifica Humanitas). These issues go beyond the rallying cries of environmental destruction, the costs to communities where data centers are constructed, or even the cognitive degradations noted by researchers regarding individuals who rely too heavily on GenAI, particularly the youth as explored by MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training (for “cognitive surrender” see section 2.7). They take us to the kernel of democracy: political authority and sovereignty.
Within the swirl of players in these artificial intelligent expansions are expressions of politics and economics rooted in the people as well as politics and economics concentrated in the power of the few. Paired alongside potential cognitive surrender–the option to retreat to AI at the first sign of cognitive struggle–an inability to articulate and/or embody theologically informed political struggle necessary for democratic life.
This encyclical was quickly summarized by others (Massaro, 2026; Busch, 2026) and will receive little unpacking here.
Noticeable in the unveiling of Magnifica Humanitas was the presence of Cristoph Olah, co-founder of Anthropic AI, known for its own large-language model (LLM) Claude as well as its promotion of AI safety. This is noticeable, but not surprising, as the Pontifical Academy for Life forwarded the Rome Call for AI Ethics in 2020 and the resulting RenAIssance Foundation. Such work has been signed by Microsoft and IBM, though time will tell if such action was mere virtue signaling. This was well before the explosion of GenAI on college campuses, which appeared as a first dense transfer point of use by a population.
What some saw as much-needed collaboration between church and state can also be interpreted as a, “keep your friends close, but keep your (fr)enemies closer” situation. While “enemies” may eschew the human dignity proposed of Magnifica Humanitas, there are other interesting dynamics at play during the unveiling. Keen eyes would notice omissions; namely, heads of state.
Noted at the outset of chapter 3, Pope Leo XIV draws upon Pope Francis from Laudato Si’ to direct his attention toward technocratic power. Pope Francis described this paradigm as, “accept[ing] every advance in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings” (§ 109). Technocracy is not new, but it has received renewed scrutiny in this age of unfettered AI expansion.
At its most benign, technocracy can be understood as the rule of experts. Modern iterations of technocracy find a potent mouthpiece in Peter Thiel, most famous for being a co-founder of PayPal and Palantir. Thiel said the quiet part out loud in his 2009 essay “The Education of a Libertarian,” when he plainly noted, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” In response to the 2008 financial crisis, he retorted, “For those of us who are libertarian in 2009, our education culminates with the knowledge that the broader education of the body politic has become a fool’s errand.” Sorry, public education.
Thiel desires to escape, but not via politics; too messy. He wants to get beyond all that. The invoking of the first person in relation to the compatibility of freedom and democracy relinquishes any collective responsibility that beleaguers Thiel’s desire for a libertarian vision that exempts him from all social and democratic decorum. The desire for freedom—unbound, to cheekily employ the name of publication—from pre-existing political conceptions is what pushes Thiel toward his accelerationist programs of cyberspace, outer space, and seasteading (settling the ocean). While billionaire greed has captured cyberspace with the likes of Meta, Amazon, and Google, and outer space with the same cast of characters plus Elon Musk, Thiel is still working on seasteading; yet current projects seek freedom from nation-state oversight and regulation catered toward entrepreneurial commerce projects of the ultra wealthy..
Thiel was never quite clear how such spaces become fully exempt from the formation of a polis even under different parameters, merely that technology ought to provide a terminal velocity to escape our current entrapment. Is this technocratic vision a rule of experts or is it merely the compulsive drive to enclose all means of production? For the average person, this future is less technocracy and more technofeudalism. Under such constrictions of life, where has the alleged freedom that Thiel desires gone?
The education of the libertarian devolves into the delusions of the despot, as the political fantasy of this libertarian freedom becomes tenable only through the exploitation of the many. It is not surprising Thiel has aligned himself with political leaders in countries exhibiting declining democracy with the attendant ascendancy of the technocratic elite. Taking Thiel’s own statements and these actions, does he seek freedom or does he seek a form of control where he shapes a centrality of power that benefits himself?
It should be noted that Thiel’s tech company, Palantir, partners with the US government. While Palantir is a corporate entity, the avowed capitalist Thiel is out to turn a profit, fulfilling contracts for the very political apparatus Thiel believes untenable. Government spending knows neither bounds nor adversaries, apparently.
Thiel is no stranger to the world of AI, backing The Primary (formerly Objection) whose white paper proposed an AI index of journalism, which has now gone live. It appears the expertise of journalists are not wanted in this technocracy. Thiel recently relocated to Argentina, seeking affinity with Argentina’s Javier Milei. In perhaps the most intriguing turn of events, Thiel recently provided his own retorts to the Vatican and Pope Leo XIV, with accusations that Pope Leo is “working for the Chinese Communists.” Though, with Thiel’s antichrist lectures, he is no stranger on going tête-à-tête with the Vatican.
