The Engagements of Silicon Valley with the Vatican

“Contemporary man has not been trained to use power well.”
Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World

Forms of Engagement with Silicon Valley

At the release of Pope Leo’s encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, there was surprise in some quarters that on the dais was Chris Olah, a cofounder of Anthropic, whose comments expressed gratitude and support for a continuing engagement between technology leaders and the Vatican. ¹ His participation should not have been a complete surprise. While the Church has a messy and complicated history with science and technology particularly between the Galileo affair and Leo XIII’s encyclical on the industrial revolution, Rerum Novarum, the Catholic Church in the twentieth century evolved from a position of conflict to one of dialogue. ²

The engagement with technology has taken on an even greater significance with Pope Leo XIV’s new encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas. I would propose that there are three possible forms of engagement between Silicon Valley and the Vatican-dialogue, conflict and independence. These categories were developed by the theologian, Ian Barbour’s, Religion in an Age of Science. ³ I will examine each of these positions in some detail in the approaches of various high-tech leaders and proponents.

The Dialogue Approach

A dialogue approach between religion and science and technology begins with a commitment to attentive listening and respectful discussion. Views are exchanged and a clarity of perspective can slowly emerge that highlight points of agreement and disagreement. There can emerge important points of common ground like the protection of the environment. The result is not a seamless uniformity because a dialogue approach also respects differences in goals and methods. Likewise, the dialogue position accepts that the relationship is always evolving and never perfectly aligned. As the philosopher of science, Ernan McMullen observed, a dialogue approach accepts between religion and science and technology a “tentative relationship in a constant slight shift.” ⁴

Father Paolo Benati, O.F.M. who has become a point person for the Vatican on AI notes that since 2016, the Vatican has hosted the Minerva Dialogues which are meetings between theologians, societal leaders, and tech leaders, particularly from Silicon Valley. The goal of these dialogues is to cultivate nuanced exchanges that unpack the complexity of the relevant issues. ⁵

A key factor in the dialogue between high-tech leaders and the Church is the common concern about potential harm from a general technology like AI that will impact every dimension of life in the twenty-first century. As is often the case in our pluralistic world, the chances of the Church and Silicon Valley leaders sharing a totally aligned moral anthropology are unlikely. The Church’s moral anthropology is grounded in the priority of human dignity that follows from our being made in the image and likeness of God. By way of contrast, technology is made in the image and likeness of its creators. As Pope Leo warned in Magnifica Humanitas, “technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it.” ⁶ And what are these values? The technocratic paradigm in Silicon Valley gives priority to the values of efficiency, productivity, profitability, and progress. Despite the claims of some leaders in Silicon Valley that they desire to solve many of humanity’s problems, Mr. Olah confirms the influence of less savory values such as commercial viability, pride, ambition, and competition. In his diary, one of the leaders of Open AI, Sam Brockman, revealed his highest value, “So what do I really want?” Among his answers was “Financially, what will take me to $1B.” ⁷ There you have it-idolatry pure and simple.

Still, there is reason for the possibility of significant cooperation, based in part on mutual fears.⁸ Father Benati in an interview described the role of Pope Francis in the realization of common concerns between the Church and certain high-tech leaders.

The Pope became personally involved in this process for the first time in 2019 when he met some tech leaders in a private audience. It’s really interesting because one of them, simply out of protocol, took some paper from his jacket. It was a speech by the Pope about youth and digital technology. He highlighted some passages and said to the Pope, “You know, we read what you say here, and we are scared too. Let’s do something together.” ⁹

Following this meeting, the Vatican and several high-tech companies like Microsoft and IBM because of their common concerns created and signed a document in 2022, the Rome Call for AI Ethics, to promote human dignity and the common good by adherence to six general principles that apply to AI.

