- The Pope’s encyclical may have been partially written using AI, challenging authorship and spiritual authenticity.
- AI detection tools, like Pangram, found patterns in the encyclical that are typical of large language models.
- The Vatican has not confirmed or denied AI involvement, raising questions about transparency and doctrinal integrity.
- The revelation highlights the evolving role of AI in high-level institutional communication, including the Church’s stance on regulating technology.
- The use of AI in writing the encyclical raises concerns about the Church’s stance on the very technology it seeks to regulate.
Parts of Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, a sweeping reflection on artificial intelligence and human dignity, may have been written using AI, according to an analysis by researcher Linch Zhang posted on the forum LessWrong. Using the AI detection tool Pangram, Zhang found that between 40 percent and 100 percent of several paragraphs in the document register as machine-generated. While the Vatican has not confirmed or denied AI involvement, the revelation challenges assumptions about authorship, spiritual authenticity, and the Church’s stance on the very technology it seeks to regulate—raising urgent questions about transparency, doctrinal integrity, and the evolving role of AI in high-level institutional communication.
Evidence from AI Detection Tools
The analysis of Magnifica Humanitas relied on Pangram, a widely used AI content detection platform known for its accuracy in identifying patterns typical of large language models. Linch Zhang, whose background includes work in AI safety research, applied Pangram to multiple sections of the 42-page encyclical, focusing on passages discussing neural networks, cognitive autonomy, and the philosophical implications of synthetic consciousness. According to the results, five out of twelve sampled paragraphs scored above 90 percent probability of AI generation, with two reaching 100 percent. While no detector is infallible—particularly with non-English or highly stylized text—Pangram’s consistency across multiple sections suggests more than random false positives. Zhang emphasized caution in interpretation, noting that the findings do not prove AI use, but they do establish a strong statistical anomaly warranting independent review. The Vatican has not released the drafting history of the document, which could clarify whether AI tools were used in composition, editing, or translation.
Key Players and Institutional Roles
Pope Leo XIV, elected in 2023, has positioned himself as a modernizing figure within the Catholic Church, embracing digital outreach and convening expert panels on bioethics and technology. The drafting of encyclicals traditionally involves teams of theologians, scholars, and curial advisors, with the final text approved by the Pope. In this case, speculation has focused on whether members of the Pontifical Council for Culture or the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communication employed AI tools to accelerate drafting or refine language. Linch Zhang, the analyst behind the detection effort, is affiliated with the effective altruism and AI alignment communities, where concerns about institutional misuse of AI are growing. Meanwhile, theologians such as Father Paolo Beschi of the Gregorian University have voiced unease, arguing that even partial AI authorship of a doctrinal text could undermine its spiritual authority. The Holy See Press Office has remained silent, though internal discussions are reportedly underway about establishing guidelines for AI use in official publications.
Trade-Offs Between Efficiency and Authenticity
The potential use of AI in crafting a major papal teaching presents a complex ethical trade-off. On one hand, AI tools can enhance clarity, ensure linguistic precision, and expedite the production of complex documents in multiple languages—critical advantages for a global institution like the Catholic Church. On the other, the symbolic weight of an encyclical rests on its perceived divine inspiration and personal authorship by the pontiff. If AI is involved, even in a supportive role, it risks diluting the text’s moral and spiritual legitimacy. Critics argue that a document warning against the dehumanizing effects of technology loses credibility if generated by the very systems it critiques. Conversely, some theologians suggest that AI could be viewed as a neutral instrument, akin to a word processor, provided its use is transparent and subject to human oversight. The core tension lies in balancing modern efficiency with doctrinal authenticity—a challenge increasingly relevant across religious, legal, and academic institutions.
Why This Controversy Emerged Now
The scrutiny over Magnifica Humanitas reflects broader societal unease about AI’s encroachment into domains requiring trust, originality, and moral authority. As language models become more sophisticated, distinguishing human from machine writing grows harder—raising stakes in journalism, law, and religion. The Pope’s decision to address AI directly in a formal encyclical invited intense technical and philosophical examination. Moreover, the timing coincides with rising public awareness of AI detection tools and their limitations. Just months ago, major academic journals and news outlets began implementing AI disclosure policies. In this context, the Vatican—despite its traditionalism—has become an unexpected testing ground for the boundaries of technological integration in sacred discourse. The fact that the analysis originated not from a media outlet but from a niche AI ethics forum underscores how decentralized scrutiny has become in the digital age.
Where We Go From Here
In the next six to twelve months, three scenarios could unfold. First, the Vatican may commission an independent forensic analysis of the document’s provenance and issue clear guidelines on AI use in future writings, setting a precedent for other religious institutions. Second, without transparency, skepticism could grow, potentially leading to theological dissent or diminished global impact of the encyclical. Third, the controversy could catalyze a broader dialogue within the Church about digital ethics—not just in communication, but in AI’s role in surveillance, labor, and warfare, areas the Pope has also signaled interest in addressing. How the Holy See responds will influence not only its own credibility but also the wider debate on AI and human agency.
Bottom line — whether or not AI helped write Magnifica Humanitas, the suspicion alone reveals a profound crisis of trust in authorship, highlighting the urgent need for transparency as artificial intelligence reshapes the creation of authoritative knowledge.
Source: The Verge