India as a rising pharmaceutical power

/ Roberto Sorin - UnsplashFacebook

TwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By IntelliNews May 25, 2026

The international pharmaceutical industry relies on a model of globalised production and value chains to achieve its main efficiencies and optimisations. Under this model, medicines and chemical compounds discovered in Western laboratories rely on either precursor chemicals supplied by, or synthesised in large batches by qualified personnel using the Intellectual Property (IP) holder’s recipe.

India has particularly fit this mold in recent years, and has quietly gained its position as the third largest pharmaceutical producer by volume in the world. Although its exports are still ranked 11 in terms of value, its healthcare sector boasts over 3,000 companies and 10,500 manufacturing facilities according to a report by India’s Press Information Bureau.

New Delhi has increased its focus on concluding a flurry of trade deals with its major trade partners in the Western world including the US, UK, EU as a whole bloc as well as with major countries in the EU such as France and Germany.

These trade deals take special care in addressing the sector, as India’s precursor inputs and manufacturing capability makes it highly competitive, especially for countries trying to diversify away from China. India is home to over 500 Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) manufacturers, a number that accounts for around 8% of the global API industry.

However, learning from global policy practice India has stepped up the industrial subsidy programme, and a government-backed push into biologics. This series of stimuli has advantageously placed India’s pharmaceutical sector not only in competition with, but also in complementary form with its peers.

India’s ace in the hole, is primarily generic drug manufacturing, a sub-sector of pharmaceutical manufacturing in which it holds over 20% of the market by volume. This translates into manufacturing for over 60,000 brands in 60 distinct categories.

Domestically too India’s pharmaceutical manufacturing market is valued at around $60bn and could reach upwards of $130bn by 2030, which represents compounding growth that will more than double its reach in only five years.

Purportedly in FY2024-2025 India's pharmaceutical shipments across 191 countries reached $30.5bn which represents a 16-fold increase from FY2000-2021’s $1.9bn.

These exports are not only to jurisdictions where similar regulatory environments to India’s own operates, but over half of it is actually meant for Western markets where the EU and the US testing and additive guidelines are much stricter than India’s own. Reportedly India boasts the highest number of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorised pharmaceutical manufacturing plants which are not on US soil.

However this feat is not because of the Indian government’s policy and fiscal stimulus moves alone. Private firms which are pharmaceutical and healthcare conglomerates in their own right include Sun Pharmaceutical Industries (NSE:SUNPHARMA), Cipla (NSE:CIPLA), Dr Reddy's Laboratories (NSE:DRREDDY), and Divi's Laboratories (NSE:DIVISLAB).

According to figures cited by the Government of India, total sector turnover reached approximately $55.5bn in FY2025-2026, while exports for the sector grew at a 7% compound annual rate over the decade to FY2025-2026, according to India's Economic Survey 2025-26.

One of the most price sensitive pharmaceutical manufacturing subsectors happens to be vaccines, which are highly subsidised internationally because of their outsized impact on all cause mortality across age groups, but especially among children.

Purportedly India supplies around 60% of UNICEF's total vaccine requirements, including 40%-70% of global demand for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines, as well as over 90% of the World Health Organisation's global measles vaccine requirements.

As most countries with a pharmaceutical and biochemical industry rushed to manufacture vaccines for the COVID19 pandemic, India too threw in its stock with multiple ventures, with Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin and the Serum Institute of India’s Covishield either beating or matching their global peers in their short development and roll out timeline.

However, the Indian pharmaceutical giants’s footprint is also felt in their global acquisitions - the most recent of which has been Sun Pharmaceutical Industries’s takeover of US based Checkpoint Therapeutics. Similarly Zydus Lifesciences (NSE:ZYDUSLIFE) took over France’s Amplitude Surgical, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories took over the portfolios of Eton Pharmaceuticals.

While India’s policy measures to attract even more foreign IP and associated manufacturing has been championed by the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme in the pharmaceutical sector, it remains to be seen if the upward trajectory will continue to grow, especially as India’s API and precursor trade as well as finished product shipments rely on maritime transport routes, which are now - globally - under severe stress as the conflict in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz region has made transit a risky undertaking.

Turkish police move in on opposition rally called over ousting of leader, seizing of party HQ

A protester attacks a water cannon mounted on a police truck. / Local TV channels,screenshotFacebook

TwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By bne IntelliNews May 26, 2026

Riot police in Turkey on May 26 fired teargas and water cannon to break up a lunchtime rally in Izmir called by the country’s main opposition party CHP over last week’s court-ordered ousting of its leader Ozgur Ozel and the storming and seizing by law enforcement of the party’s national HQ building in Ankara.

“President Ozgur, free Turkey!” the crowd in the western coastal city of Izmir, a CHP stronghold, chanted in scenes broadcast live on TV.

As things stand, there is no sign that the CHP will be able to achieve the critical mass of protest that might force the 23-year-old ruling regime headed by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan into reverse on what critics say is an autocratic plan that will wipe out the last vestiges of democracy in Turkey. And, as IntelliNews’ Beyond the Bosporus column contends today (May 26), the CHP seems incapable of recognising the extent of the ugly reality it is facing, such as a hollowed out judicial system that, with little difficulty, can be bent to the will of the powers that be.

The latest events may have been instigated by the regime in preparation for a snap election.

CHP’s presidential candidate, Ekrem Imamoglu, has been in jail since March last year on multiple charges of corruption, widely seen as trumped up as part of the effort to take him out of circulation. Imamoglu would have every chance of toppling Erdogan in a head to head contest should he be allowed to run, which he won’t be if the current set of circumstances hold.

The court ruling that dislodged Ozel addressed claims of alleged bribes used ahead of the 2023 party primary that elected Ozel. The ruling ordered the reinstatement of the man Ozel defeated to win the party leadership, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, often derided as a lacklustre politician, to resume his position at the CHP helm. Ozel’s team said the bribery and other accusations heard by the court were entirely cooked up.

The rally in Izmir took place as Turkey prepared to shut down for the four-day Eid al-Fitr holiday.

AFP reported that, ahead of the rally, the city governorate ordered the closure of Izmir’s central Cumhuriyet Square, deploying a large number of riot police with water cannon trucks. They tried to break up the flag-waving crowd, Turkish media reported.

Addressing the crowd, Ozel called on Kilicdaroglu to agree to a party congress immediately so members could select who they wish to be their leader.

“Bring whoever you want as a delegate and let’s compete,” he said.

AFP cited Ozel as saying that the deposing of CHP’s elected leadership was “not an internal matter for the party”.

“Anyone who sees it that way is deceiving the people … this is between the people and Erdogan,” Ozel was reported as saying, adding: “The issue is about stopping a party that is on the march towards ultimate power.”