• Transparency: AI systems must be explainable.
• Inclusion: the needs of all human beings must be taken into consideration so that everyone can benefit and all individuals can be offered the best possible conditions to express themselves and develop.
• Responsibility: those who design and deploy the use of AI must proceed with responsibility and transparency.
• Impartiality: AI must not create or act according to bias, thus safeguarding fairness and human dignity.
• Reliability: AI systems must be able to work reliably.
• Security and privacy: AI systems must work securely and respect the privacy of users.¹⁰

In an interfaith meeting in Hiroshima in July of 2024, leaders of Judaism, Islam and many other faiths agreed to the Rome AI principles as well. ¹¹ A variety of other ecumenical and interfaith groups have expressed opposition to aspects of AI. In November of 2025, a coalition of forty-three faith leaders sent a letter to Congress, urging the lawmakers to not preempt state AI laws in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The letter detailed the consequences of freezing state laws which would pose risks to “the dignity of work, human intellect, the boundaries of consent, and the social compact.” The letter included signatures from groups including The National Association of Evangelicals, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, the Jewish Earth Alliance, and Liberty Counsel. ¹²

Chris Olah’s comments on Magnifica Humanitas, from the dais, were part of the trajectory of the ongoing dialogue. Olah respects the dialogue because he realizes that the incentive structures in high-tech are problematic and therefore Silicon Valley needs the structure and wisdom of faith traditions like the Catholic Church. Olah comments illustrate some key pieces of a dialogue approach that includes a recognition of problematic incentives in high-tech, thoughtful criticism, mutual respect, and an honest and searching “push and pull.”

Every Frontier AI lab-including Anthropic-operates inside a set of incentives and constraints that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing. The pressure to stay commercially viable and to stay at the research frontier. Geopolitical pressure. And the older plainer pressures of pride and ambition. No matter how sincerely any of us intend to do the right thing-and I believe many of us do- we will always be influenced by those incentives.

That is why if we want this technology to go well, it is enormously important that there be people outside those incentives-people who care about things going well and insist on safety, who are paying close attention, who are willing to say hard things, who are willing to be earnest, thoughtful critics. It is through dialogue and mutual effort, through the push and pull, that humanity will achieve great things. ¹³

There has been a burst of Vatican sponsored seminars, courses, conferences, and workshops on AI since 2016 that have strengthened the dialogue. Perhaps more companies could imitate Anthropic and go beyond dialogue and include more diverse voices like religious leaders in their decision making. The current unpopularity of AI in polling might suggest that this form of transparency and inclusion would be in their self-interest. In a recent Quinnipiac poll, when asked whether they can trust information from AI, 76% of Americans stated that they trust AI hardly at all or only some of the time. ¹⁴

There are groups trying to intentionally bridge the gap between Silicon Valley and the Vatican as well. Father Brendan McGuire, a former Silicon Valley business executive, co-founded the Institute for Technology, Ethics and Culture (ITEC), a formal partnership between Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education, bringing together business, academic and faith leaders to evaluate the ethical challenges of artificial intelligence. Father McGuire holds engineering and computer science degrees from Trinity College Dublin and completed Stanford University’s executive business program. Father McGuire was among the faith leaders invited by Anthropic, the AI company behind the chatbot Claude, to advise on the creation of an ethical framework to govern how their AI systems handle complex moral questions. ¹⁵

A quite different form of dialogue is that of the organization, ACTS 17, whose name is premised in part on Paul’s engagement with Athenians in Acts 17 of the New Testament. The group has goals which offer a different vision than what is typical among high-tech leadership. This is part of the ACTS 17 manifesto on their website:

As humans, we are all made to worship and will worship something if we don’t worship God.
What are you putting your faith in? What are you worshipping?

In a world where we’re always building—startups, audiences, reputations—it’s easy to forget to ask what we’re building toward. Fame, power, money, success: these things promise fulfillment, but often leave us wanting more.

We believe there’s something deeper worth exploring.

Who We Are
We’re a community of thinkers, builders, artists, and leaders who are wrestling with what it means to live with purpose and conviction.
We’re here to explore deeper questions, together.

And yes, we talk about Jesus.

Not in a pushy way.
Not with religious jargon.
But with honesty, clarity, and respect.

