In Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas,” we not only receive timely wisdom on artificial intelligence, we also get a glimpse of his ecclesiology and understanding of Catholic social teaching. Synodality, named explicitly on four occasions, is pervasive throughout the text. It illuminates the way Leo writes about the nature of the church and its role in society as well as the development of Catholic social teaching. Perhaps most important, it offers a synodal approach to authority that the world beyond the Catholic Church, hungry for a moral voice on this topic, will find compelling.

How and where synodality shows up

Among the pope’s concerns related to the pace and unregulated development of artificial intelligence are homogenizing unity and monopolies of power. He draws upon the image and narrative of the Tower of Babel, not only to warn humanity about the risk of excluding God from our self-understanding and aspirations, but also to put forward a contrasting vision of diversity in communion. He shares with the world a wisdom born from walking together as a global church when he states: “…precisely from the plurality of voices and visions which, even though they sometimes remind us of the confusion caused by the diversity of spoken languages, a bright possibility emerges. Indeed, this is the possibility of building together, of transforming diversity into a resource and of making listening and dialogue the common ground upon which to cultivate justice and fraternity” (No. 10). 

Listening to diverse voices, staying present in the midst of tensions and trusting in the power of community are core elements of synodality. The pope, however, is not only talking about the nature of the church but offering a way of being together that evokes shared responsibility for the common good through the “logic of subsidiarity” (No. 13). Cooperation would not be needed if one person or group had all the answers or authority, an insight that applies to ecclesial and social contexts. Just as the Synod on Synodality modeled subsidiarity by promoting co-responsibility for mission through bottom-up participation, building the common good requires cooperation among groups with different perspectives and roles in the development and regulation of A.I.

The logic of subsidiarity also guides the way Leo describes the development of Catholic social teaching as a process of shared discernment. He follows previous popes in documenting the trajectory of social encyclicals to signal a continuity of the tradition. At the same time, he acknowledges that Catholic social teaching does not simply develop in a top-down way, recognizing the role of the entire people of God, pastors, theologians and lay faithful reflecting on the Gospel in light of social issues (No. 3). 

The Synod on Synodality relied on shared discernment not only as a method for making good decisions but as a spiritual practice that fosters openness to truth and closeness to God. It reinforces Leo’s assertion that truth is “not a possession to be monopolized” but a “good to be shared” (No. 25). Shared discernment represents an alternative to quick decisions that risk excluding others and excluding God, an approach needed for directing A.I. and other areas of social life.

Without careful decisions and inclusive participation, Leo warns, A.I. will exacerbate inequalities and exclusion. Concrete risks include undermining democracy, increasing unemployment, and scaling climate change and warfare to catastrophic levels. The pope denounces monopolies of power as threats to solidarity and again calls for shared responsibility for the common good. While he addresses A.I. concretely, the pope’s call to agency and subsidiarity in decision-making also has broader implications: “Communities and intermediary organizations must not be reduced to passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere; they must be able to contribute to discernment and oversight” (No. 108). 

Pope Leo’s rejection of power monopolies extends to the church and reinforces a synodal ecclesiology. He calls the church to model subsidiarity and the common good within its ecclesial structures. “Social Doctrine is not merely a message addressed to society; it is also an examination of conscience for the Church,” he writes, “a home and school of communion that is always called to ensure that the principles outlined in this chapter are applied, especially within its own structures” (No. 86). In a novel move, Leo initiates such an examination of conscience within the encyclical itself: He affirms synodality as the path to build the common good within the church as he laments the occasions in which the church has perpetuated inequality and has caused harm by abusing power (No. 89). 

Why synodality matters in this moment 

“Magnifica Humanitas” was widely anticipated as the world longs for a moral authority on A.I. that transcends the narrow interests of individuals, companies and nations. The existential stakes of A.I., coupled with a lack of government regulation, makes the pope’s voice as well as those of other faith leaders incredibly important. Yet at the very moment when we need regulatory structures on local, national and international levels, a strong distrust of institutions has become common across cultures. This is particularly relevant in the United States, where the distrust of institutions applies to education, religion, media and the federal government. 

Synodality offers hope for the church and for democracy in its proven approach to shared discernment and co-responsibility. The pope shares his concern for the common good as something that is not external to the church but is a guiding principle built by synodal practices. In addition to the synodal language of shared discernment and responsibility, the pope evokes a synodal image of a journeying church walking with humanity in history.

Building upon “Gaudium et Spes,” the pope presents the church accompanying humanity, reading the signs of the times and responding with the wisdom of the Gospel. This response is not imposed from a distance but through attentiveness, dialogue and respect for the proper role of civil institutions (No. 21). Leo’s approach stands in stark contrast to exercises of religious authority that undermine the role of the state and are incompatible with pluralism. 

Finally, Pope Leo, like his predecessor Pope Francis, leans into prophetic witness as an exercise of moral authority. I believe this approach will inspire even the most entrenched skeptics of religion to cooperate in protecting human dignity and the common good in the context of A.I. The pope presents the good Samaritan as an image of the church responding to human suffering out of love and closeness. Perhaps the Synod on Synodality has indeed led us toward a deeper realization of Pope Francis’ dream of a church of closeness, preparing the church to defend human dignity in this moment. 

Erin Brigham is the Director of the Joan and Ralph Lane Center for Catholic Social Thought and the Ignatian Tradition at the University of San Francisco, where she teaches in the department of Theology and Religious Studies.