Amid Warnings of an ‘AI Apocalypse,’ Catholics Take Different Sides| National Catholic Register

Is the world headed for a catastrophe caused by artificial intelligence? Depends on who you ask. 

Jacob Coxon, a former employee at U.S. AI giant Anthropic — the same company that sent a representative to the Vatican to appear alongside Pope Leo XIV for the release of his AI encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas — ignited a firestorm on Sept. 8 when he publicly resigned from the company, warning on social media that “[t]he people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.” 

Other employees at the leading AI labs have since chimed in to confirm Coxon’s assessment and explain the ways that humanity could end — a rogue AI could synthesize and release a deadly virus, shut down or weaponize critical infrastructure, deploy killer drones, or any of hundreds of morbidly creative scenarios. 

CEOs of several of these companies, including Sam Altman of OpenAI and Elon Musk of xAI, have endorsed Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s subsequent call for government regulation and independent oversight of the AI industry. 

But the tech companies’ calls for state intervention to avert disaster have not been well-received by everyone, including some Catholics. While some Catholic leaders and experts have characterized the warnings as a wake-up call to pursue the kind of AI-related protections championed by Pope Leo XIV, others have raised concerns about the motives of AI tech companies and the economic and national security consequences of the U.S. slowing down the pace of development. 

An Existential Threat?

Though the idea of an AI-caused apocalypse is arguably the hottest news item and conversation topic in the world right now, it’s far from a new fear. 

The recent discussion isn’t even the first time that those connected to Anthropic have explicitly called for a global slowdown in AI development. Co-founder Jack Clark and Anthropic Institute head Marina Favaro published a blog post on June 4 warning about a risk of “humans losing control over AI systems,” especially as its own system, Claude, will soon be capable of autonomously designing successively more powerful AI models without human contribution. 

The current debate isn’t even the first time a percentage likelihood has been affixed to the idea of an AI apocalypse. For instance, Geoffrey Hinton, who is often described as the “godfather” of AI, prompted frantic headlines the world over when he opined in 2024 that there is a “10% to 20%” chance that AI will lead to human extinction within the next 30 years. 

As early as 2023, several Catholics involved in the debate over AI, such as Father Phillip Larrey, signed a resolution crafted by the Future of Life Institute calling for a moratorium on the development of the most powerful AI models, citing the possible destruction of humanity. 

‘Disarming’ AI

Charles Camosy, a Catholic theologian who has been publicly vocal about the need to protect humanity against AI’s effects, including in warfare, has described Anthropic’s call for a pause as aligned with Pope Leo XIV’s language of “disarming” the technology.

The concept comes from the Pope’s AI encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas. In the encyclical, Pope Leo explicitly called for “a more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating,” as well as “regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the distorting effects of technological power.”

At the same time, Leo argues that regulation alone is insufficient; humanity, he said, must move away from a “mentality of armed competition,” which in the context of AI includes a “race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire to secure geopolitical or commercial dominance.” 

In the wake of tech companies’ warnings, Pope Leo XIV’s message of collaboration and prioritization of the common good has been amplified on the American scene by figures like Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. On Tuesday, the San Francisco archbishop was in Washington, D.C., to participate in a “pro-human” conference that included celebrities and political figures from across the spectrum calling for greater regulation of AI.

“The ideal would be that everyone is on the same page and everyone is confining it, so these agents don’t go off and begin acting on their own,” Archbishop Cordileone told the Register.

More broadly, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops appeared to reference AI leaders’ recent warnings in a Sept. 16 press release announcing the creation of a dedicated AI task force. 

“Recent events have only emphasized the great need for action by everyone involved,” said USCCB spokesperson Chieko Noguchi in the statement, describing the threats posed by unchecked AI as a “real and present danger.”

Camosy, who recently accompanied leaders from the USCCB in a series of “extremely candid conversations” with AI leaders on the possible existential threats of the tech, said that the time for action is now. 

“The calls to slow down are now overwhelming and coming from so many different kinds of folks, including those who have quit and have no stock or other financial interest in these companies, that it is now folly to dismiss their perspectives,” he told the Register.

“What we need is not just to slow down, however,” Camosy added. “We need a pause and pivot to a totally different way of thinking about the technology.”

