Tähdistö guest writer Saku Leskinen examines what Europe’s political silence on Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, reveals about the continent’s commitment to the values it claims to champion. Comparing Europe’s lack of reaction to the immediate response from China, he argues that the missed opportunity to engage with the encyclical’s calls on AI, economic inequality, and human rights points to a troubling gap between European rhetoric and political reality.
During the past two and a half years of his presidency, President Alexander Stubb has become famous for advocating “values-based realism” as a response to the turbulent landscape of contemporary foreign and defence politics. Values-based realism, according to Stubb, is “a set of universal values based on freedom, fundamental rights, and international rules, which take into account the realities of global diversity, culture, and history”.
Yet when Pope Leo XIV issued the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas on May 15th, which touched on precisely those values in the context of artificial intelligence, Europe’s political leadership has fallen notably silent. This article examines what that silence reveals.
Magnifica Humanitas – A solely theological encyclical?
On May 15th, the same day northeastern Europe was dealing with the early morning drone incident, Pope Leo XIV issued his first papal encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas. Released exactly 135 years after the Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903), which addressed the “revolutionary change” of industrialization and the conflict between capital and labor, this year’s encyclical shares several similarities with its predecessor. Titled ’On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence’, the encyclical left little doubt about its central concern: the rapid and disruptive rise of AI.
After acknowledging that technological development has “significantly improved” living conditions, the encyclical continues with its concerns about AI, stating that each phase of progress has likewise revealed “ambiguity of tools that can cause harm when not oriented toward the good”. Indeed, Magnifica Humanitas specifically emphasises that emerging technologies do not, by themselves, automatically reduce inequality.
It is, however, misleading to state that within its 40,000 words and +200 pages, the encyclical addresses solely the dangers of recent technological development. In fact, the call for political action is strongly present in the Magnifica. The reader can, for instance, easily observe Leo XIV’s reasoned concerns about the concentration of economic power, his thoughts on the crisis of multilateralism, and the overshadowed environmental aspects of AI development.
On the concentration of economic power, Magnifica Humanitas briefly states that major economic and technological actors in the present day “determine the rules of visibility and shape the very possibilities for participation”. Furthermore, the encyclical asserts that without “bold decisions”, there is a major risk that the trend could continue creating even further “dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities”, leaving “many individuals marginalized, stranded and surrounded by the machines and automated systems that have replaced them”.
In other words, Magnifica Humanitas calls boldly for abandonment of laissez-faire-driven economic policies by stating that “[m]ore than ever, in the age of AI and robotics, it is no longer possible to rely solely on the ’invisible hand’ of the market”.
Notably, the Magnifica also includes a call to action for national, supranational, and intergovernmental leaders, stating that political arenas have the “task of orienting economies and technologies to the common good, promoting dignified work, social inclusion and an equitable distribution of the benefits of innovation”. These are not abstract theological concerns, but precisely the kind of political and economic questions that European leaders claim to champion.
In addition to concerns about the concentration of economic power, the Magnifica notes that universal human rights have been in decline. Leo XIV acknowledges two “particularly serious dangers” for universal human rights. The first danger, according to the encyclical, is that rights are continuously violated de facto, despite being de jure and technically widely protected. The encyclical further states that the second danger, “which is in fact the root of the first, is the inability to recognize the foundation of universality” – another core value that European leaders have repeatedly invoked as the foundation of the Union’s identity.
Thirdly, it is worth noting that Magnifica Humanitas calls for “a culture of negotiation” instead of the prevailing “culture of power”. Despite Leo XIV eventually adding that “peace” and “civilization of love” are not “naïve hopes” nor “naïve utopias”, the numerous recent military interventions, repeated violations of the UN Charter 2 (4), and the fact that 30 European countries have just 11 months earlier in Nato’s Hague Summit agreed to raise their annual defence contributions to 5% of the GDP by 2035, the Vatican is left relatively isolated with its values-based approach.
By addressing topics such as AI, the concentration of economic power, universal human rights and hard-line rhetoric, it is clear that Magnifica Humanitas is far beyond a theological pastoral letter targeting bishops or priests.
The European reaction to Magnifica Humanitas
Having outlined the encyclical’s contents, another question emerges about Europe’s reaction – or the lack thereof. By mid-June, one month after the encyclical, there has been almost no public comment of any kind from EU representatives on Magnifica Humanitas or its calls for political and legislative action. The lone institutional response came eleven days after its release, when the Chief Spokesperson for the European Commission stated briefly in the Commission’s midday briefing that the Commission ’fully shares the Vatican’s position’, pointing to the AI Act of 2024 as evidence of shared concerns.
