Have you heard about the agnostic, dyslexic insomniac? He stays up all night wondering if there’s a Claude. Oh my Claude! I cannot believe all that I am reading and hearing this morning and it is blowing my mind (which the AI world now calls a “meat computer”). How do I unpack this best? I must start with Pope Leo XIV…I absolutely LOVE the guy. I didn’t think I could love a Pope more than Pope Francis, who seemed like a liberal and humble breath of fresh air to a Vatican riddled with corruption, but I have to say that the new American Pontiff is doing an amazing job of actually being what I believe a Pope is supposed to be, a spiritual leader of the world. To be fair, Islam no longer has the equivalent of the Pope. Islam, particularly Sunni Islam (about 85-90% of all Muslims), has no ordained clergy, no hierarchical church structure, and no central authority that can speak definitively for all believers. The concept is theologically rejected since the Prophet Muhammad is considered the final prophet, and no human institution can claim his authority after him. There were Caliphs over the centuries, but our Turkish friend Ataturk abolished the last Caliph in 1924. Judaism is radically decentralized by both theology and historical circumstance. The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD by Rome eliminated the last institutional center of Jewish religious authority. The Temple priesthood, the Sanhedrin (the supreme rabbinic court), was such an authority but that required a central location. What survived and evolved was a religion specifically adapted to diaspora, to functioning without a center, without a territory, without a pope. The Talmudic tradition that emerged from that catastrophe is essentially an argument, literally structured as competing rabbinic opinions across centuries rather than a doctrine handed down from authority. Hinduism takes decentralization even further than Judaism or Sunni Islam, to the point where the question almost doesn’t compute within Hindu theological categories. Spiritual authority in Hinduism flows through the guru-shishya (teacher-student) relationship. Most Westerners would immediately say that for Buddhists the Dalai Lama is like the Pope. He is certainly the most globally recognized Buddhist figure, but his actual authority within Buddhism is considerably more limited than his public profile suggests. The current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso (the 14th), has himself repeatedly said he does not speak for all Buddhists. It goes back to the Buddha himself, Siddhartha Gautama, who died around 483 BC. His final instructions to his disciples were essentially: “Be a lamp unto yourself.” So, I’m putting my chips on the Pope for spiritual leadership. It helps me to do so that Leo is both American and totally with it.
Pope Leo has just issued his first encyclical called Magnifica Humanitas, or Latin for “Magnificent Humanity”. An encyclical is a formal letter written by the Pope and addressed to the Church and to the wider world on matters of doctrine, morality, or social teaching. It is an authoritative teaching documents, binding on Catholics in matters of faith and morals but not technically invoking infallibility like an ex-cathedra pronouncemenT (used only twice in modern history: the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption of Mary in 1950). It’s a BIG deal to Catholics, who are expected to give it serious assent, and dissent from encyclical teaching is considered a serious matter. It seems to me that everyone needs to pay attention to this document. To put this in context, the last six big encyclicals were Laudato Si in 2015 on the environment, Humanae Vitae in 1968 on contraception, Pacem in Terris in 1963 on nuclear proliferation, Mit Brennender Sorge (written in German) in 1937 on Nazi racial ideology, Quadragesimo Anno in 1931 on economic policy during the Depression, and Rerum Novarum in 1891 on labor v. capital from the Industrial Revolution. These encyclicals pretty much define western history and the pressing issues of the day for the past 150 years.
Until now, it is generally considered that the most significant encyclical was Rerum Novarum, written as man struggled with capitalism and the rise of socialism. It asserted that workers had rights, that capital had obligations, that neither pure laissez-faire capitalism nor socialism was acceptable, and that the state had a role in protecting the poor. It is essentially the founding document of the Catholic Church’s engagement with modern economics and politics. Strangely enough, it was promulgated by Pope Leo XIII (which makes me nod towards Leo XIV for his naming prescience). The encyclicals since then have either been a case of closing the barn door after the cow got out (Nazi racism) or simply too controversial to be widely impactful (contraception). Pacem in Terris arrived during the Cuban Missile Crisis aftermath and had genuine political impact. The encyclical’s power rests entirely on the papal institution and the respect it holds. That is precisely why the absence of anything similar in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, as we discussed, is not merely organizational but reflects fundamentally different answers to the question of how divine authority operates in human history. J.D. Vance may think Leo needs to stay in his lane, but I would argue that the world appreciates, now more than ever, someone of recognized moral authority, especially someone in touch with modern society as Pope Leo seems to be, stepping up to lend clarity to genuinely confusing matters that impact both worldly and ethical concerns.
Like his 19th-century predecessor, Pope Leo XIV is consciously tackling what is expected to be one of the most pressing issues facing humanity over the course of his papacy. This encyclical is 42,300 words long (half the size of most modern novels). He has six key themes:
AI is not human, it can process data fast but falls short of understanding “what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean.”
Humane labor practices and just wages are essential. Automation is not just about efficiency, but must incorporate the “dignity of the worker, the right to sufficient remuneration and the genuine possibility of participating in society.
No technology can take away the dignity of ordinary human beings.
Beware the temptation of erecting a new Tower of Babel. Technology as a common global language has its limitations and we must avoid thinking that uniformity and standardization can replace the soul.
The encyclical cites research and makes concrete recommendations rather than rely solely on religious dogma. The focus is on child development and social media, but also on data ownership and weapons of war.
Human life is beautiful and is the vessel of a greater power. We are not “meat computers”, but rather “the grandeur of humanity, in which God has made his dwelling.”
Pope Leo had help with this encyclical. He did not turn to Elon Musk or Sam Altman for guidance, but did seek out the folks at Anthropic (the father of my personal guiding light…Claude). That’s should give far greater weight and credibility to this teaching because it is grounded in a very compelling balance of spirituality and modern information science. I have been waiting for authoritative guidance on AI and I think we now have the beginnings of that. By contrast, I cannot help notice (thanks to Scott Galloway) that Elon Musk’s IPO of SpaceX, an initiative that will make Elon the first Trillionaire and will leave him omnipotent and God-like in the space exploration/exploitation game as well as the AI and connectivity spaces, filed its S-1 with the SEC (a perfunctory bore to Elon, I’m sure) and mentioned AI 1,250 times in the document. That compares to the Bible, which mentions Jesus Christ only 963 times. I’d rather follow Leo to heaven than follow Elon to wherever he’s going.