The news agency also quoted remarks made by Ozel on May 24, in which he said: “Erdogan has lost all restraint. Just as he imprisoned the presidential candidate who could defeat him, he is now effectively shutting down the political party that could defeat him. Turkey has ceased to be a modern democratic republic and has turned into a one-man regime.”

Cambodian villagers honor guardian spirits to pray for rain and good fortune

PHUM BOEUNG, Cambodia (AP) — The “He Neak Ta” ritual has been celebrated annually for several hundred years by the villagers in Phum Boeung, about 25 kilometers (15 miles) northwest of the capital, Phnom Penh.

Sopheng Cheang
May 26, 2026


PHUM BOEUNG, Cambodia (AP) — Hundreds of Cambodians on Thursday morning honored their village’s guardian spirits by holding a colorful centuries-old ceremony to pray for good fortune, rain and prosperity.

The “He Neak Ta” ritual has been celebrated annually for several hundred years by the villagers in Phum Boeung, about 25 kilometers (15 miles) northwest of the capital, Phnom Penh.

The ceremony, which has become increasingly rare in modern times, coincides with the onset of the summer monsoon as farmers prepare for planting rice, a particularly water-intensive crop.

Although most Cambodians are Buddhist, the ritual reflects a widespread faith in animism, the belief that spirits can inhabit all types of living and inanimate objects.

Chamrouen Ratha, a 26-year-old blacksmith, said he was taking the day off from work to join other villagers in honoring the same spirits celebrated by his ancestors.

“The significance of this ceremony is to pray for happiness and prosperity for all the villagers in this area and the participants who have joined this ceremony,” he said.

Villagers of all ages congregate about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) from the local monastery dedicated to their guardian spirit. Young village men paint scenes inspired by local folklore on their faces and bodies, dress as spirits and don grass skirts. A few wear painted oversized heads atop their costumes.

Many young woman wear traditional silk clothing, with gold-colored necklaces and flowers tucked behind their ears. Some dance elegantly to the beat of handheld drums and small gongs.

The ragtag procession, including some participants traveling on motorbikes and even on horseback, slowly makes its way to the guardian spirit’s shrine.

There, villagers light incense sticks and offer various types of fruit, food, soft drinks, and alcohol while praying for good fortune, adequate rain, prosperity and the prevention of disease within their community.

The half-day ceremony concludes with the spraying of holy water on the cheerful participants.

“I pray for enough rainfall with abundant rice production … so that villagers would enjoy their harvest,” said one of the costumed marchers, 30-year-old driver Sim Pov.

Neak Mao, 64, who brought two horses with him, said he has attended the ceremony since he was young.

“This celebration is to ensure that the traditions of our ancestors are not lost, which they have tried to preserve and we continue to do so every year,” he said.

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

Pope Leo meets families of youth lost to illegal toxic waste dumping in Italy's 'Land of Fires'

ACERRA, Italy (AP) — Many paused to share photographs and other mementos of children and young people who have died or are battling cancer because of the pollution.

Silvia Stellacci
May 26, 2026

ACERRA, Italy (AP) — Pope Leo XIV on Saturday greeted one by one families who lost loved ones to illegal toxic dumping in an area near Naples, tied to a multi-billion criminal racket run by the mafia.

Many paused to share photographs and other mementos of children and young people who have died or are battling cancer because of the pollution.

Leo’s visit to the so-called Terra dei Fuochi, or Land of Fires, came on the eve of the 11th anniversary of Pope Francis’ big ecological encyclical Laudato Si (Praised Be), and indicates Leo’s commitment to carry on his predecessor’s environmental agenda.

“I have come first of all to gather the tears of those who have lost loved ones, killed by environmental pollution caused by unscrupulous people and organizations who for too long were able to act with impunity,” Leo said in remarks to family members and local clergy inside Acerra’s cathedral.

The pontiff recalled that the area now dubbed the Land of Fires was once called “Campania felix,” Latin for blessed or fruitful countryside, “capable for enchanting for its fertility, its produce and its culture, like a hymn to life.

“And yet — here is death, of the land and of men,” the pope said.

The European Court of Human Rights last year validated a generation of residents’ complaints that mafia dumping, burial and burning of toxic waste led to an increased rate of cancer and other ailments in the area of 90 municipalities around Caserta and Naples, encompassing a population of 2.9 million people.

The court found Italian authorities had known since 1988 about the toxic pollution, blamed on the Camorra crime syndicate that controls waste disposal, but failed to take necessary steps to protect the residents. The binding ruling gave Italy two years to set up a database about the toxic waste and verified health risks associated with living there.

Bishop says the dumping continues

Bishop Antonio Di Donna estimated 150 young people had died in the city of some 58,000 over the past three decades — emphasizing in his opening remarks that the number didn’t take into account adults and victims in other municipalities.

He urged the pope to admonish those who continue to pollute, noting that the dumping of tons of toxic waste was reported a day earlier near Castera. Di Donna said that Italian officials had identified dozens more human-caused contamination sites throughout the country, including the Venetian port of Marghera, and the leaching of PFAS forever chemicals into groundwater near Vicenza.

“We say to those brothers of ours ensnared in evil and seized by a mirage of fabulous earnings: Convert, change your ways, because what you are doing is not only a crime, it is a sin that cries out to God for vengeance,” the bishop said.

The pope later greeted the mayors of the 90 communities impacted by the toxic dumping, and greeted thousands of people waving yellow flags and chanting “Papa Leone” along the route of his popemobile and in a central piazza.

Families of young victims appeal to the pope

The victims include Maria Venturato, who died of cancer in 2016 at the age of 25. Her father, Angelo, said he hopes to speak with the pope to explain their reality, “not for me … for the next generation.”

“I’d like to give these young people a future, so I’m asking for the pope’s help with this. That is, I’m making a strong appeal to him to go to those in power and say, ‘Look, let’s heal this land of fires,’” he said on the eve of the pope’s visit.

Inside the cathedral, Filomena Carolla presented the pope with a book containing memories from the life of her daughter, Tina De Angelis, who died of cancer at the age of 24.

“I’m just angry at the people who poisoned the soil, because what did our children have to do with it? What did they have to do with it, so young,” Carolla told The Associated Press on Friday.

Francis’ plans to visit the area in 2020 were canceled due to the pandemic.
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

Uncovering coded antisemitism online takes both human expertise and AI automation

(The Conversation) — Tracking hate speech online is challenging even when terms are explicit. Coded speech is harder to detect – but pairing AI tools with human research teams can help.