There is, however, a significant difference between a statement by an elected official and a spokesperson’s remark at a routine press briefing. Among national leaders of the Union, only the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, has expressed his sympathy with Leo XIV’s calls.
Notably, neither the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, nor the Executive Vice President of the European Commission for Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, Henna Virkkunen, have made any public comments on the contents or concerns of Magnifica Humanitas.
Magnifica Humanitas left unnoticed?
Perhaps paradoxically, it was outside Europe that the encyclical found its most immediate audience.
Notably, within 10 days of Leo XIV’s encyclical, a day before the previously mentioned brief comment from Commission’s spokesperson, Chinese Communist Party’s flagship newspaper, Study Times, released a theoretical essay of over 2,000 words titled “Constructing China’s Autonomous Knowledge System in the Era of Artificial Intelligence (人工智能时代中国自主知识体系建构)” with the signature of Zhang Donggang, The Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party of prestigious Renmin University of China.
The Study Times article agrees with Magnifica Humanitas on the argument that AI goes “beyond the mere instrumental application of a tool”, that the rapid rise of artificial intelligence provides “entirely new energy for constructing China’s autonomous knowledge system” and that eventually the new phase of technology “ensures Chinese modernization and the great practise of creating new forms of human civilization”. The Study Times article also admits that autonomous systems “have become deep ethical and legal questions touching on social justice, the safeguarding of rights, and the global governance order” and therefore it also calls for interdisciplinary research on “legal, ethical and social issues related to artificial intelligence” pointing to “constructing a social-rules system suited to the intelligent age”. Interestingly, the Chinese article also highlights the difference between the Chinese and the “Western” approach to AI. The article claims to call the Chinese approach “traditional” and to be embedded in values based on harmony.
Notably, just as Magnifica Humanitas risks being dismissed as merely a theological text, this essay risks being read as merely an individual academic paper.
However, it must be noted that the article’s publisher is the official newspaper of the CCP, an actor that moderates its publications, and that the article is largely in line with China’s prevailing political leadership, as it repeatedly cites General Secretary Xi and Marxist teachings. In other words, the article could be interpreted as a declaration-like counterpart to Magnifica Humanitas, indicating that China is keen to accept that the rapid rise of artificial intelligence has amplified pressure for structural societal changes and that it has already begun developing plans to implement these changes.
Values- or calendar-based silence?
Instead of advancing visions or concrete initiatives for an AI-age Union, there have been signs that the political leadership of Europe has adopted an approach of “instrumental rationality,” or either values-based or calendar-based silence on initiating structural changes.
Frankly, the encyclical could have served as a timely prompt for bringing concerns about AI-driven structural change into broader European public debate. With no major public statements from the political leadership following the encyclical’s release, the window of opportunity handed to European leaders has closed.
Naturally, the lack of public comments on Magnifica Humanitas’ openings does not mean that Europe has been standing still in the spring and early summer – leaders of Member States have had their own agendas and packed schedules.
President of the Commission von der Leyen and Tech Commissioner Virkkunen have been engaged in foreign and security policy and finalizing semiconductor legislation, among other concerns. Notably, Virkkunen has also focused on promoting a single secure satellite system for governmental and commercial use, issuing a fine of €200 million against Temu and highlighting the renewal of (non-binding) common principles for G7 Digital and Tech Ministers.
With regard specifically to the theme of AI, President von der Leyen and Commissioner Virkkunen have faced criticism over their decision to appoint a representative of a tech company as the Commission’s Special Envoy for Industrial Artificial Intelligence.
Whether the 4-week silence of Europe following Magnifica Humanitas shall be interpreted as values-based silence, genuine indecisiveness about Europe’s own standing, or proof of post-Eurovision built-up workload is up to the reader to decide.
It must be noted, however, that several signs indicate that public discussion of AI’s effects on societal concepts is still underway in Europe. For instance, the European Digital Innovation Hubs Network gathered more than 100 innovators, thinkers and public administration officials to discuss the pressure for change in early June. Eventually, upcoming elections in Member States and, by the latest, the EU elections of 2029, will likely bring Magnifica Humanitas’ calls into broader public discussion.
However, bypassing the window of opportunity to initiate a Union fit for the AI age opened by Magnifica Humanitas on May 15th can be interpreted as a conscious choice by European leaders – a choice distinct from the Chinese one – and one that misses the opportunity to launch initiatives for needed structural changes.
Readers of this article, however, should not despair over the missed opportunity of Magnifica Humanitas but acknowledge the stark contrast between Europe’s visions and the reality of its current ability to react quickly enough.