This post was originally published on this site
The new encyclical by Pope Leo XIV considers recent technological advances within the framework of Catholic Social Teaching, and the application of five areas of concern including: the dignity of the human person, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, care for our common home and peace (Int. 14). When employed carefully, these critical concerns allow for “responsible planning, the assessment of human and social impact, the inclusion of the most vulnerable, the promotion of digital literacy and guiding research and industry toward justice and peace” (Int. 14). In this, Pope Leo’s approach shares much in common with several recent Orthodox statements—including the Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, Crete 2016 and For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church (2020)—especially in his emphasis on both (1) human rights and dignity and (2) care for our neighbor and for our common home. Leo shares the concern that artificial intelligence is prone to recapitulation and even amplification of existing human biases, and thus its use demands careful discernment if we are to avoid exacerbating existing social and systemic injustices. Below, I will draw out these parallels between Pope Leo’s Magnificas Humanitas and our own authoritative, Orthodox texts in an effort to identify points of commonality and potential collaboration, and, in a few places, to suggest places where the emerging Orthodox teaching may benefit from further dialogue with Leo’s text.
Perhaps the most important and pervasive point of overlap between the Catholic and Orthodox approach to these questions is their shared emphasis on the privileged place of humankind within the created order. In the Catholic tradition this is expressed systematically in the language of Catholic social teaching and especially in the natural law tradition. This approach identifies five key areas of concern (see above), measuring both civic and religious institutions in accord with these principles. Recalling his much-publicized comments in recent interviews, Pope Leo is quick to remind us that the “litmus test for social justice today is the treatment of migrants, refugees, and those forced to move due to poverty, violence, climate change and environmental disasters. The way a society treats them reveals whether its sense of justice is driven by fear or by the spirit of fraternity.” Migrants are not a problem to be managed, but “a living image of the People of God on the move” (II.81). Leo’s connection between AI and other key labor issues like immigration echoes the link between technological advancement and social justice already established in the 2016 Encyclical of Crete: “Throughout its history, the Church was always on the side of the “weary and heavy laden” (VI.19).[1]
This common linking of technological advancement and immigration speaks to a deeper connection between Catholic and Orthodox approaches to these questions, insofar as both recognize that what is at stake is the dignity of the human person, especially insofar as they are reduced to a means of production or a fungible commodity. Our economic culture prioritizes profit and efficiency and often ties human worth to productivity. Yet recognizing the innate dignity of all humans resists the reduction of humans to efficient machines by reminding us that all humans are beings oriented towards wonder. Wonder is driven by an engine of genuine self-transcending love. While AI may be able to imitate answers, it can never really pose authentic questions, which stem always from a genuine interest in and love for that which is “not I.”As Leo writes, “I consider particularly insidious the [suggestion] that every person must earn or justify his or her own worth, to the point of attributing greater value to those who are more efficient or effective… The value of persons…does not depend on what they achieve or produce. There are rights that apply to everyone simply by virtue of being human, and no human power can legitimately deny or arbitrarily limit them” (II.51). An over emphasis on the productive capacity of individuals and society, rather than on fostering curiosity in self, other, and creation poses a threat, not only to the flourishing of individuals, but also to their capacity to see others as worthy of attention and care. The hyper individualism stemming from a production oriented cultural ethos is only intensified by the use of AI tools such as LLMs, which are notoriously over-affirming of their user’s views. The connection between productivity, individualism, and environmental harm made in Humanitas Magnifica is also found in For the Life of the World: “There is a close and indissoluble bond between our care of creation and our service to the body of Christ, just as there is between the economic conditions of the poor and the ecological conditions of the planet…those most egregiously harmed by the current ecological crisis will continue to be those who have the least” (VIII.76). Care for the poor and for our common home requires that we are first curious about neighbor and environment, a state of mind that is often antithetical to the fast paced, capitalist mindset prevalent among even well-intentioned Christians.
The practicality of the emphasis on reading AI over-dependence in contrast to the human capacity for wonder resonates with my own experiences in the university classroom, where I’ve observed a deadening of curiosity among my students. While on the surface this looks merely like laziness on the part of students, I believe that it is more insidious than this: neural pathways that support problem solving, reading comprehension, and critical thinking atrophy with continued use of AI interfaces.[2] In short, student use of AI undermines innate human wonder, fueled by delight, at the neurological level. Humankind is created to wonder and rejoice in the creation, to move towards union with their Creator through that very capacity to contemplate, and to satisfy their curiosity about the unknown. Not only does a growing overdependence on AI hinder students’ innate inclination to question and discover, but it also threatens to deaden their sense of wonder at self, at the other, and at the divine. And this deadening of wonder is what connects the overuse of AI with infringements upon human dignity. Leo writes: “when reason seriously examines [is curious about] human nature, it is capable of discovering values that apply to everyone, since they derive from human nature. If this task of inquiry were abandoned, it is conceivable that rights considered untouchable today might, in the future, end up being questioned or denied by those in power, perhaps after having obtained only an apparent consensus from populations that are frightened or manipulated” (II.56).
While some critics of Pope Leo, of his predecessor Francis, and of the Orthodox hierarchs allege that their teachings on issues like immigration and technology run beyond the bounds of their office, their shared emphasis on the foundations of human knowing and human labor in the creative exigences of human wonder remains purely and deeply theological. For, at its root, authentic wonder begins in doxology, as creation is carried beyond itself first in praise. When humans act as responsible cocreators with God, then advancements serve to alleviate the sufferings of the most vulnerable–refugees, migrants, those experiencing hunger and homelessness, those detained in ICE detention facilities. When technological advancements result in more wealth for already powerful individuals and companies, ecological degradation due to resource hungry data centers, and negative effects for vulnerable communities, the results are the lamentations of the creation, rather than its rejoicing. It is only through careful attention to those around us, to the creation of which we are a part, that we are able to move towards our ultimate goal, union with God.
As the great desert monastic, Evagrius of Pontus, taught, it is through contemplation of the creation, which is God’s love letter to us, that we gradually prepare ourselves to contemplate the Holy Trinity: “But God, out of his love, has provided creation as a mediator: it is like letters. He did this through his power and wisdom, that is, by the Son and the Spirit, in order that men might come to know and draw closer to, his love for them” (Letter to Melania, 41-45). While there are many positive applications of artificial intelligence, an undiscerning and overly dependent relationship upon AI risks forfeiting our birth right—contemplation of the creation in preparation for union with God. In the deadening of curiosity and wonder that results from such overdependence, issues that stem from a lack of recognition of, and attention to, the innate wondrousness and dignity of all (mistreatment of migrants, economic injustices, and environmental degradation that disproportionately affects the poor) will persist and worsen. The rise of AI thus demands that Orthodox Christians live into, and act out of, our rich theological anthropology, which affirms the dignity of all and the interconnectedness of humanity with the rest of creation.
Claire Koen, Ph.D., is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Religious and Theological Studies at Salve Regina University. She also serves as Communications Researcher for the Orthodox Observer, focusing on artificial intelligence (AI) and theology.
[1] This sentiment is also reflected in the For the Life of the World: “the Orthodox Church regards the plight of these displaced peoples as nothing less than a divine call to love, justice, service, mercy, and inexhaustible generosity” (VII.67).
[2] Mohammed Zeinu Hassen, “The Impact of AI on Students’ Reading, Critical Thinking, and Problem-Solving Skills,” American Journal of Education and Information Technology, 2025, 9, 82-90.
The post Common ground between Catholic and Orthodox approaches to AI appeared first on Orthodox Observer.