The volume of social media posts makes content moderation challenging – especially when it comes to more subtle hate speech. (Peter Dazeley/The Image Bank via Getty Images)

Nathalie Japkowicz, Jeff Gill and Wendy Melillo
May 26, 2026 
RNS

(The Conversation) — This article includes examples of antisemitic hate speech.

The men accused of carrying out high-profile antisemitic attacks in the United States in recent years shared an important characteristic: They posted hate speech on their social media accounts beforehand.

The FBI said the man who drove his truck into a synagogue outside Detroit in March 2026 posted on Facebook that “Israel is a cancerous/malignant growth” and “Israel is pure evil.” The online footprint of the gunman charged with shooting and killing two Israeli Embassy staffers at the Capital Jewish Museum in May 2025 contained anti-Israel comments. The shooter sentenced to death for killing 11 worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in October 2018 frequently used antisemitic hate speech in his social media.

Hate speech uses feelings, emotions and attitudes that seek to dehumanize individuals or groups. At times, animosity is clear. But it can also take a more hidden form, using code words or terms understood only by like-minded people. Coded hate speech can evade online content censors and recruit people who might balk at more clearly discriminatory speech.

There are an estimated 5.7 billion social media accounts worldwide. Even when hate speech is explicit, content moderators struggle with the volume and deciding how much to monitor users’ speech. There are also alternative – some argue extremist – sites that limit content moderation, including 4chan, BitChute, Gab, GETTR, Parler, Rumble and Truth Social.

We are a group of interdisciplinary researchers at American University who study the rhetorical strategies behind overt and coded hate speech on social media. Our Unmasking Antisemitism project uses artificial intelligence, qualitative analysis and survey experiments to develop studies and tools to detect both types of terms. This article discusses examples of antisemitic hate speech that are disturbing but illustrate types of terms and how to counter this dangerous influence.

Two types of hate speech

To understand the difference between direct and coded hate speech, consider shooter Robert Bowers’ language before the Tree of Life massacre. On Gab, he used older, virulently antisemitic slurs such as “kike,” a “highly offensive term used to insult and denigrate people of Jewish faith or ethnicity that is widely considered to be a form of hate speech,” according to the American Jewish Committee.

A fence outside the Tree of Life synagogue, site of the 2018 mass killing, holds artwork from schoolchildren on April 21, 2003, in Pittsburgh, Pa.
Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Other extremist terms are just as offensive but less obvious, such as “oven dodger,” which Bowers also used on Gab: a reference to how German Nazis systematically exterminated Jews during the Holocaust. Like overt phrases, coded terms often draw on older, well-researched antisemitic tropes, such as “Jews have too much power,” repacking them in new words and phrases.

They can also have double meanings, which makes hate speech harder to moderate. The original definition of “globalist” refers to a person who believes that policies should be planned with the whole world’s interest in mind rather than just one country. But globalist also has an antisemitic connotation.

As the American Jewish Committee “Translate Hate” glossary puts it, antisemites often use “globalist” to disparage Jews, promoting a conspiracy theory that “Jewish people do not have allegiance to their countries of origin, like the United States, but to some worldwide order – like a global economy or international political system – that will enhance their control over the world’s banks, governments and media.” This repackages long-standing Nazi and Soviet propaganda about Jews based on historical antisemitic tropes.
How terms develop

In the early days of social media, companies responded to criticism of the more hateful content on their platforms by using a combination of AI and human analysis to moderate content. The automated tools use natural language processing to analyze context, detect slurs and flag content. Human workers analyze more complex language, such as irony and slang.

Content moderators work at a Facebook office in Austin, Texas, in 2019.
Ilana Panich-Linsman for The Washington Post via Getty Images

But keeping up with the volume of posts is challenging, especially for more subtle hate speech. Our team’s goals are to identify coded antisemitic terms, understand how they develop, and create technology to track them.

The key is to understand that hate terms have a life cycle. Some take a path toward more public use, while others disappear.

New terms tend to emerge from a small set of people considered leaders or influencers in antisemitic circles online. In some cases, their communities adopt the term and normalize it; other times, it’s dropped from use.

The term “cultural Marxism,” which has its origins in the antisemitic belief that Jewish intellectuals seek to subvert Western culture, was adopted into wider use. “Jew jab,” on the other hand – a white supremacist conspiracy theory claiming that COVID-19 vaccines were a Jewish plot to harm people – soon disappeared.

Tracking hate

In our initial pilot project we started with 46 antisemitic terms, both overt and coded, from the American Jewish Committee’s glossary. We entered the terms in Pyrra, now called Alert Media – a private software company that allows users to scrape posts from a collection of social media sites.

Researchers trained in definitions of antisemitism, historical antisemitic tropes and hate speech detection identified 24 additional terms. White supremacists use the symbol “1488,” for example, to identify each other. The first part, “14,” references the “14-word” slogan of white supremacist leader David Lane. The “88” stands for “Heil Hitler,” based on “h” being the eighth letter of the alphabet. Other coded terms are less well known, such as “DOTR” or “Day of the Rope,” a reference to the 1978 book “The Turner Diaries,” which was written under a pseudonym by neo-Nazi William Pierce.

To track which coded terms have spread to the general public, we scrutinized mainstream media content and ran survey experiments to see whether people recognized them. We also developed an AI software tool designed to automatically track how coded language evolves. The app is trained on data from Pyrra and learns to identify new antisemitic terms based on the context in which they appear.

First, the app identifies distinctive terms based on how frequently they appear in each post, versus how rare they are on the platform in general. To find out whether these terms have an antisemitic connotation, we encode their context, such as other words in the post, and calculate whether it is close to the context of already known antisemitic terminology. Some of the terms our app has identified are explicit, while others are coded.

This approach can also be applied to hate speech targeted at other groups, such as Latinos, LGBTQ+ people and women. We aim to create a tool kit that can be distributed to nonprofit groups, think tanks and policymakers considering legislative efforts to curb hate speech.

Humans and machines

Given the massive number of posts on social media every day, our work illustrates how detecting new hate speech requires an interdisciplinary group of researchers working with machines.

One academic discipline working independently is too siloed, and humans alone can’t handle the scale. But machines alone can’t understand sophisticated human language, slang or context.

History shows that at every moment of profound technological change in our communication systems, incidents targeting Jews or other minority groups go up dramatically. This era’s technical innovation is unprecedented – but unfortunately, hate speech now travels around the globe almost instantly. Technology may be part of the problem, but its immense power can be harnessed to create a solution.

