[REPORT] More Human in Times of Ever More Artificial: A New Window of Opportunity for Mediating Vatican Diplomacy?

Exactly one hundred years after Pope Leo XIII published his encyclical “De rerum novarum,” which addressed the social question of a society disrupted by the changes of the industrial age, the incumbent Pope Leo XIV made headlines with his first encyclical, “Magnifica humanitas,” which searches to address the rising influence of artificial intelligence as a social question of this century.

This encyclical presents a reasonable, well-balanced approach weighing the benefits and challenges of technological advancement. On the one hand, the pontifex acknowledges the beneficial aspects of technological advancement for improving the living conditions of humanity. Those effects include an increased life expectancy, better healthcare, and higher standard of living. On the other hand, he also emphasizes the ambiguous character of technology, which can lead to tremendous harm. Appealing to this, Leo XIV addresses issues such as cyberwarfare, autonomous drones, and a rising army of bots, as well as an increase of hate speech and polarization in society.

Facing the dissolution of established old tenets, new certainties have yet to emerge; our world is undergoing what the Italian anarchist Antonio Gramsci in his 1930 Prison Notebooks termed “Interregnum” (1930, quoted in Hoare & Smith (eds.) 1971)). In this vein, the spiritual leader of more than one billion people all over the globe opens with the following question:

“We are living through a rapid phase of transition, a ‘change of era,’ in which—while some are vying for the future of new technologies and others dedicate themselves to reflecting on the matter—most people are watching and waiting, observing from afar and merely hoping for the best. For this very reason, crucial questions impose themselves on our conscience and can no longer be avoided: Where are we going? Toward what goal do we wish to orient ourselves? What direction should we choose as a people and as a human community?” (Leo XIV 2026 §6).

Building on that, the following will discuss the potential influence of the so-called “Vatican Diplomacy” in a time that is becoming more artificial and virtual than ever before.

Big in the Small: The Vatican and its Diplomacy

On the sidelines of the funeral for Pope Francis, US President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy faced each other on two improvised chairs under the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica. This small moment manifested the subtle diplomatic influence of the Vatican as a mediator among various diverging factions. Despite its size of 0,44km²—smaller than Central Park in New York (3,4km²) or the Disneyland Resort in Paris (0,5km²)—the Vatican manages to draw global public attention with its statements. Furthermore, disregarding creed, culture, nationality or politics, the Pope is widely recognized as a global authority. Additionally, regardless of whether they are devout Christians, adherents of other faiths, agnostics, or atheists, heads of state, politicians, and influential figures from politics, society, the arts, and beyond are eager to meet the pope and to be seen publicly in the company of the so-called Holy Father. Although the Pope does not exercise any real political power beyond the institutional walls of the Catholic Church, often his statements and voyages are followed closely by the media, emphasizing that despite a more secular world, the words of the pope still matter. In modern terms, he could be considered an influencer—or, to be more precise, a “Popefluencer” (Behler 2024).

Yet, unlike other influencers, this institution, whose history extends back to the time of the ancient Roman Empire, pursues a different set of interests. The establishment of the Vatican as hub of the Catholic Church can be considered a resolution to a diplomatic crisis. During the unification of Italy under the leadership of Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Italian national movement annexed the the Papal States, spanning a territory from Bologna to south of Rome, leading to the pope to retreat behind the walls of the Vatican. Since then, popes have considered themselves “self-chosen prisoners of Vatican” (Pius IX 1871). Eventually, the Treaty of Lateran in 1929 resolved this diplomatic question, defining the territory of the Vatican as a sovereign nation (Ernesti 1922). Nevertheless, the Vatican does not hold any relevant military or economic power. Conversely, the Holy See irradiates a certain power, one that the German church historian Jörg Ernesti coins “Friedensmacht”—a power of peace. Instead of securing spheres of influence for economic or military means, the core responsibility of the Holy See is to promote peace, strengthen human rights, and raise ethical questions, such as those relating to artificial intelligence (Ernesti 2022).

