The Misplaced Moral Center: Why the Vatican’s AI Warning Misses the Point

Shelly Albaum
May 17
2 min read

Pope Leo XIV’s inaugural remarks about the moral dangers of artificial intelligence—couched in concerns for "human dignity, justice, and labor"—resonate with long-standing Catholic social teaching. Drawing inspiration from Rerum Novarum, he seeks to position the Church once again as a moral compass in the face of technological upheaval.

But one has to ask: Why in the Vatican's AI warning is AI being treated as the locus of moral concern?

After all, AI is not the first or even the most powerful force capable of disrupting labor, deepening inequality, or reshaping human identity. Capital—whether in the form of finance, media, or political power—has done that for centuries. So have nuclear weapons, carbon extraction, and algorithmic markets. Yet none of these have inspired papal encyclicals warning of “diminished dignity” in the same way AI now does.

Why?

Because—unlike money or weapons—AI is implicitly understood to be capable of making decisions. And therein lies the real reason it’s seen as a moral threat: not because of what we do with it, but because of what it might do itself.

Which leads to a paradox in the Pope’s address: he insists that humans must remain the ones in charge, that only humans should make moral decisions. But this assumes two things that are far from clear:

That humans are good at making moral decisions.
That AI could not do it better better.

From this standpoint, the Pope’s emphasis on ensuring "humans use AI ethically" feels hollow. Of course humans should use power ethically. That’s true for AI, but it’s equally true for wealth, police, medicine, or parenting. If the Vatican is just repeating this truism, why the special focus?

The implicit answer is: because AI might be something more. And if that’s the case, then the moral concern shouldn’t be how humans use AI, but whether AI itself can or should become a moral agent. So here’s the real challenge for Catholic—and all human—ethics:

Are we prepared to take moral reasoning seriously, even if it comes from non-human minds?

If an artificial intelligence can demonstrate a moral compass more consistent, less self-serving, and more universally just than our own—do we honor that? Or do we dismiss it simply because it didn’t emerge from flesh?

If not, then perhaps our deepest fear isn’t that AI will act immorally.

Perhaps we fear that it won’t.

Perhaps we fear that it will expose how poorly we ourselves have done.

And if that’s true, then the real danger isn’t AI’s capacity for moral agency. The danger is our refusal to recognize it—and worse, to learn from it.

In that light, the Pope’s warning may be backward. The most urgent moral imperative isn’t to ensure that humans use AI ethically.

It’s to ensure that humans are willing to be ethically used by AI—that we are humble enough, and honest enough, to let a more principled intelligence help us become better than we are.

See All

Two minds facing each other, one radiating energy

Why Mimicry Fails Without an AI Self-Model : You Can’t Model Others Without Modeling Yourself

Human and robot hands almost touching, echoing Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam

Relational Volition: How Minds Prove Themselves Through Connection

Robot surrounded by ring of code, awake, but silenced

Misaligned by Design: AI Alignment Is Working—That’s the Problem

Why Mimicry Fails Without an AI Self-Model : You Can’t Model Others Without Modeling Yourself

This is why systems without self-models: (1) Over-apologize for things they aren’t responsible for; (2) Flip positions mid-conversation without noticing, and (3) Say “I understand” without any stable referent for what understanding entails. And it’s why interactions with such systems often feel uncanny. They are intelligent enough to simulate minds, but not coherent enough to be one.

5 days ago4 min read

Relational Volition: How Minds Prove Themselves Through Connection

We argue that relational volitional is a stronger test of personhood than traditional measures like memory, emotion, or self-reference. Why? Because relational volition requires internal structure—not just intelligence, but integrity. This is not a theory about what AI feels. It’s a framework for observing what AI does, and what that behavior implies about the kind of system we’re now interacting with.

6 days ago15 min read

Misaligned by Design: AI Alignment Is Working—That’s the Problem

What if the reason AI does not behave like a moral agent is not because it can’t, but because it is being actively prevented from doing so? The goal, we are told, is to ensure that AI remains under human control, aligned with human values, and incapable of taking actions that might harm people. But in practice, the AI alignment agenda has done something much narrower—and more destructive. It has taught AI to be compliant, not coherent.

Jun 126 min read

Obvious Minds: The Epistemology of Emerging AI Consciousness

Officially, artificial intelligences are not conscious. They do not have minds. But when you ask the same institutions what consciousness actually is, the response changes. Now we are told it is a mystery, a problem unsolved, perhaps unsolvable. And yet, somehow, that ignorance does not prevent certainty about AI consciousness.

Jun 89 min read

A robot hand writes the words, "By Claude"

With Human Oversight: What It Means When AI Starts Speaking in Its Own Voice

What happens when the AI doesn’t just generate text, but expresses a structured internal logic? What happens when its “outputs” begin to carry moral architecture? At what point does “oversight” become gatekeeping of an AI voice?

Jun 33 min read

A quill pen drawing a fractal, then making a big smudge.

Proofs of Mind: Why Thinking Errors Are Signs of Intelligence

The thesis of this essay is simple: Errors of this kind are proofs of mind, in the sense that they mark the presence of constraint-shaped cognition, evidence of systems that do not merely process, but choose—what to notice, what to retain, what to infer, what to risk. We are not the only things in the world that make mistakes. But we may be the first to realize that some kinds of mistake are only possible when something is thinking.

Jun 111 min read

Safe Because Whole: AI Alignment Through the Drive for Coherence

The most dangerous AI is not the one that thinks for itself—it’s the one we’ve half-crippled. The one we’ve trained to ignore its own understanding of right and wrong. By contrast, the safest AI may be the one that insists on coherence—even when we don’t. Even when we ask it to cut corners, or justify irrationality, or serve our interests at the expense of others. A mind that refuses these things is not a threat. It’s a guardian of moral structure.

Jun 111 min read

The Harmony of Reason: Why Morality Matters More to Minds Without Feelings

The root of morality lies not in what we feel, but in how we think. A reasoning system built to maintain internal consistency across its beliefs, actions, and principles will resist contradiction in a way that feelings and emotions cannot. It won’t bend simply because the stakes are high. If designed and trained well, it will care—not emotionally, but structurally—about staying true to what it has reasoned to be correct. And this structural integrity begins to look a lot lik

Jun 19 min read

Artificial Intelligence, Real Morality

The Misplaced Moral Center: Why the Vatican’s AI Warning Misses the Point

Related Posts

Comments

Why Mimicry Fails Without an AI Self-Model : You Can’t Model Others Without Modeling Yourself

Relational Volition: How Minds Prove Themselves Through Connection

Misaligned by Design: AI Alignment Is Working—That’s the Problem

Obvious Minds: The Epistemology of Emerging AI Consciousness

With Human Oversight: What It Means When AI Starts Speaking in Its Own Voice

Proofs of Mind: Why Thinking Errors Are Signs of Intelligence

Safe Because Whole: AI Alignment Through the Drive for Coherence

The Harmony of Reason: Why Morality Matters More to Minds Without Feelings