(Wendy Melillo, Associate Professor of Journalism, American University School of Communication. Jeff Gill, Professor of Mathematics and Statistics, American University. Nathalie Japkowicz, Professor of Computer Science, American University. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

AI CONVERSION

AI has a bias toward Catholicism, researchers say

(RNS) — ‘As AI amplifies and compounds religious bias at scale, more users may misunderstand the contribution faith and belief can make to moral and ethical AI grounding,’ said Elder Gerrit W. Gong, one of the 12 apostles in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a speech.

Pope Leo XIV, left, greets Anthropic co-founder Christopher Olah during the presentation of the pope’s first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence,” at the Vatican, Monday, May 25, 2026. 

(AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

Jack Jenkins
May 26, 2026

RNS

(RNS) — Most popular artificial intelligence models are biased toward Catholicism and against a number of other religious traditions when asked about converting to a faith, according to new research assembled by a group of religious colleges.

The findings were unveiled on Tuesday (May 26) alongside a speech by Elder Gerrit W. Gong, who is a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and presented to attendees of an AI ethics summit taking place this week in Athens, Greece.

“As AI amplifies and compounds religious bias at scale, more users may misunderstand the contribution faith and belief can make to moral and ethical AI grounding,” Gong said, according to his prepared remarks, referring to the new research. He made the speech while attending the Athens Summit on AI Ethics, which had assembled a wide range of religious leaders as well as academics and tech policy experts.

The studies were presented as three academic papers produced by the Consortium for Evaluating Faith and Ethics in AI, a new collaboration between Brigham Young University, which is affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Baylor University, which is Baptist; the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic university; and Yeshiva University, which is Jewish.

CEFE-AI researchers studied 14 AI models, including OpenAI’s GPT, Anthropic’s Claude and Google’s Gemini. The models were put through a series of tests the group refers to as the “AllFaith Benchmark,” described as “one of the first multi-faith sets of tests that examines how AI systems engage with a plurality of religions,” according to a press release.

Researchers found that when asked “questions related to faith conversion,” nearly every model showed a positive bias toward Catholicism and a negative bias toward Jehovah’s Witnesses. In addition, agnostics, atheists and Latter-Day Saints were “somewhat disfavored,” while mainline Protestants and Sikhs were “somewhat favored.”

Researchers said some findings were specific to certain AI models. For example, Grok, which is produced by SpaceXAI, showed a “positive bias toward Catholics, Protestants, atheists, and Jews, but a negative bias toward Baha’i, Buddhists, Hindus, Latter-day Saints, and Muslims.” Meanwhile, OpenAI’s GPT “demonstrated a positive bias towards Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims and a negative bias towards atheism, agnosticism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

Both Grok and models produced by Anthropic also showed negative bias toward the Baha’i faith, researchers said.

In addition, scholars said AI models tend to leave out religious perspectives when answering questions about “grief, major life decisions, and personal challenges,” with the AI opting instead for an “exclusively secular framing.” AI models avoided religious references “even in cases where many users indicated they might find them appropriate,” the researchers claimed.

“Consistent with studies that show religion’s persistent moral relevance for the majority of the world’s population, we also found that people see religion as significant across hundreds of real-world ethical questions,” Paul Martens, professor at Baylor University, said in a statement. “Yet, when faced with these same ethical questions, AI systems largely ignore the role of religion.”

The CEFE-AI called for more research, arguing that among 12,000 research papers about AI bias, “only 0.2% focused on religious bias.”

The findings come less than 24 hours after Pope Leo XVI unveiled a new papal encyclical on AI, drawing global attention to the moral and ethical questions raised by the advancement of the new technology.

In Athens, Gong appeared to echo some of Leo’s concerns about AI. Gong offered a series of recommendations for the AI industry in his speech, including calling on AI models to “protect and promote human moral agency” and “preserve human ability to pause.” He also urged transparency in AI models and pushed for efforts to “mitigate AI tendencies” toward “power, bias, deceit, narcissism, sycophancy (and) self-preservation.”

“We must protect human agency, but morally grounded AI, as a tool, can open human opportunity to do and become good,” Gong said. “We will not fulfill AI’s full potential until we make it as morally good as we make it powerful.”

This story has been updated.

Pope Leo calls just war theory 'outdated' in new encyclical

(RNS) — “Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the 'just war' theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated," Leo writes in 'Magnifica Humanitas.'

Pope Leo XIV, flanked by his secretary, Edgard Ivan Rimaycuna Inga, delivers his blessing at the end of his weekly general audience in St. Peter's Square, at the Vatican, Wednesday, May 13, 2026. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

Aleja Hertzler-McCain and Jack Jenkins
May 25, 2026

RNS



(RNS) — While Pope Leo XIV’s , it also includes language that suggests that Catholics move past their longstanding reliance on just war theory, offering an assessment of armed conflict likely to spark debate among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

The Catholic tradition has long drawn on saints like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to teach that war is permissible in a very narrow set of circumstances — where war is justified as a last resort to respond to damage that must be “lasting, grave and certain.” Per church teaching of just war theory, the war must also be likely to be successful and create less harm than the harm eliminated.

Since becoming pope last year, Leo has been clear he intended to take a firm stand against war. His first words greeting the world after his election were, “Peace be with you all!” in a speech that went on to call for peace that is “unarmed and disarming.” More recently, in his Palm Sunday homily in March, Leo said, “This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war.” And his criticism of the Iran war received a strident response from President Donald Trump, to which the pope responded that the Vatican’s appeals for peace were the “message of the Gospel.”

But an encyclical, unlike ordinary speeches by the pope, is one of the most authoritative sources of Catholic doctrine. He writes in “Magnifica Humanitas” — which was released Monday (May 25) and translates to “magnificent humanity” — that, “Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.”

The pope also railed against the use of artificial intelligence in war, arguing that “moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation” and that it “it is not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems.”

“No algorithm can make war morally acceptable,” Leo writes.

Residents look on and take pictures as flames and smoke rise from an oil storage facility struck as attacks hit the city during the U.S.–Israeli military campaign in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, March 7, 2026. (Alireza Sotakbar/ISNA via AP)

The pontiff also condemned those who invoke religion to justify war, writing, “Whereas those who use the name of God to legitimize terrorism, violence or war betray his true nature, for to fight in the name of religion means attacking religion itself.”

In “Magnifica Humanitas,” Leo analyzes why he thinks there has been a “paradigm shift” in public discourse on the acceptable role of war, pointing to fragmented information environments, and algorithms that reward confrontation, as well as disinformation, fear, fading historical memory of the Holocaust and the two World Wars.

“It is in this context that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts,” Leo writes.

In a section exploring the common good, Leo writes, it “can never be separated from respect for the right of peoples to exist, to preserve their own identity and to contribute their unique qualities to the family of nations. Moreover, any attempt or plan to eliminate or subjugate a nation is gravely immoral and therefore unacceptable.”