In what can be interpreted as a slight, it was not Peter Thiel present at the Vatican for Magnifica Humanitas, but Cristoph Olah. Anthropic’s stance on AI safety and Claude’s Constitution presented a different voice that broke through the noise of this current GenAI onslaught, even amidst some recent ominous-sounding job listings. Promoting the necessity to safeguard human dignity is certainly a good, but Olah also notes critical places where the Church’s voice is most needed.
This tableau is kaleidoscopic, shifting with each turn, each new iteration of AI, each new tech oligarch that rises into the spotlight. It bears repeating, no nation-state leader was present. The presence of technological elites in the Vatican at this moment indicates a shift in perspective concerning democracy. Put bluntly, it is not just human labor that is at stake; democracy hangs in the balance. This is briefly expanded upon in only three sections of the encyclical (§132–134), yet it focuses primarily upon truth, power, and hubris, not on any function of democracy within the parameters of theological imagination providing the foundation of the state.
With AI leaders acknowledging many unknowns in what they were doing, the technology is rushing toward its own miraculous unveiling. Even with Olah’s remarks to Pope Leo XIV concerning signs of consciousness in Claude, Anil Seth offers his own insights and doubts. But what might this miracle entail?
Whereas Schmitt interpreted the exception of jurisprudence to facilitate the foundation of nation-states and the subsequent withdrawal of theology behind the masquerade of secularism, AI may yet precipitate the dissolution of the nation-state. For oligarchs like Thiel, the ascendancy of the technostate is the goal. It is the phantasmatic desire that Peter Thiel wishes to make reality; an accelerant that finally unravels liberal democracy. But when is the moment?
Schmitt proves useful here: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception” (5, translation by George Schwab (1985)). It is an interesting bind. Schmitt’s backdrop of 1920s Germany is not the same as 2026. When Schmitt invokes his “he,” it is most definitely a human being, and assuredly a male. Yet, current frantic competitions in this AI race would ultimately render this “he” a computer. This author has not yet reached the plane of ethics where a computer is regarded as equal to human consideration.
This seemingly infinite capacity of technology is countered by the finitude and contingency of human life. Magnifica Humanitas notes,
Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognizing the face of God and others. Indeed, and precisely because we experience limits—vulnerability, suffering and failure—we can recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of others. In this same experience, we remain capable of intuiting a fraternity greater than ourselves and of perceiving injustice as a scandal. (§122)
Magnifica Humanitas is not only institutional naval gazing. Humanity is called to return to the messiness that places us before our neighbors. It is through leaning upon our shared struggles, commonality of limitations, and inviolable dignity that the model of libertarian individualism of Thiel might be met by a more compassionate democracy.
This is a differently empowered humanity. It does not give into the propaganda that foments rapacious consumption which only lines the pockets of techno-elite. Instead, it fosters a healthy skepticism of those who desire sovereign exemptions, those who seek to sew discord, and those who fundamentally devalue our inviolable human dignity. In this vein, Magnifica Humanitas is a rallying cry that we, the people, are the means of political power.
Pope Leo XIV’s publishing of Magnifica Humanitas in accordance with Rerum Novarum also signals a deeper connection to workers’ rights and a collective struggle. Thiel’s liberation vision is impoverished when compared to the political vision of Pope Leo XIV. There are no calls for complete prohibition, though special attention has been dedicated that its usage within war and domination must be disarmed.
This is a vision of political and theological struggle, where we must collectively wrestle with the ramifications of these technological advances as it relates to our humanity. More importantly, we must struggle together to ask ourselves what kind of humanity we want to become; in relation to ourselves, to our neighbors, and to God.
Tech companies are already embedded into the running of contemporary nation-states, with the United States already exhibiting indicators of democratic decline and oligarchic rule. The Vatican, then, is a voice from the proverbial wilderness and is a breath of fresh air. There is an irony that a decidedly non-democratic entity reclaims its own power and authority to offer a championing of human dignity and democracy should not be minimized, especially when Pope Leo XIV has already met with a smattering of high-profile democratic leaders.
This reassertion of theology and theological ethics represents a different way out of the quagmire. This way out foregrounds our humanness. It is precisely the uniqueness of our human condition that fundamentally makes us dependent upon one another. The political vacuum that Thiel desires simply does not exist. Furthermore, AI cannot provide a substitute for such dependency, as it robs humanity of its inherent dignity. It is only through our magnificent humanity that such a political reality is possible.