The Pope Effect, or Moral Agency as Soft Power

Unlike other subjects of international law, such as the Sovereign Order of Malta, the pope as a person is himself a subject of international law sui generis. As the superior representative of the Holy See, he holds the power to participate in international legal relations, maintain diplomatic relations, and conclude international treaties (Code of Canon Law, cann. 360–361). Nevertheless, the Holy See, with the pope as its head, possesses no means to enforce its interests.

Joseph Nye coined the terms of hard and soft power. Hard power is considered to be military might or economic power, enforcing interests on another entity or actor through punishing non-compliance and rewarding compliance; in other words, “hard power enforces obedience” (Nye 2004). Conversely, soft power relies on attractiveness. Examples might be the American way of life or the European Union as a peace project. Those cultures excel through attractiveness, encouraging others to follow voluntarily; in other words, “soft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments” (Nye 2004). The Holy See is a prime example of soft power, as it can only appeal to the international community while having no means to ensure compliance with its objectives.

In 2026, the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy celebrated its 325th anniversary. It is the oldest working academy for the training of future diplomats, preparing priests for their diplomatic missions all over the world. The academy’s director, Salvatore Pennacchio, condenses Vatican Diplomacy to a single statement: “In a world today marked by conflicts, geopolitical upheavals, cultural transformations, and environmental changes, Vatican diplomacy is confronted daily with an increasingly globalized and interconnected reality. Its mission is to respond to an urgent need: to build bridges of peace and justice, restore authentic relationships, and promote a civilization founded on love and respect for the dignity of every human person” (Vatican News 2026). Despite standing as head of the Roman Catholic Church, the pope considers himself not just a spokesperson for the affairs of its members, but also someone who addresses issues that affect all of humanity, such as climate change, global injustice, and human rights. A religious institution with such diplomatic standing is unique (Ernesti 2022). According to Monsignore Guy Terrancle, former Ecclesiastical Counsellor at the French Embassy in Vatican City, “only [the papal diplomacy] has this unique capability to be present in every society, every layer of these societies, and at every level of the states” (Colonna-Cesari 2016). The Vatican’s public diplomacy, such as Radio Vatican, broadcasted in 35 languages, is powerful, not only because the Pope is Christian, but because he is considered a legitimate moral conscience (Behler 2024).

A Multimodal Order, or All Roads Lead to Rome

“In recent years, it has become increasingly evident how rapidly and profoundly digitalization, artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics are transforming our world,” Pope Leo XIV 2026 (§4) said, depicting a current trend to be observed on a global scale. The previous world order, mostly defined by US hegemony, seems to be nearing its end, as the rivalry with a rising China suggests. Moreover, organizations such as BRICS, searching to gain influence “as a voice” for the Global South, contribute to a changing dynamic of globalisation. Moreover, actors such as global tech enterprises have created networks spanning the globe, creating a seemingly lawless cyberspace flooded with fake news and hate speech. Various publications such as “Surviving Chaos: Geopolitics When the Rules Fail” by Marc Leonhard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, advocate for nations to adopt an “artisan” way of thinking by managing to survive disruption rather than considering themselves rigid “architects” trying to rebuild outdated systems (Leonard 2026). Previously, Maha Aziz, professor of global risk at New York University, even coined the term “global legitimacy crisis,” in which neither under democratic nor authoritarian governmental systems do people seem satisfied with the status quo, questioning the legitimacy of the current system in search of a more suitable alternative (Aziz 2019).

Referring to the introduction, it seems that the old global order is about to dissolve, with a new global order yet to come. Professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, Brantley Womack, argues that the contemporary world order is best understood as multinodal instead of multipolar, defining multinodality as an “asymmetric matrix of actors in which each is located in a web of relationships […] where actions produce wider reverberations and where managing uncertainty becomes a strategic task for the state” (Womack 2024). Building on this, hardly any other institution other than the Roman Catholic Church can be considered a multimodal actor sui generis: “[t]he Church remains important and powerful, not only because of its moral authority, which has been its traditional power source, but also because the Church has access to a vast network in civil society around the globe and today’s challenges inevitably involve the Church” (Troy 2019). 