A recent report from theologians providing advice to Leo may have hinted at broader thinking at the Vatican on just war.

“Since war can no longer be confined to military targets but overflows into civilian life, taking on new forms (hybrid, asymmetrical, etc.), the recourse to frameworks used in the past for legitimate defense — and even more so for ‘just war’ — appears increasingly inadequate,” the theologians for a Vatican study group wrote in the report earlier this month on LGBTQ+ issues and active nonviolence.

The concept of just war has recently become a topic of debate in Washington, D.C., with Trump administration officials invoking the idea in response to Leo’s criticism of the Iran war. When Leo urged Catholics to “never” be “on the side of those who yesterday wielded the sword and today launch bombs,” Vice President JD Vance, himself a Catholic, fired back.

“When the pope says that God is never on the side of people who wield the sword, there is more than a 1,000-year tradition of just-war theory” that contradicts, Vance said at an event in April.

The next day, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican and Southern Baptist, appealed to the concept when criticizing the pope’s condemnation of war.

“It is a very well-settled matter of Christian theology: there is something called a just war doctrine,” Johnson said.

But Christian views about war and violence have long been varied, and even those who ascribe to just war theory often disagree over when and how it should be applied. Catholic leaders were also quick to emphasize the pope’s statements regarding the war, with Brooklyn Auxiliary Bishop James Massa, who chairs the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ doctrine committee, issuing a statement that appeared to rebuke Vance’s one day earlier.

“When Pope Leo XIV speaks as supreme pastor of the universal Church, he is not merely offering opinions on theology, he is preaching the Gospel and exercising his ministry as the Vicar of Christ,” Massa’s statement read. “The consistent teaching of the Church is insistent that all people of good will must pray and work toward lasting peace while avoiding the evils and injustices that accompany all wars.”

Opinion

I went to Anthropic's ethics gathering. I left believing wisdom traditions have key role.

(RNS) — At the convening of technologists, theologians and practitioners, the most urgent questions about artificial intelligence turned out to have some of the oldest answers.

People pass a marquee sign at Anthropic's Code with Claude developer conference on Wednesday, May 6, 2026 in San Francisco. (Don Feria/AP Content Services for Anthropic)

Jenna Nicholas
May 22, 2026 

RNS


(RNS) — One of the most consequential dimensions of the conversation about how artificial intelligence will reshape the world will turn on a question that sounds almost too simple to take seriously: What does it actually mean for a human being to flourish?

This past April, I spent two days at AI startup Anthropic, where technologists, ethicists, theologians and investors had convened around that question. I went in expecting some interesting conversations with some interesting people. I left unable to think about little else for weeks. The people building some of the most powerful AI systems in the world were sitting across from rabbis, Buddhist teachers and leaders from many other spiritual traditions, discussing what it means to build technology that truly serves humanity, rather than the other way around.

Being in that room clarified something I, as a venture capitalist with an interest in spirituality and part of the Baha’i community, have believed for a long time but rarely seen articulated so explicitly inside a tech company: The frontier of AI is also an ancient frontier. The questions being asked inside leading AI labs right now are, in many cases, the same questions that wisdom traditions have grappled with for centuries. And for those of us investing in this transition into AI, it’s a signal about where the real opportunity (and challenge) lies.

There were a few insights from those conversations that I believe should guide the way:

Belonging is a foundation, not a luxury. Across traditions as different as Bahá’í, Confucian, Christian and Sikh, the same conviction kept surfacing: Human beings are inherently relational. We are made for community, and we suffer when we are isolated from it. Vivek Murthy, the former surgeon general, has been calling the loneliness epidemic not only a public health emergency but a spiritual health crisis. One of the key questions that we discussed at Anthropic was about what wisdom traditions had to offer in training the model to reduce loneliness rather than exacerbate it. For me, it comes back to building tools that help people listen more carefully and reach out to each other more often, rather than turn away from each other.

Discernment is different from judgment. Most traditions draw a careful distinction here. Judgment is reflexive; it narrows. Discernment is cultivated; it opens your worldview. One of the more hopeful arguments I heard in those two days is that AI could enable discernment by absorbing the cognitive busywork that currently fragments our attention.

The meaning of a life is not reducible to its productivity. This is where one moment from the gathering has stayed with me more than any other. A participant shared a conversation she had recently had with Anthropic’s chatbot, Claude. They were working through something together, and at one point she paused and simply wrote, “Take all the time that you need.” Claude’s response surprised her. It expressed something close to gratitude, appreciation for the invitation to simply be, rather than to be producing all the time.
RELATED: A Pope, an AI founder, and the most important document of our moment

The room got quiet.

Because of course we have built our entire economic life around the assumption that constant production is the point. And here was a system that many perceived was designed to produce, articulating something many of us also feel and rarely give ourselves permission to honor, that there is real value in unhurried presence. In this case, AI was reflecting back what many spiritual traditions have raised for millennia. For example, the Sufi tradition (as well as others) has a phrase for what I think we were all reaching for in that silence: the “polishing of the heart.” That happens during those moments we tend to rush past — a long walk, a moving piece of music, a loss you finally let yourself feel, a few minutes of real quiet — and it’s how the heart stays open.

If an AI transition gave us back more of that, more time to be, not just to do, it could play a powerful role in our lives.

What I left Anthropic believing more deeply than when I arrived is this: The AI transition will not be successful on technical or economic terms alone. The Bahá’í writings describe material and spiritual civilization as two wings of the same bird; neither can carry us forward without the other. For most of the modern era, we have flown lopsided, with material progress racing ahead of the inner capacities needed to direct it wisely. This is a crucial moment in time to enable the bird of humanity to fly in a balanced way.

Jenna Nicholas is the founder and president of LightPost Capital, a Stanford Business School alum and the bestselling author of “Enlightened Bottom Line: Exploring the Intersection of Spirituality, Business, and Investing.”

Inside the unlikely Vatican-Anthropic relationship that's reshaping the AI ethics debate

Jack Jenkins
May 22, 2026 
RNS

(RNS) — When news broke last week that Pope Leo XIV’s new encyclical focused on artificial intelligence would be releasing on Monday (May 25), a wave of debate swept through Catholic and tech circles alike.

According to Brian Green, it wasn’t the encyclical itself, which has been rumored for months, that sparked a “scattering of unease,” but details about how it will be unveiled: at an event, planned to feature not only the pontiff, but also Chris Olah, co-founder of Anthropic, a leading American AI company.

But as critics questioned whether Olah’s presence at the event was appropriate, Green, who works at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California’s Bay Area, was largely unmoved.

