<\/p>\n
A Catholic Framework for AI Governance<\/span><\/h2>\n <\/p>\n
by CAPP-USA<\/span><\/h5>\n <\/p>\n
Catholic Social Teaching offers a practical framework for AI governance based on the principle of subsidiarity<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 ensuring decisions about artificial intelligence remain as close as possible to the people they affect – ensuring technology serves the human person, the family, and the local community.<\/span><\/p>\n\n![\"Artificial](\"https:\/\/capp-usa.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/A-split-image-with-a-huge-dimly-lit-server-farm-and-a-small-conference-meeting-representing-subsidiarity-vs-digital-leviathans.png\")
<\/p>\n
Artificial intelligence laws and governance must begin with subsidiarity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
WHY AI GOVERNANCE MATTERS RIGHT NOW<\/strong><\/h3>\nA small number of technology firms already control the most powerful AI models, the largest datasets, and the infrastructure required to train them. At the same time, governments around the world are proposing sweeping regulatory frameworks that could centralize decision-making even further.<\/span><\/p>\nThe risk is not only technological disruption.<\/span><\/p>\nIt is the emergence of what some analysts describe as a \u201cdigital Leviathan\u201d \u2014 a concentration of algorithmic power capable of shaping markets, information, and even public decision-making.<\/span><\/p>\nCatholic Social Teaching offers a way to think about this challenge that is rarely discussed in technology policy debates: subsidiarity.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nKEY TAKEWAY<\/strong><\/h3>\nCatholic Social Teaching provides a framework for AI governance grounded in subsidiarity: decisions should be made at the lowest competent level\u2014local, national, and international\u2014so that artificial intelligence remains accountable to the human person and the common good.<\/span><\/p>\nWhat is Subsidiarity in Catholic Social Teaching \u2014 and Why It Matters for AI<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
Subsidiarity\u2014articulated most clearly by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno<\/a>\u00a0(1931)\u2014holds that functions which can be performed effectively by lower-level communities (families, local businesses, towns) should not be seized by higher-level ones.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nRooted in human dignity and ordered toward the common good, subsidiarity promotes responsibility, participation, and creativity<\/strong> while preventing the dangerous over-centralization of power.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIn the context of artificial intelligence laws\u2014encompassing regulation, ethical standards, innovation, and deployment\u2014this principle offers a framework for balancing global coordination with local responsibility, ensuring that AI strengthens rather than erodes human agency. Without it, the Digital Leviathan fills the vacuum.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nLearn more about subsidiarity,<\/strong> the most misunderstood principle<\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nCatholic Social Teaching approaches artificial intelligence primarily through its core moral principles: human dignity<\/a>, solidarity<\/a>, subsidiarity, resulting in the common good<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Church does not reject technological innovation but insists that new technologies must serve the human person<\/strong> rather than dominate or replace human responsibility.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\nArtificial intelligence governance is not primarily a technical problem. It is a question of power \u2014 who holds it, and who is protected from it.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nArtificial Intelligence and Catholic Social Teaching<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
Recent Vatican guidance\u2014including Pope Francis\u2019s reflections on \u201calgor-ethics\u201d and the 2025 document Antiqua et Nova\u2014emphasizes that AI governance must remain accountable to society at multiple levels, ensuring that technological power does not become detached from human dignity and moral responsibility.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIn his 2020 message to the Pontifical Academy for Life<\/a>, he emphasized that human dignity, solidarity, and subsidiarity should guide what he called \u201calgor-ethics\u201d\u2014the ethical design of algorithms that promote the common good rather than concentrate technological power in the hands of a few. <\/span><\/p>\n\u201cThe dignity of the person, justice, subsidiarity and solidarity\u201d must guide the development of technologies that influence human decision-making.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\nThis warning reflects a broader concern within Catholic Social Teaching about what Pope Francis has called the \u201ctechnocratic paradigm\u201d\u2014a mindset that treats the world as a problem to be solved through technical control rather than a reality to be lived with moral responsibility.<\/span><\/p>\nAI governance is therefore not merely a technical issue.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\nIt is ultimately a question of power \u2014 who holds it, and who is protected from it.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\nThe Vatican\u2019s Guidance: Antiqua et Nova<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