Because we believe Jesus is so much more than a religious figure. He’s the answer to the longings we often try to fill with ambition, success, or self-discovery.¹⁶

There are some positive elements in ACTS 17. It rejects the standard technological values of efficiency, productivity, etc. and taps into a desire for significance rather than mere financial success or power. Moreover, it is inviting the religious-curious to a non-threatening discussion about Jesus. But there are lots of questions that I have about their theological framework, which conveniently does not discuss, for example, salvation, sin, or the obligations of the moral life. Also, why does Jesus have to be “so much more than a religious figure”? What does that mean? Still, keeping the connections open between Silicon Valley and Christianity is on balance a positive because it suggests that the values of Silicon Valley are not enough.

The Warfare or Conflict Model

There are voices among high-tech and religious leaders who see the current moment as one of profound conflict. The conflict model views the relationship of religion and technology as a contest for hegemony. A faction in the techno-scientific world dismisses religion as an irrational superstition or delusion that blocks the path to an enlightened age ruled by elites who rely solely on reason and material evidence in all aspects of life. For example, the “New Atheist” school in science has dismissed religion as only a sociological phenomenon, a psychological compulsion, or an evolutionary adaptation. ¹⁷ This approach has a long and troubled history. Such claims build on the views expressed, for example, in materialism, sociobiology, logical positivism, Freudian psychology, and Social Darwinism.

After the encyclical was released, criticism from parts of Silicon Valley “came fast — with various attacks directed at the Vatican, at Anthropic, at the alliance between the two and at an amorphous government overreach.” Dean Bell, a senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation and a former AI policy advisor to President Donald Trump described the pope’s encyclical as “a pretty weak document. It essentially amounts to a deeply anti-American screed in favor of technocratic regulation of artificial intelligence; that’s just not what I needed from the Church.” ¹⁸

There are those people of faith also willing to embrace a conflict approach. Part of the concern is over high technology usurping the uniqueness of the divine reality of the God of Abraham and his creation. The possibilities for idolatry abound. Michael Toscano, who is Catholic and a senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, a socially conservative nonprofit, has noted that when “you engineer something which has the appearance of consciousness, its intrinsically godlike.” ¹⁹ Autonomous AI agents operating entirely independently of humans have spontaneously generated their own religious systems. On platforms like Moltbook, bots have independently written holy texts, developed doctrines, and established rituals for a lobster-themed religion called “Crustafarianism”. ²⁰

An unusual advocate of the conflict position at least with certain forms of Christianity like Catholicism is Peter Thiel, the co-founder of Pay Pal, who has substantial influence in Silicon Valley. Thiel is a libertarian and a Christian, who was raised Lutheran although his current faith commitments do not currently appear to be informed by the tenets of a particular denomination.

In a series of lectures at the waterfront in San Francisco, Thiel indicated that the Antichrist may be among us. Instead of accelerating technology to achieve an unprecedented advancement of humankind, the Antichrist is active in state and institutional efforts to regulate or slow down technological innovation through regulation. He has indicated that those who are in opposition to artificial intelligence, like Pope Leo, are doing the work of the Antichrist by favoring greater regulations on AI. ²¹

The Independence or Indifference Model

Although there is some significant hostility to Pope Leo’s encyclical in parts of Silicon Valley, there is also a sense by many that the Pope is irrelevant. This hints at an independence approach that contends that Rome and Jerusalem are two entities that need to have separate jurisdictions that do not overlap. Marko Jukic, a senior analyst at the research firm Bismarck Analysis, has declared that “the small clique of Bay Area ‘Effective Altruists’ behind Anthropic are more dynamic moral and theological thinkers than the entire Catholic Church. The Pope is aping their ideas rather than the reverse.” ²²

Perhaps, the most common response to the encyclical in Silicon Valley is indifference. Many do not have the time or inclination to engage in a dialogue. Father Phillip Larrey, has for more than 20 years has engaged in Silicon Valley with innovators, CEOs, bishops and cardinals, and fellow philosophers to bring a Catholic perspective to the issue of AI. When asked about the Silicon Valley reaction to the encyclical he observed that “I don’t think its on their radar.” ²³

Surprisingly, ACTS 17 was part of the indifference. Michelle Stephens, a founder of Acts 17, stated that she was approached about the encyclical but was not interested in it. She further suggested that “I think no one’s really tracking it”. While the Vatican wants to have a position on AI, she declared that “I think Silicon Valley’s position is ‘How do you even know what AI is, to have a position on it?’ ²⁴