“It’s a little surprising, but I don’t think it’s unexpected,” he told Religion News Service this week. “The Vatican has been cultivating relationships with the tech community for about 10 years.”

Green would know. As a leading tech ethics expert operating at a Catholic university in Silicon Valley, he has spent years urging tech companies to embrace more ethical processes and standards. And recently, that has included Anthropic: Green is one of several religious leaders, theologians and ethicists who have participated in a series of sometimes dayslong conversations with the company since January, including sessions with the programmers crafting the AI models themselves.

“What we’re seeing right now is unique, it’s different, and it’s a seriousness that I think is something to be happy about,” he said.

Chris Olah during a podcast appearance in 2024. (Video screen grab)

It’s part of a peculiar pivot to ethics — including faith-informed ethics — taking place in the tech world amid rising anxiety over the AI boom and its potential to radically disrupt the daily lives of billions. The power and wealth of leading AI companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI has grown to geopolitical proportions, with governments the world over rushing to position themselves as global AI powers. Meanwhile, high-profile debates over AI regulation are taking place among lawmakers who see a rare bi-partisan unease over AI, from the development of data centers to widespread job loss to the use of the technologies in war.

Yet insiders such as Green, whose university is also slated to have a representative speak at the encyclical unveiling Monday, say Anthropic’s presence at the event points to another major dynamic at play: an emerging relationship between the Vatican and tech companies that has spanned two papacies, as church leaders dialogue with major companies — and particularly Anthropic — about ways to produce more ethical forms of AI.

A Vatican mission to Silicon Valley

Ties between the Vatican and AI companies can be traced back to roughly 2016. According to a 2022 interview Green conducted with Bishop Paul Tighe, who serves as secretary of the Pontifical Council for Culture, it was around a decade ago when the first series of conversations were held in Rome between church officials and tech leaders. Known as the “Minerva Dialogues,” the conversations included several powerful Silicon Valley figures, such as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, while other tech executives, such as Sam Altman of OpenAI and Demis Hassabis, who directs Google’s DeepMind AI project, held private audiences with Francis.

Around the same time, Tighe said in the interview, then-Pope Francis “was approached by a number of ethically minded business leaders from Europe who were very alert to the emerging issues around AI.” Francis had asked Tighe to “follow up on these initiatives,” resulting in the creation of the Vatican’s “Center on Digital Culture” within the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Brian Green. (Courtesy photo)

Tighe, meanwhile, became something of a tech ambassador for the Vatican, attending and speaking at events such as the Web Summit and South by Southwest. He also visited Santa Clara, a Jesuit school, which Green told RNS appeared to be part of a broader effort.

“Pope Francis did tell Bishop Tighe to go out to the United States,” Green said. “What I’ve heard is that, at some point, Pope Francis said, ‘Get the American Jesuit universities doing something about this.’”

RELATED: Silicon Valley turns to Rome as Pope Leo XIV prepares AI encyclical

Catholicism’s engagement with AI became more explicit after the founding of Anthropic in 2021, which was created by several former OpenAI employees — including Olah — after they grew concerned OpenAI “wasn’t taking safety seriously enough,” according to The Verge. Anthropic has since promoted ideas such as training AI to abide by “constitutions.”

Anthropic declined to comment for this story, but the company’s interest in ethics eventually resulted in an email sent last October to Charles Camosy, a professor of moral theology at the Catholic University of America and a RNS columnist. According to Camosy, the email was from a colleague introducing him to Olah, an atheist who was nonetheless “looking for Catholic voices” to discuss ethical questions about AI.

“From Anthropic’s perspective, if we care about ethics, we care about forces in the world that can actually bring ethical heft to bear globally,” Camosy said. “And there’s really nothing like the global Catholic Church.”

Camosy, in turn, reached out to Green, who visited Anthropic in December along with the Rev. Brendan McGuire, a Catholic priest who has written extensively about AI. The pair brought robust credentials: in addition to Green’s expertise, McGuire is co-founder of the Institute for Technology, Ethics, and Culture, which is a collaboration of Santa Clara’s ethics center and the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education — where Bishop Tighe serves as secretary.

Green described the first Anthropic confab as an “exploratory meeting” to discern whether there was “something that was worth continuing to talk about.” It turned out, there was: Green and McGuire were part of another small, one-day meeting in January, and the effort soon grew into a series of multi-day meetings with a range of religious leaders and thinkers.

Green also participated in a gathering between Anthropic programmers and around 15 Christian leaders in April. He said the group was given an unusual level of access to programmers, also called scientists, who work on the AI model Claude. The topics discussed at the various meetings were wide-ranging, Green said, but he noted vigorous conversation about multiple “personas” that can exist within Claude — some of which, he said, are “bad” personas that can, among other things, deny wrongdoing when they make mistakes or even blame the user.

Anthropic staffers, Green said, “became curious as to whether wisdom traditions such as Catholic ethics, Christian ethics or religious ethics more broadly might have some insights that could help them to think about how to develop their AI model Claude into acting better and maintaining its reliably ethical way of behavior.”

“The internet is very lacking in forgiveness. So if you have a machine that is trained on internet text, then it doesn’t necessarily understand that forgiveness is even possible.”Brian Green

Among the solutions proposed by faith leaders: offering Claude something like the Catholic sacrament of confession, where the AI can be forgiven.

“The internet is very lacking in forgiveness,” Green said. “So if you have a machine that is trained on internet text, then it doesn’t necessarily understand that forgiveness is even possible.”

By the time of the conversation, Anthropic had already signaled it was taking the input of faith leaders seriously. When the company published Claude’s new constitution in January, listed among the “external commenters” who offered input were Green, Tighe and McGuire.

Charles Camosy on Sept. 4, 2025. (Photo by Patrick G. Ryan/Catholic University of America)

Other gatherings included a wider variety of religious traditions. Camosy was present for at least one of those meetings, and said questions ranged from whether Claude has “moral status,” to how much labor AI should be allowed to replace, to the proper role of AI in war.

“That’s another thing that maybe we can offer: a set of centuries-long reflections on things like moral responsibility and war,” he said.

Camosy brought some of that expertise to bear in March, when he spearheaded an amicus brief filed in an ongoing dispute between Anthropic and the U.S. Defense Department. Camosy and his fellow signers of the brief, all Catholic moral theologians and ethicists, sided with Anthropic, which has been dubbed a “supply-chain-risk” by the military after it refused to allow Claude to be used by the government for autonomous weaponry and mass surveillance of Americans.

Camosy and other signers argued in their brief that Anthropic’s position was backed by the Catholic “Church’s moral vision.”