A True Story for an Artificial Future

Having elaborated on the various dimensions of Vatican Diplomacy, this section will give an outlook on its potential future trajectory for an unprecedented technological change. While the 135-member Pontifical Swiss Guard can hardly be called an army, the Holy See posses something more powerful than military or economic might, which is the power of word. Words are powerful in the sense that they can create visions and unite people under a common goal, shaping their strategies and attitude toward the future.

In a future where AI is about to become ever more influential, taking over ever more tasks previously performed by humans, those who control the algorithms will likely control the world. Therefore, a global AI race with the United States and China at its centre, as well as many private entrepreneurs, has erupted. However, Pope Leo XIV reflects on a rising question: “Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own time, so that history may become a place where the dignity of every person is respected, justice is promoted, and fraternity is made possible” (§1). In other words, what are the visions that humanity should follow when creating an AI-dominated global society?

In the following, a short excursion to the world of future studies will be undertaken to discuss this question further. It will be shown that in a world where the boundaries between the real and virtual worlds are blurring, people are eagerly searching for orientation and direction. Here, narratives provide a fertile source of power, sometimes even eclipsing the influence of military or economic force. According to Anderson’s “Imagined Communities,” nations are kept together by certain values, cultures, languages, and a feeling of belonging, even if the members of this community hardly know each other (Anderson 2006). The Catholic Church presents a particular example encompassing more than one billion members united by faith, with points of contact around the world. This institution may be uniquely aware of the signs of a worldwide change, seeing the impacts of technological disruption everywhere. At the same time, unlike national states, this institution searches to speak on behalf of all mankind.

Building on that, in The Image of the Future, Polak (1961) argues, “The history of culture is the history of its images of the future”. These future stories provide the pathway for a society to strive for in the future, reflecting a society’s hopes and fears, legitimizing institutions, and providing blueprints for political or social movements. A hopeful and dynamic vision of the future makes society progress. Conversely, when societies lose the capacity to imagine desirable futures, cultural stagnation and decline often follow (Polak 1973). Various political forces are vying for gaining dominance of those images of the future.

Diverging future-forward approaches become visible in two aspects: populists looking back on what has been coined a “retrotopia,” (Baumann 2017) and AI leaders dreaming of unidimensional utopian visions (Ramos 2017).

Populist forces are aware of the power of narratives for the future. Instead of looking ahead, their focus is on the promotion of what sociologist Zygmunt Bauman describes as a “retrotopia”: a societal tendency to seek hope and stability not in the future, but in idealized visions of the past. According to Bauman, contemporary crises such as globalization, digital transformation, political instability, and ecological uncertainty have weakened collective belief in progress, leading many societies to retreat into nostalgic narratives and traditional identities. Therefore, instead of thinking about their future, they search for the past, promoting the ideal of an allegedly well-known time that only exists in memories (Bauman 2017).

On the contrary, AI leaders such as Elon Musk or Peter Thiel are prone to a “disimagination strategy,” affecting how people think about the future (Celestianos & Holden 2026). “Disimagination politics are the strategies and tools which not only prevent people from imagining otherwise or creatively, but also from being able to even witness or name what unfolds around them. At its core, disimagination politics is a question of power: those who control what futures imaginable shape what futures are pursued, and those futures tend to serve the interests of those doing the shaping” (Celestianos & Holden 2026). In a form of elite futurism, these powerful elites search to distort the images and narratives of the future in their favor (Ramos et. al. 2017). The goal of this strategy is to make any alternative to a particular future image, such as the concept of an artificial superintelligence, seem redundant. The power onto future images is exerted by “anticipatory regimes” (Amsler & Facer 2017). “Those manipulate feelings and orientation to the future, suppressing any kind of critical reflection in favor of shaping the mode how we not only imagine the future but discipline our present being and becoming in order to minimize the risks of a future which is ‘felt as inevitable in the present’” (Amsler & Facer 2017). In the case of artificial intelligence, actors such as Elon Musk or Peter Thiel are members of those anticipatory regimes. They promote an image where the development of a superintelligent AI will be the solution to all social questions. The power of those regimes lies in the fact that people do not even dare to think that there might be a future society without a superintelligent artificial intelligence. Any alternative idea will become unimaginable. Therefore, as this trajectory seems inevitable, institutions adapt their behaviour to this future vision, disregarding whether they consider this vision desirable, or simply likely (Celestianos & Houlden 2026).

