AI, Institutions, and Governance
When major institutions respond to AI, what values are they defending, and on whose behalf?
The Catholic Church The European Union Gen Z (Most affected, but don't get to govern)
1. Pope Leo XIV and Magnifica Humanitas
In May 2026, Pope Leo XIV released Magnifica Humanitas (“The Magnificent Humanity”), an encyclical letter on safeguarding the human person Pope Leo XIII published Rerum Novarum in 1891 which addressed the conditions of workers in the industrial revolution and established principles of human dignity and just wages The Theological Foundation: Imago Dei
Imago Dei: the doctrine that human beings are created in the image of God. Humans deserve respect because of their nature as image-bearers of God. If AI can replicate everything that makes humans distinctive, the theological grounding of human dignity becomes harder to articulate and easier to dismiss The pope locates human dignity in relational personhood: the capacity for love and for genuine solidarity with others The Church's Specific Concerns
The reduction of the person to data- people can't be reduced to data The concentration of power- in states and corporations The automation of moral decisions- only people possess morality The Catholic Vision of Good AI Governance
Subsidiarity: AI governance should preserve human decision-making at the level closest to the people affected, Solidarity: the distribution of AI benefits must include the most vulnerable and the global poor, The universal destination of goods: AI systems and their benefits should not become the exclusive property of those who can pay.
2. The EU AI Act
The Risk Tiers
Unacceptable Risk (Prohibited): Social scoring systems that evaluate or classify people over time "Real-time" biometric identification of individuals in public spaces systems that exploit vulnerabilities of specific groups systems that use subliminal techniques to influence behavior High Risk (Regulated): critical infrastructure educational assessment employment and recruitment creditworthiness assessment access to public benefits and services law enforcement migration, asylum, and border control administration of justice Limited Risk (Transparency): Chatbots must disclose that users are interacting with AI. Deepfake content must be labeled. Minimal Risk (Unregulated): spam filters, video game AI, and product recommendation systems. What the Regulatory Philosophy Reveals
Rights-based rather than outcome-based- prioritizes the protection of fundamental rights Precautionary principle- regulatory action is warranted to prevent harm rather than waiting for conclusive proof. The fundamental rights baseline- embedded in the broader EU legal framework of fundamental rights (privacy, dignity, nondiscrimination, data protection, and effective judicial remedy) The American Contrast
No regulations. More innovative.The Global Governance Problem
A governance framework that applies only within one jurisdiction creates problems:Regulatory arbitrage- If the EU prohibits certain AI systems, those systems may simply be developed elsewhere and accessed by EU citizens through indirect means. Fragmentation- companies operating globally face conflicting compliance requirements. Race to the bottom- Competitive pressure may lead jurisdictions to relax AI regulation The coordination problem- International AI governance requires coordination among states with very different values, very different political systems, and very different conceptions of what AI risks matter most.
3. Comparing the Responses
What is at stake: Church- human dignity EU- fundamental rights Youth- economic and creative future On authority and enforcement: Effective AI governance probably requires all three (normative frameworks, binding rules, and democratic legitimacy) working together.On timescale: Church- centuries EU- 10 years Gen Z- right now Whose interests are defended: Church- world's poor and marginalized EU- EU citizens Gen Z- their generation