What Did Pope Leo Ask Governments to Do About AI?

Pope Leo XIV asks governments for six things in Magnifica Humanitas: an identifiable chain of accountability, binding legal frameworks with independent oversight, regulation of data as a shared good rather than private property, protection of minors online, social conditions attached to automation, and an international framework limiting autonomous weapons. He also states plainly why he does not think an appeal to ethics will be enough.

Why ethics alone will not do it

The most quotable sentence in this part of the encyclical is a rebuke to the way technology policy is usually discussed:

“It is not enough to invoke ethics in the abstract; robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility are required.” (§106)

Leo explains the consequence of failing to supply those. Without them, change “will be governed only by technocratic thinking and presented as necessary and inevitable, ultimately imposing rules shaped by those who control data, infrastructure and computing power” (§106).

He goes further, and this is the passage that separates him from the industry conversation about “alignment.” Making a system more moral is not sufficient if a handful of people decide what the morality is:

“Otherwise, those who control AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of these systems. A more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few.” (§107)

What he asks for instead is political involvement “capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating, and of protecting the opportunities for communities still to be able to participate and ask questions” (§107). A government willing to be slow is an unusual thing to request, and he requests it knowingly, calling prudence and “at times, a slower pace” an exercise of “responsible care for the human family” rather than opposition to progress (§106).

The six asks

Accountability with a name attached. Responsibility must be defined “at every stage: from those who design and develop these systems to those who use them and rely on them for concrete decisions” (§105). Because internal processes are often opaque, Leo asks for the concrete ability to identify “who must ‘account’ for decisions, justify them, monitor them, and, when necessary, challenge them and remedy any harm caused” (§105).

Oversight where public goods and rights are touched. Use of AI in those areas must be “guided by clear criteria and effective oversight, grounded in participation and subsidiarity,” and communities “must not be reduced to passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere” (§108).

Data regulated as a common good. This is the ask most likely to surprise readers, and it comes straight from Catholic teaching on property rather than from technology policy:

“Moreover, ownership of data cannot be left solely in private hands but must be appropriately regulated. Data is the product of many contributors and should not be treated as something to be sold off or entrusted to a select few.” (§108)

He asks for creative thinking about managing data “as a common or shared good, in a spirit of participation” (§108). The premise underneath is the universal destination of goods, the principle that creation is meant for everyone and that private ownership, while legitimate, carries obligations toward the common good.

Transparency in what platforms select and protection of personal data. On public policy, Leo asks for norms “so that the decision-making behind content selection and its development becomes more transparent and protects personal data” (§137), alongside support for serious journalism and forums for debate.

Protection of minors, with the burden off parents. Leo is specific here in a way encyclicals usually are not. He asks legislators to set age limits and to hold “service providers accountable rather than shifting the whole burden of control onto families,” with specific protections “against all forms of online sexual exploitation and violence” (§142). He notes first that “it is difficult for parents by themselves to resist the influence of business models that monetize attention and time” (§142).

Social criteria attached to automation. Every introduction of automation “should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining and participation of workers,” and retraining must be accessible so “the cost of adaptation does not fall solely on individuals” (§156).

And one international ask

On weapons the language stops being consultative. Leo asks for “a shared framework, also at the international level, in order to curb the technological arms race and ensure robust protection for civilians and the infrastructures necessary for their survival” (§200), together with the requirement that the decision to use lethal force “cannot be delegated to opaque or automated processes, but must remain under effective, self-aware and responsible human control” (§200).

What he is not asking for

Leo names the concentration of power without proposing a mechanism to break it, observing that control over platforms, infrastructure, data and computing power “does not rest with States, but with major economic and technological actors” who “effectively set the conditions for access, determine the rules of visibility and shape the very possibilities for participation” (§95).

Which regulatory design serves these ends best is prudential, and faithful Catholics disagree about it. The principle that consequential decisions about a person must remain traceable to a responsible human being is not prudential. That one is settled, and the encyclical treats it as settled.

Every section reference is to Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas (15 May 2026). The full guide to the encyclical is here.

Related

• Can an Algorithm Be Held Responsible? What the Church Says
• What Does Magnifica Humanitas Say About AI Weapons?