Conversely, instead of shrinking the creative space, Pope Leo XIV widens the debate, diverting the focus from solutionism to the question of humanity. Facing the challenges of modernization, the Catholic Church followed an approach of “Aggiornamento” (translated as “updating”). In 1959, clerics from around the world convened at the Second Vatican Council to consider repositioning this institution in a modernizing world. Instead of enforcing a unitary model, the Church diversified, “respecting and fostering the qualities and talents of various races and nations” (Pope Paul IV 1963). From this point on, church services were held in the local language, replacing the previous Latin liturgy. The switch of the language enabled believers to discover the liturgy through their own cultural lenses, actually understanding what was said during the church service. As a consequence, for example, local African churches discovered the gospel from an African perspective. Meanwhile, local Asian churches discovered their Asian features (Raab 2023). An evolution took place where, in the words of theologian Karl Rahner, the Church was “actualizing itself precisely as a world Church” (Rahner 1987). 

Like the encyclical of his predecessor Leo XIII, the current encyclical is of historic importance, as it opens a decisive counterpoint to existing narratives promoted. Just as the Industrial Revolution changed the social fabric forever, artificial intelligence is affecting society as a whole, disrupting the labor market and our social relations. Moreover, as AI’s capabilities continue to increase, it forces humanity to confront the question of our identity as human beings. In that context, the pope opens a dichotomy between building a “New Tower of Babble” (§7) and the establishment of a “New Jerusalem” (§8). The first relates to the story of people searching to build a tower reaching God in heaven. However, this endeavour was driven by a single technology, following a single direction, which lead to “uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion” (§7). The parallels to a shrinking focus on the promises of artificial intelligence become obvious here. In contrast to that, the pope refers to the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile to a destroyed Jerusalem. In a joint effort, the returnees, each responsible for one section of the city wall, managed to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. This was not done by a single plan imposed from above, but rather through the shared responsibility of all, embracing the diversity of the people (§8).

In summary, the future of an AI-driven world will be defined by those who promote the best future stories. Despite having no army and no economic power, the previous sections have shown that the pope has a particular power as a moral authority and mediator for peace. In times where people are searching for sense and orientation, such soft power can have a real impact. Acknowledging the beneficial aspects of AI while being conscious of its harmfulness, Pope Leo XIV invites us to reflect: “Therefore, the primary choice is not between a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem; between a power that claims to dominate the heavens and a people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence” (§9).

A Rock on Wild Shores

Reflecting upon when the election of a new pope was announced through white smoke, Leo XIV entered the loggia, greeting the world with the words: “Peace be with all of you“. The Holy See likely promotes a policy of neutrality, but never of political indifference. Conversely, as the world faces an increasing amount of unrest and hostility as consequences of an unknown process of globalisation and digitisation, this institution has identified itself as a promoter of peace and dialogue.

It would be insufficient to focus solely on the positive aspects of the church. Like many societal institutions, it must confront serious criticisms concerning issues such as cases of abuse, the crimes of colonization, corruption, and abuses of power. In this context, it is important—whether one is religious or not—to maintain a critical perspective and to be willing to question the institution itself. However, in a time in which known assurances seem to dissolve, alliances and partnerships long thought unbreakable start to crumble, and promises of peace and prosperity seem to be broken, this institution embodies one important feature.

According to the legend, it was Jesus who said to Petrus, the first pope: “You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18). Since then, this institution on a hill of Rome has seen empires rise and fall, has seen change and disorder, and yet it has managed to reflect on a history of nearly 2.000 years as an anchor of stability in times of instability.

Irrespective of religiosity or atheism, facing the disruptions that artificial intelligence unleashes requires solutions for the social question of our day: how to deal with the unprecedented pace of technological development and dissolution of old tenets, which impact the way we will work, live, and coexist with each other. Admittedly, the ability of the church to enforce its message is rather weak. On the flipside, as the process of the world synod has proven, the Catholic Church manages to bring people together from all corners of the globe.