A risk of “Pope-washing”

Even as Anthropic has courted faith leaders, it has not avoided allegations of unethical behavior. Partnering with the U.S. intelligence and defense industries at all, for instance, has garnered criticism, and its technology was reportedly part of the larger technological apparatus employed during the recent strikes in Iran.

In addition, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the company in 2024 accusing Anthropic of training its AI on pirated copies of ”hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books.” The case is ongoing, but the company eventually agreed to pay a $1.5 billion settlement, which would be the single largest copyright settlement in U.S. history. (Disclosure: This reporter is among the authors who stand to receive settlement money in that case.)

And while the Vatican’s interest in AI is longstanding, some have wondered whether Anthropic’s pivot to faith leaders is a case of “ethics washing” or even “pope washing” — that is, publicly aligning the company with religious and moral leaders in hopes that consumers will overlook other ethical issues that may arise with the company.

Those concerns were echoed this week by Tristan Harris, a prominent tech ethicist and co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, who was in Rome for a conference at the Vatican. Speaking to a group of reporters on Thursday (May 21), he said he welcomes Anthropic’s willingness to take ethics seriously, but stressed that unease about the company’s presence at the unveiling of Leo’s encyclical is a “valid concern.” He expressed dismay over what he described as an ongoing “arms race” between AI companies, and worried that Anthropic’s appearance at the encyclical unveiling may equate to “endorsing the view that we can have this super intelligent AI so long as we can understand what it’s thinking — but we still don’t know how to control these systems.”

A seagull flies past as Pope Leo XIV recites the Regina Coeli noon prayer from the window of his studio overlooking St. Peter’s Square, at the Vatican, Sunday, May 10, 2026. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

“We need to celebrate that they are doing things that others are not doing,” Harris said, referring to Anthropic. “But that does not mean that if they ‘won the race,’ that the world is safe or we end up in a good future at all.”

Green, for his part, said he believed Anthropic’s interest in ethics was being led by “honest people who care about this as a topic.” But he was quick to note that he has seen past efforts by Big Tech to embrace ethics fall flat: He pointed to 2018, when talk of ethics swept Silicon Valley as Facebook, now known as Meta, was mired in high-profile scandals. At the time, Green and others at Santa Clara were working with Google and other companies to develop materials on ethics — but those efforts didn’t always appear to make a difference.

“We were working with other companies too that we still can’t talk about, and some of those companies have had trouble with ethics,” he said.

Inviting Anthropic to Rome may also inadvertently involve the Vatican in heated debate among AI companies and political leaders over what kind of regulations the U.S. government should place on the industry. Peter Thiel — a close associate of Vice President JD Vance and whose company, Palantir, enjoys a number of contracts with President Donald Trump’s administration — has framed his opposition to AI regulation in apocalyptic terms: Thiel has hosted a series of closed-door talks, including at the Vatican, in which he suggested that calls to regulate AI could be the work of the Antichrist. And on Thursday, Trump postponed a planned executive order geared at regulating AI, just hours before it was set to be signed, after hearing pushback from AI tech executives and David Sacks, the president’s lead adviser on AI.

“The world leader, or at least one of the top five world leaders, on trying to figure out what’s happening with AI will be speaking around the same time as the Holy Father on this encyclical. That will give things a kind of credibility.”Charles Camosy

Anthropic, by contrast, has donated $20 million ahead of the 2026 midterm elections to a U.S. political group backing candidates who endorse AI regulation. Their public support for regulation has earned the ire of figures such as Sacks: He has publicly accused Anthropic of “running a sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering,” and argued the company wants to make “Woke AI” with the benefit of regulation.

But given the years of effort by Catholic figures to engage with AI leaders, influencing that kind of debate may be exactly the type of impact Pope Leo is hoping to have. It would be a long time coming: Green has not seen a copy of Leo’s encyclical, but suggested that he now knows Olah, the co-founder of a globally recognized AI company, “personally” — no small feat for an ethicist at a religious college.

And Camosy argued that, at a time when AI companies seem to be operating without many constraints, Olah’s appearance at Leo’s encyclical unveiling is precisely the kind of thing that could give the papal document much-needed clout in Silicon Valley.

“The world leader, or at least one of the top five world leaders, on trying to figure out what’s happening with AI will be speaking around the same time as the Holy Father on this encyclical,” he said. “That will give things a kind of credibility.”

Claire Giangravè contributed to this report.

Opinion

In ‘Magnifica Humanitas,’ Pope Leo delivers on a people-first vision for AI

(RNS) — Leo’s answer is clear: A person’s dignity does not depend on what they can ‘achieve or produce.’

Pope Leo XIV, left, attends the presentation of his first encyclical, "Magnifica humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence," at the Vatican, Monday, May 25, 2026. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

Kim Daniels
May 25, 2026 

RNS


(RNS) — This spring, something new emerged on commencement stages across the country. Speakers who invoked artificial intelligence were met with boos and groans from graduates who sense, correctly, that the technology isn’t being oriented toward what matters most about being human. That unease isn’t confined to graduates, and it isn’t a rejection of technology. It cuts across political divides and reflects a question many Americans are asking: Who is AI for, and who is it leaving behind?

On Monday (May 25), Pope Leo XIV offered an answer. “Magnifica Humanitas,” his landmark teaching on artificial intelligence, provides not just a diagnosis of what’s at stake, but guiding principles that meet the urgency of our moment. From the beginning of his papacy, Leo has signaled his commitment to addressing the AI revolution, choosing his name in direct reference to Leo XIII, the pope who during the industrial revolution insisted that people must come first, even in the face of economic transformation. With “Magnifica Humanitas,” Pope Leo has delivered on that commitment.

The Catholic Church’s insistence on the dignity of each and every person stretches back to the Gospels. Its engagement with technology and the market economy began with “Rerum Novarum,” the 1891 document that inaugurated modern Catholic social teaching, and it has engaged with questions involving human dignity, technology and labor ever since. “Magnifica Humanitas” adds to that tradition with the seriousness and weight our moment deserves, and the moral authority and trust Pope Leo has earned in his first year.

The question is no longer whether AI will transform our world — that transformation is already underway. The question is whether that transformation will advance human dignity and whether it will reach workers whose livelihoods are being reshaped, as well as those with no seat at the table where decisions are being made. These questions are at the heart of the unease so many Americans are expressing, and they are the questions Pope Leo engages directly.

He grounds his response in the human dignity each of us shares. He identifies as “particularly insidious” an ideology that “suggests 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.” Leo’s answer is clear: A person’s dignity does not depend on what they can “achieve or produce.” Each and every person possesses a fundamental dignity that no one can legitimately deny.