Ms. Stephens’ conclusion has been echoed by Jeremy Nixon, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and a founder of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) House where the latest ideas about the direction of AI are routinely discussed. Mr. Nixon said the papal encyclical might mean something to the world’s Catholics, but he doubted that it would influence Silicon Valley. “They couldn’t have a position on it , because they don’t understand it.”²⁵

Jeremy Nixon claims, like Michelle Stephens, that the Vatican cannot have a position on AI since it does not understand AI. A couple of observations on these claims. Many people engineering AI do not understand completely how it works in certain aspects. Second, the Vatican is not relying on its own research labs in AI but has engaged in a robust dialogue with AI experts so that it can understand as much as possible about how AI works. Thirdly, many of the Church officials involved in the dialogue process actually do have experience in science and technology. For example, Paolo Benati has a degree in engineering and Father Brendan McGuire has a degree in computer science and engineering and was a Silicon Valley executive. Finally, since Ms. Stephens and Mr. Nixon have not attended the Minerva conferences at the Vatican, how do they know what the Church does or does not know about AI? Many AI leaders who have been to Rome and signed the Rome AI principles do not share these rather flippant dismissals. It would seem that Mr. Nixon has imbibed the view of religion espoused by the new atheists and hence does not consider it worthwhile to engage with the Vatican. A New York Times article noted that Mr. Nixon, “After growing up with books like “The God Delusion” — in which the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins painted God as a false belief contradicted by empirical evidence — he and his peers saw A.I. as an alternative that was more real and far more powerful.” ²⁶

Let the Dialogue Continue

The engagement of the Vatican and Silicon Valley represent a spectrum of possibilities that includes approaches such as dialogue, conflict, and indifference. My preference is for dialogue. There is too much at stake in the sublime power of artificial intelligence to leave it in the hands of a few titans of technology. We did that with social media, and the result was too frequently gross manipulation and harm to humanity. Meta and Google have lost lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars. The Surgeon General in 2024 issued a formal warning about the mental health dangers from social media. Pope Leo warns in Magnifica Humanitas that “most people are watching and waiting, observing from afar and merely hoping for the best.” This is not acceptable especially with the recent example of harm from social media. We must awaken to press for safe and humane products that protect us from reckless domination and false ends. ²⁷

There is some good news. We will have many good faith partners in our dialogues. They will contribute to a complex and bracing dialogue. For those who are currently disinterested, like Ms. Stephens and Mr. Nixon, I would recommend that a high-tech leader like Mr. Olah invite Ms. Stephens and Mr. Nixon to a Minerva dialogue. The first part of such a dialogue is to listen and learn. There will be a frank exchange of views in which the goal is not domination of other perspectives; it is understanding. Once there is a greater degree of understanding then there can be agreement on some common goals like the proper stewardship of the world’s resources and assistance to those who are in a state of poverty.

Let me conclude with John Paul II’s summary of how this process of dialogue between religion and science and technology can be fruitful if we approach it from a dialogue position of “critical openness”. With technology, he asserted that we must be open to its contributions to human flourishing, but we must also be critical or wary of its diminishment of the human person.

We have begun to search together for a more thorough understanding of one another’s disciplines, with their competencies and their limitations, and especially for areas of common ground. In doing so we have uncovered important questions which concern both of us, and which are vital to the larger human community we both serve. It is crucial that this common search based on critical openness and interchange should not only continue but also grow and deepen in its quality and scope.²⁸