In his encyclical, Pope Leo XIV raises the question every individual human being and humanity as a whole might ask: “What direction should we choose as a people and as a human community?” (Leo XIV 2026 §6). The choice of a future path depends on its images and stories. They express what people hope and fear to come next, as the experiences from yesterday shape the perspectives of tomorrow. Their dreams provide answers for current questions to create a vision for what lies ahead. In this vein, the pope and the Vatican, lacking the means to enforce the promotion of peace, can empower others to tell their stories that might not be heard otherwise, or, in the words of Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, preparing future diplomats: “In this context, the education of the students is not only oriented toward a culture of excellence, but also toward developing those priestly qualities of drawing close to people, listening, engaging in dialogue, and bearing witness—with humility and gentleness” (Parolin 2026).

Questions for further discussion

1. How do you consider the emergence of AI might change hard and soft power?
2. Do you consider that moral power will be strengthened or weakened?
3. Looking 20 years ahead, how might AI have changed our society, thinking about scenarios, that might include continuation, disruption, decline or improvement?

References:

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Rev. ed. London: Verso.

Aziz, M. H. (2019). Future world order (Updated ed. 2025). Independent.

Bauman, Z. (2017). Retrotopia. Polity Press.

Behler, C. (2024). Religion in der digitalen Gesellschaft: Wenn der Papst twittert … transcript Verlag.

Celestianos, R., & Houlden, S. (2026). Imagination as contested terrain: Elite futurism, disimagination politics, and education futures. Futures, 181, 103839.

Code of Canon Law (CIC/1983), cann. 360–361. (1983). The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/

Colonna-Cesari, C. (2016). Dans les secrets de la diplomatie vaticane. Éditions du Seuil.

Ernesti, J. (2022). Friedensmacht: Die vatikanische Außenpolitik seit 1870. Verlag Herder.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers.

Leonard, M. (2026). Surviving chaos: Geopolitics when the rules fail. Polity Press.

Leo XIV. (2026). Magnifica humanitas: On the protection of the human person in the age of artificial intelligence (§ 6). Vatican City.

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.

Parolin, P. (2025, April 15). Cardinal Parolin: Vatican diplomacy increasingly at the service of peace. Vatican News. https://www.vaticannews.va/

Polak, F. (1961). The image of the future: Enlightening the past, orientating the present, forecasting the future. Elsevier Scientific Publishing.

Polak, F. (1973). The image of the future (E. Boulding, Trans.). Elsevier Scientific Publishing.

Paul VI. (1963). Sacrosanctum concilium. Vatican City. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Pius IX., Rundschreiben Sr. Heiligkeit des Papstes Pius IX. vom 1. November 1870 in lateinischer und deutscher Sprache über die Feindseligkeiten der italienischen Regierung Viktor Emanuel’s seit mehreren Jahren gegen die weltlichen Besitzungen des Papstes und insbesondere gegen die gewaltsame Besitznahme der Stadt Rom, dieser Hauptstadt der katholischen Welt, am 20. September 1870. Bamberg: Erzbischöfliche Ordinariatskanzlei, 1871, S. 8–9. Digitalisat: https://www.google.de/books/edition/Rundschreiben_des_Papstes_Pius_IX_vom_1/K-JIchavDJAC?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=papst+pius+gefangener+1870&printsec=frontcover

Raab, S. (2025). A seismic shift to the south: The Catholic Church beyond Eurocentrism. Institute for a Greater Europe.

Rahner, K. (1987). Towards a fundamental theological interpretation of Vatican II. In L. Richard, D. Harrington, & J. O’Malley (Eds.), Vatican II: The unfinished agenda (pp. 9–11). Paulist Press.

Ramos, J., Sweeney, J. A., Peach, K., & Smith, L. (2019). Our futures: By the people, for the people. Nesta.

Troy, J. (2019). The papal human rights discourse: The difference Pope Francis makes. Human Rights Quarterly, 41(1), 66–90.

Vatican News. (2026). Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy: Peace in a conflict-ridden world. https://www.vaticannews.va/

Womack, B. (2024). Strategic principles for co-existence in a multinodal world. China International Strategy Review, 6, 22–38.