Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical (Teaching Document) Magnifica Humanitas is a sweeping 42,000 word moral, theological, and political intervention into the global debate on artificial intelligence, with a particular focus on how AI is reshaping the nature of warfare. At its core, the document argues that AI represents a civilizational turning point: a moment when humanity must choose between technologies that serve human dignity and those that erode it. His intervention continues Pope Francis’ concern the impact AI is having and will have on human flourishing.

While the scope of the encyclical covers all the key areas of human life – family, education, society, international relations, communications, politics, and war. This paper focuses on the references to warfare and AI.

AI Must be Disarmed

Leo’s most striking claim is that AI must be “disarmed” — a metaphor that extends far beyond military hardware. To “disarm” AI means rejecting the assumption technical prowess itself confers a type of moral agency, warning that AI risks concentrating power in the hands of corporations and governments, weakening human relationships, distorting truth, and undermining peace.

Response

Any version of moral agency requires human values which themselves arise out of received social and political ethics and religious and philosophical wisdom. Pope Leo identifies the automated dimensions of AI as a threat. The threat being the concentration of power into the sphere of certain governments and commercial bodies. Democratic countries will be aware of this threat and will legislate accordingly. Companies operating within democracies will be subject to national and super-national legislation. The greater threat will be from autocratic governments and unregulated commercial bodies who wish to exploit AI for malign purposes.

AI and Warfare

The encyclical’s most urgent concern is the militarization of AI. It argues that autonomous weapons systems — machines capable of selecting and attacking targets without meaningful human oversight — pose a moral threat. Thus:

• AI must never be permitted to make lethal decisions
  “No algorithm can make war morally acceptable,” he writes, emphasizing that removing human responsibility lowers the moral threshold for violence.
• Remote and automated warfare dehumanizes conflict
  Technologies that allow killing “without seeing the face of human beings” make violence easier, more abstract, and more politically palatable.
• AI accelerates conflict
  The encyclical warns that AI systems — especially those optimized for speed, prediction, and strategic dominance — risk creating a perpetual arms race, pushing nations toward “force without limits.”
• The traditional Just War framework is no longer adequate
  Leo argues that modern warfare, shaped by autonomous systems and algorithmic decision making, has outpaced the moral categories of classical just war theory. He calls for a new ethical framework grounded in human dignity, transparency, and accountability.

Response

While AI exacerbates such threats, modern methods of warfare have been increasingly reliant on technology for the past century. Technology has increased the destructive power of munitions but until recently lacked targeting precision resulting in increased collateral damage. Computerisation of weaponry has improved both precision of targeting the and amount of force applied to targets. As warfare is an ongoing feature of human life, the reduction of collateral damage and injury minimises suffering. It is the end of warfare as a means of resolving disputes which will be most effective for reducing human suffering because of conflict.

The acceleration and dehumanizing arguments have existed since the mass production of nuclear weapons so are not new. Nuclear powers have striven to contain nuclear weaponry through treaties. AI adds to the dangers of nuclear proliferation though unregulated collection and dissemination of nuclear scientific knowledge.

The concept of a “perpetual arms race” will face the economic reality of supply and demand for weaponry. Already, enemies in ongoing conflicts are struggling to maintain stocks of drones and missiles and while production increases to meet demand, during peacetime governments reduce military expenditure for other priorities. Therefore, the more periods of peace are more likely to slow the arms race.

To claim the Just War theory is obsolete in the world of AI is a striking claim, particularly in a nuclear age. The encyclical argues for a new ethical framework. However, the framework for this is based on human dignity, transparency, and accountability. These are abstract terms which require concrete applications. Moreover, they are applicable to the conduct of war rather than the justification for going to war.

Ethical and Political Demands

Leo calls for:

• Robust global regulation to slow AI development where necessary, especially in military applications. He urges governments to create strict legal safeguards, independent monitoring systems, and international agreements to prevent AI driven escalation.
• A renewed commitment to diplomacy and multilateralism
  The encyclical laments the “crisis of multilateralism” and argues that only coordinated global action can prevent AI from becoming an engine of domination and war.
• A “civilization of love” as the antidote to a culture of power
  Drawing on Christian humanism, Leo contrasts the logic of domination—embodied in AI driven warfare—with a vision of society built on solidarity, justice, and the protection of the vulnerable.

Conclusion

Magnifica Humanitas is both a warning and a call to action. It frames AI not merely as a technological challenge but as a moral crossroads. In the realm of warfare, Leo’s message is unequivocal: AI must never replace human judgment, never be entrusted with lethal authority, and never be allowed to erode the dignity of the human person. The encyclical positions the Church as a global moral voice urging humanity to reclaim responsibility, slow down, and choose peace over technological domination.
One paragraph in the encyclical is worth printing in full as it relates directly to the basis and ethos of the Next Century Foundation:

The necessity of diplomacy and multilateralism

224. In international relations, dialogue is an irreplaceable diplomatic tool for preventing conflicts and rebuilding bonds of trust. Faced with the impulsive broadcasts, aggressive rhetoric and power politics that characterize our time, “the vocation of diplomacy is to foster dialogue with all parties, including those interlocutors considered less ‘convenient’ or not considered legitimized to negotiate.” Therefore, every ounce of humility and patience should be employed in order to nurture even the faintest signs of goodwill among parties in conflict, so as to advance the process of peace.

Reverend Larry Wright
Religious Affairs Officer and Advisory Board Member
The Next Century Foundation
June 2026

Image above by Annett_Klingner from Pixabay