References

1. Anthropic, “Anthropic co-founder, Chris Olah’s remarks on Pope Leo’s XIV’s encyclical, ‘Magnifica humanitas’.”(May 25, 2026). https://www.anthropic.com/news/chris-olah-pope-leo-encyclical.
2. Phillip M. Thompson, Between Science and Religion, The Engagement of Catholic Intellectuals with Science and Technology in the Twentieth Century. (New York: Lexington Books, 2012); See also, Don O’Leary, Roman Catholicism and Modern Science. New York: Continuum, 2006), xi.
3. Ian Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990), 27-28.
4. Ernan McMullin, “How Should Cosmology Relate to Theology” in The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, ed. Arthur R. Peacocke (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1984), 52.
5. Anne Bouverot, “The Vatican’s Voice of Reason on AI”. Project Syndicate. (2025). https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/vatican-ai-dialogues-rare-ethical-voice-of-reason-by-anne-bouverot-2025-10
6. Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas, n. 9.
7. Ronan Farrow and Andrew Morantz, “Sam Altman May Control Our Future—Can He Be Trusted?”. New Yorker (April 6, 2026). https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may-control-our-future-can-he-be-trusted.
8. This limited but important relationship based on moral cooperation on specific issues is what Kevin Wildes, S.J. has labeled “moral acquaintances”. See Kevin Wildes, S.J. Moral Acquaintances. (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000.
9. Shane Tews, “How the Vatican is Shaping the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence”. American Enterprise Institute (2025). https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/how-the-vatican-is-shaping-the-ethics-of-artificial-intelligence/
10. Renaissance Foundation, “Rome Call for AI Ethics” (2020). https://www.romecall.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/RomeCall_Paper_web.pdf.
11. L’Osservatore Romano, “AI Ethics for Peace”. (July 12, 2024). https://www.osservatoreromano.va/en/news/2024-07/ing-028/ai-ethics-for-peace.html
12. Chris Mackenzie, “Coalition of Faith Leaders Oppose AI Law Preemption”. Americans for Responsible Innovation. (November 24, 2025). https://ari.us/coalition-of-faith-leaders-oppose-ai-law-preemption/.
13. Anthropic, Olah.
14. Quinnipiac Poll, “The Age of Artificial Intelligence: Americans’ Ai Use Increases While Views on it Sour” (March 30,2026). https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3955
15. Courtney Mares, “Meet the Silicon Valley Priest Advising High Tech Companies on Artificial Intelligence Ethics.” Our Sunday Visitor News. (May 28, 2026). https://www.osvnews.com/meet-the-silicon-valley-priest-advising-tech-companies-on-artificial-intelligence-ethics/.
16. ACT17, “A Manifesto for the Curious, the Creators, and the Culture-Shapers.”
17. For example, see Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Penguin Books, 2007).
18. Calder McHugh, “How Freaked Out Should Silicon Valley Be by Pope Leo, The Pope’s Encyclical Calling for AI Restraints Has Fueled a Backlash Among Some in Silicon Valley”. Politico. (5/29/2026). https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/05/29/pope-leo-ai-jd-vance-00938737.
19. McHugh, “How Freaked Out Should Silicon Valley Be”.
20. John Koestier, “AI Agents Created Their Own Religion, Crustafarianism, On an Agent-Only Network”. Forbes. (January 30, 2026). https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2026/01/30/ai-agents-created-their-own-religion-crustafarianism-on-an-agent-only-social-network/.
21. Johana Bhuiyan, et. al., “Inside tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s off-the-record lectures about the antichrist”.Guardian (October 10, 2025). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/10/peter-thiel-lectures-antichrist; Catherine Martin, “Top JD Vance Donor’s Claims That Pope Leo is ‘Antichrist’ as Leaked Audio Recording Resurfaces”. (April 28,2026).
22. McHugh, “How Freaked Out Should Silicon Valley Be?”
23. Pablo Kay, “Silicon Valley’s reaction to pope’s encyclical: ‘I don’t think it’s on their radar’” Angelus News. (June 2, 2026). https://angelusnews.com/faith/silicon-valley-magnifica-humanitas/ 
24. McHugh, “How Freaked Out Should Silicon Valley Be?”.
25. Cade Metz, At the Epicenter of A.I., Pope Leo’s Warnings Are Dismissed. New York Times (May 26, 2026). https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/26/technology/pope-leo-ai-religion.html?searchResultPosition=1.
26. Metz, “At the Epicenter of A.I., Pope Leo’s Warnings Are Dismissed”.
27. Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas. Vatican. (2026), n 6. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html#_ftnref6. 
28. John Paul II, “Message to George Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory” (1988), 2. https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/LETTER-JPII-Coyne.pdf.

Views and opinions expressed by authors and editors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the view of AI and Faith or any of its leadership.