Multifaceted Pushback

Some Catholics, however, view the recent dire warnings from industry insiders with suspicion, suggesting that the motives behind the announcements may be self-interested or that the potential dangers are overstated. 

Crisis Magazine editor Eric Sammons, for instance, criticized the present concerns and proposed solutions about AI as appearing similar to the messaging surrounding COVID-19 during the pandemic.

“A coordinated media attempt to induce panic. … Only more government control can save us,” Sammons wrote on X.

Luke Burgis, an author and professor at The Catholic University of America, told the Register that he is skeptical of broad pronouncements related to AI, preferring an approach to responding to AI centered on each person, or each family’s, prudential judgments. 

“Sweeping, categorical statements with society-wide implications,” especially those tracking closely with what the heads of leading AI labs are saying, are not helpful in the current debate, he said, “and neither is the moral shaming of fellow Catholics who see things differently.” 

Burgis said that “the rapid sorting of Catholics into ideological boxes” on this issue suggests that “serious dialogue and discernment are not yet happening in the Church.”

“I’m not scared of AI, and I don’t buy the recent claims about probabilities of mass extinction. I understand that many others are genuinely fearful, and I take that seriously. But the ‘pro-human’ vs. ‘anti-human’ binary is reductionist rhetoric,” Burgis said in written comments. “Extreme regulatory action carries unforeseen consequences people don’t fully appreciate,” he added. 

Other Catholics who are bullish on AI, viewing it as an essential element of America’s current and future economic prosperity, rejected the idea of a slowdown as a move that would benefit the already-established AI giants like Anthropic, to the detriment of future would-be competitors. 

Catholics have also expressed concerns from a foreign-policy perspective. For instance, Vice President JD Vance expressed skepticism of AI CEOs calling for a development slowdown and reiterated the Trump administration’s position that the United States must have an advantage over China in the two countries’ “long-term AI race.”

Devan Patel, a Catholic and a Tech Ethics Fellow at the public-policy focused Rainey Center, does not support a pause on AI development despite personal concerns about the possibility of a “mass-casualty event” brought on by AI in the possible form of a bioweapon or nuclear attack. 

However, in comments made to the Register, he also said there ought to be room for a discussion on how to better pace AI development, as well as how to “clarify the rights and protections of consumers and the liability and accountability mechanisms for irresponsible developers.”

“In the process of beating China, we must ensure that we do not become China — mass surveillance, no privacy, government ownership of technology and data,” he said, adding that Magnifica Humanitas suggests that “a country which may eventually become incapable of governing its own most powerful technology isn’t going to win anything worth having.”

The Church’s Role?

Top executives of the leading AI companies have lobbied for years for regulations that they say would make their products safer. Despite these pleas, President Donald Trump has firmly rejected the idea of regulating AI in the manner the CEOs are asking for, saying in a recent social-media post the only thing needed to rein in AI is “a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT.” 

In Congress, however, the idea of regulation has garnered bipartisan support. House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed some openness to congressional action on the issue and says he hopes to convene a meeting between AI leaders and lawmakers to discuss a possible federal regulatory framework as soon as the end of next week. 

Amid the debate over the best way to foster collaboration at an international level, the idea of the Vatican taking a leading role in facilitating dialogue between nations and other actors has gained supporters from people of a wide range of ideologies, including Anthropic researcher Chris Olah and Dean Ball, head of strategic futures at OpenAI. 

And Brian Burch, the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, said in May that the Trump administration is happy to have the Vatican’s input on AI regulation. 

Camosy has long advocated for Pope Leo XIV to play a leading role in international dialogue on AI, arguing that “with his requisite standing, diplomatic relationships, and moral vision, [the Pope] is uniquely situated to step up and lead at this hinge moment of history.”

“What is needed is a global institution with strong, influential local ties to the U.S., with clear and respected leadership and vision on matters related to AI ethics and policy. That institution is the Catholic Church,” Camosy wrote in a recent op-ed. 

In his comments to the Register, Camosy acknowledged the national security risks that may come into play if China outpaces the U.S. on AI. But the Catholic theologian said that what is truly needed is dialogue and collaboration between the two superpowers.

Not, he said, “waging another catastrophic cold war with a race to the bottom that threatens humanity.”