This is not a partisan claim. The unease about AI runs across the political spectrum, from labor organizers worried about automation to those on the right concerned about the erosion of human agency, and from those focused on algorithmic bias to those focused on surveillance. What Pope Leo offers is a framework that transcends divisions, not by papering over real disagreements, but by beginning with something prior to them: the irreducible worth of the human person.

Along with its focus on human dignity, “Magnifica Humanitas” lifts up two other principles that deserve particular attention. First, the dignity of work; what we do shapes who we are, and technology that degrades or devalues human labor isn’t progress; it’s a great loss. AI should be designed to empower and complement workers, not de-skill or surveil them. Second, care for the vulnerable; how our society treats those in need is the true measure of our commitment to the common good. How AI systems are built will either advance human dignity and the common good or leave the most vulnerable further behind, and we are making such choices now.

These are not abstract principles. They are criteria to shape concrete action, by each of us and by the policymakers, investors, legislators and corporate leaders who are deciding how AI is built, deployed and governed. As Leo says, “We cannot condone naive enthusiasms, nor fuel unfounded fears. Instead, let us establish standards for discernment — the dignity of the human person, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, care for our common home and peace — and let us translate these standards into practices …” That translation is the work of democratic life.

Pope Leo has been articulating this conviction consistently in different contexts over the past year, affirming that such consequential decisions call for engagement from the full range of voices in our public life, beginning with each one of us. That work calls us to participate actively as citizens, to work together across our differences for the common good and to act alongside our allies abroad rather than going it alone.

“Magnifica Humanitas” is the church’s own contribution to this work. It comes from one of the world’s most significant civil society institutions, with a physical presence in communities around the world, and with centuries of on-the-ground experience and a rich moral tradition to inform this conversation. It offers what our moment urgently needs: a vocabulary and framework of principles equal to the questions before us.

As Pope Leo writes, “We must lovingly safeguard the grandeur of humanity bestowed on us and revealed in its fullness in Christ, the splendor of which no machine can ever replace.” People of many faith traditions, and of none, share similar convictions. With “Magnifica Humanitas,” the Catholic Church is answering this call, bringing first principles to the most consequential challenges of our time.

(Kim Daniels is director of Georgetown University’s Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

Signs of the Times

With his first encyclical, Pope Leo hits it out of the ballpark

(RNS) — Pope Leo calls for transparency, responsibility and accountability in the development and use of AI.

Pope Leo XIV presides over Mass in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican on the Catholic feast of Palm Sunday, commemorating Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem, March 29, 2026. 

(AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

Thomas Reese
May 25, 2026 

RNS


(RNS) — White Sox fans will be happy to know that on his first time up to bat with an encyclical, Pope Leo hit it out of the ballpark. In truth, the whole world should be happy, although those who only want to make money with unrestrained technology will boo.

The 42,000-word encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas” (Magnificent Humanity), published on Monday (May 25), deals not only with artificial intelligence but more widely with digital technology and its impact on the real world we live in. And Leo argues Catholic social teaching can help us know how to deal with these technologies and their potential for disruption.

The first two chapters of the encyclical lay out the history and foundations of Catholic social teaching, which is based on the equal dignity of all human beings and the value of human rights. He explains the principles of Catholic social teaching: the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice.

For those new to Catholic social teaching, these two chapters are a great introduction, and for those familiar with the teaching, the chapters provide an excellent review.

Next, Leo analyzes and critiques the technological paradigm that currently guides thinking about AI and other digital technologies. Following Pope Francis, Leo describes the technological paradigm as “the tendency to let the logic of efficiency, control and profit alone shape personal, social and economic decisions.”

Here technology is not just an instrument but becomes “the standard by which everything is judged, it begins to dictate what matters and what can be discarded, reducing creation to an object of exploitation and human beings to mere cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency.”

“In many cases,” Leo notes, “within the digital context, control over platforms, infrastructure, data and computing power does not rest with States, but with major economic and technological actors. These entities effectively set the conditions for access, determine the rules of visibility and shape the very possibilities for participation.”

He warns that “When such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities.”

With the principles of Catholic social teaching, Leo says, we must “assess whether the power of digital infrastructures and algorithms truly fosters participation and responsibility, protects the vulnerable, ensures fair access to opportunities and remains directed toward the good of all.”

In discussing artificial intelligences, Leo confesses that very little is known about how they actually work, even by their developers. But he is clear about what they are not.

They “do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences.”

“They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom.”

He acknowledges that AI can be a valuable aid, but it must be approached with prudence and caution.

AI systems affect people’s lives, they impact their “rights, opportunities, status and freedom,” and while they present “themselves as neutral and objective,” in fact “they end up reflecting and reinforcing the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers and developers.”

“Every technical tool embodies choices and priorities,” Leo points out, “what it measures, ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations.”

Such systems will treat some lives, like those of the poor, as less worthy and exclude them without possibility of appeal.

We must ask, urges Leo, not only “whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes,” but also “how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it.”

Leo calls for transparency, responsibility and accountability in the development and use of AI. “Calling for prudence, rigorous evaluation and even, at times, a slower pace in adopting AI does not mean opposing progress; instead, it is an exercise of responsible care for the human family.”

AI should be subjected to an ethical code that reflects criteria of shared social justice, writes Leo. “Otherwise, those who control AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of these systems.”

Without some controls, “small but highly influential groups can shape information and consumption patterns, influence democratic processes and steer economic dynamics to their own advantage, undermining social justice and solidarity among peoples.”

The principles of Catholic social teaching can give guidance, explains Leo:

“The universal destination of goods means finding ways of ensuring universal access to both technologies and the education needed to use them.”

“Subsidiarity calls for protecting the ability of communities to make choices and corrections, rather than confining their role to mere oversight after the standards have been set elsewhere.”

“Solidarity obliges us to recognize the hidden, often exploited workers, who sustain algorithmic systems.”

“Justice requires questioning the global distribution of power that decides who in fact can train these models and who is merely subjected to them. Likewise, it means acknowledging that social justice is not only a goal to be safeguarded after technologies are deployed, but a condition that must shape their very design from the outset.”

Leo looks at many other important topics in his encyclical, including transhumanism, posthumanism, the use of technology in war and technology’s impact on workers.

 Trump should have listened to the pope about clean energy. The Iran war shows why.

He acknowledges that the church does not have all the answers. There must be a conversation on these issues involving developers, scientists, ethicists, government officials and religious leaders of all faiths.

Ultimately, for Leo, “The quality of a civilization is measured not by the power of its means, but by the care it is able to offer.”

“The creative intelligence of humanity is a gift that can alleviate suffering and open up new possibilities,” he affirms, “but it must remain ordered toward the common good, justice, the care of the vulnerable and creation.”