Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, upon its May 25 publication drew major interest across the globe, but few other Christian traditions have yet reacted to it. Those most interested in the work have been secular, rather than other churches. Even in America, the response to the in-depth encyclical has been spearheaded by TIME, Newsweek, and CBS News, rather than from other churches.
While other denominations have discussed and released their own statements about the use and future of AI, the limited response to Pope Leo’s 42,000-word statement is surprising. Furthermore, the fact that many of these statements from other churches share similar sentiments would lend themselves to making public statements of agreement, especially following such a positive public response to the Pope’s statement. Official statements from Baptist and Lutheran groups share similarities to, and in many places agree with each other about, the risks of AI and the dangers of overreliance and lack of transparency surrounding many of these projects.
The mainline Protestant Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) released a 2025 statement focused on specific issues surrounding the implementation of AI and its possible harms:
“The scale and pace of AI development, implementation, and change make it close to impossible for legislators to formulate regulations that will safeguard human rights and protect vulnerable communities. As AI is put to use in novel situations, without sufficient oversight of its capabilities, unintended consequences arise. Legislators scramble to create boundaries and expectations after the fact.”
These concerns over the speed at which AI is progressing, as well as interests in proper oversight, are also seen within the Pope’s encyclical. However, this work was published prior to the encyclical and has less of a holistic view of AI and its place in human society than the papal document. Many other churches’ documents share these sentiments, with varying views on how AI should be used in regard to their respective churches.
Meanwhile, one of the few direct responses to Magnifica Humanitas comes from Orthodox Observer, the official publication of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Their article covers not only the traditions that the encyclical is based in, most notably its similarities to Leo XIII’s encyclical Res Novae, but also Leo’s argument that the control over AI and data allows for the possibility of enabling a “Technocratic Paradigm,” where efficiency is prioritized over human dignity.
The Observer’s article also includes the testimony and analysis of scholars and members of the clergy. These comments are in agreement with Leo on many of his points and show that other denominations are in favor of many of the ideas that Leo is proposing. This idea of interfaith cooperation can be seen with a statement by Rev. Dr. Nicholas Khazarian:
“Its ecumenical dimension is explicit and compelling. The challenges posed by artificial intelligence—and the ethical questions it raises—cannot be addressed in isolation.”
This encouragement of coordination and similar ideals regarding the development and regulation of AI could have the possibility of encouraging a more unified discussion about more concrete plans to address the issues of AI between different denominations. The encyclical’s scale has already opened the door to a more comprehensive view of AI, beyond individual discussions about data ownership and privacy.
As AI continues to grow more and more prevalent throughout our daily lives and becomes increasingly supported and integrated within our institutions, many predict that we will be faced with new or magnified issues because of it. It is because of this that the Roman Catholic Church and many others have made calls for a more proactive approach to AI regulation, rather than, as Leo himself states, “observing from afar and merely hoping for the best.”
Some of the fears that Leo has shown stem not only from the effects of AI on society and on those who work to keep it running but also from some of the principles that have been seen in the culture around AI. These ideas of “transhumanism” or “posthumanism” both see the flaws of humanity as something that can be overcome by technology. The encyclical points to posthumanism in particular as being a cause for concern, as the Pope clearly states, “If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable, or less worthy.”
While some have argued that the links between AI development and these ideas are far from concrete, the focus on this possible connection by the Pope shows that there is concern over who should have control when considering the future of AI development and whether they will share similar goals or similar hopes for the future as Christian groups.
So far, churches have focused more on the current issues of AI and shared concerns over possible future issues of privacy and the rights of those whose data is used. Meanwhile, the encyclical has opened up the discussion of the development of AI into not just one topic to be addressed by church leaders, but a discussion at the forefront of not just technological development, but for the development of society at large.
Paul Anagnostopoulos is a summer 2026 intern with the Institute on Religion & Democracy as well as a rising senior at Tulane University.
More from IRD:
‘That Hideous Strength’: a Fictional Tale Becoming Reality?
AI: Christian Churches Respond
Dead and Loving It? The False Knowledge of AI Death Apps
No comments yet
Leave a Reply