The Vatican\u2019s 2025 AI ethics document Antiqua et Nova<\/a>\u00a0applies Catholic Social Teaching directly to artificial intelligence.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\u201cThe responsibility for managing this wisely pertains to every level of society, guided by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nThe implication is clear. The ethical governance of AI cannot be delegated solely to governments, corporations, or international bodies. Responsibility must instead be shared across all levels of society<\/strong>, including:<\/span><\/p>\n\n- individuals<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
- families<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
- civil society<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
- universities and research institutions<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
- businesses<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
- governments<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
- international organizations<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Subsidiarity ensures that each level contributes according to its proper competence.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nSubsidiarity’s critics argue it can license inaction \u2014 that local actors, lacking technical expertise and resources, will simply defer upward anyway, recreating the centralization it sought to prevent.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThis is a real risk. The principle only functions when lower-level actors are genuinely equipped to exercise responsibility.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nAI governance under subsidiarity therefore requires capacity-building \u2014 funding local ethics boards, training municipal officials, supporting civil society auditors \u2014 not merely decentralizing authority onto institutions that cannot yet bear it.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nA Subsidiarity-Based Framework for AI Governance<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
Subsidiarity suggests a three-level framework for AI governance.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nTHE SUBSIDIARITY TEST<\/strong><\/h3>\nA practical way to apply this principle is what might be called a \u201csubsidiarity test\u201d<\/strong> for AI governance: At what level can this decision be made responsibly while remaining closest to the people affected by it?<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIf a local institution can govern the technology responsibly, higher authorities should support rather than replace it. Only when problems exceed that level should authority move upward.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThis test helps policymakers distinguish between issues that genuinely require centralized coordination and those that should remain under the authority of communities, institutions, and nations closest to the consequences.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n- L<\/strong><\/span>ocal communities<\/strong> – best positioned to identify harmful algorithmic bias in schools, hiring systems and medical technologies.<\/span><\/li>\n
- National governments<\/strong> – establish legal safeguards that protect human dignity, labor (addressing especially labor disruptions), and privacy protections while ensuring fair competition.<\/span><\/li>\n
- International cooperation<\/strong> – necessary when confronting risks that transcend borders, such as autonomous weapons, cross-border data exploitation, or systemic technological concentration.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Critics rightly ask: Can subsidiarity survive contact with a global platform? Meta’s algorithmic feed doesn’t pause at a border.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Catholic Social Teaching offers a practical framework for AI governance based on the principle of subsidiarity<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 ensuring decisions about artificial intelligence remain as close as possible to the people they affect – ensuring technology serves the human person, the family, and the local community.<\/span><\/p>\n Artificial intelligence laws and governance must begin with subsidiarity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n A small number of technology firms already control the most powerful AI models, the largest datasets, and the infrastructure required to train them. At the same time, governments around the world are proposing sweeping regulatory frameworks that could centralize decision-making even further.<\/span><\/p>\n The risk is not only technological disruption.<\/span><\/p>\n It is the emergence of what some analysts describe as a \u201cdigital Leviathan\u201d \u2014 a concentration of algorithmic power capable of shaping markets, information, and even public decision-making.<\/span><\/p>\n Catholic Social Teaching offers a way to think about this challenge that is rarely discussed in technology policy debates: subsidiarity.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Catholic Social Teaching provides a framework for AI governance grounded in subsidiarity: decisions should be made at the lowest competent level\u2014local, national, and international\u2014so that artificial intelligence remains accountable to the human person and the common good.<\/span><\/p>\n Rooted in human dignity and ordered toward the common good, subsidiarity promotes responsibility, participation, and creativity<\/strong> while preventing the dangerous over-centralization of power.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In the context of artificial intelligence laws\u2014encompassing regulation, ethical standards, innovation, and deployment\u2014this principle offers a framework for balancing global coordination with local responsibility, ensuring that AI strengthens rather than erodes human agency. Without it, the Digital Leviathan fills the vacuum.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Learn more about subsidiarity,<\/strong> the most misunderstood principle<\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Catholic Social Teaching approaches artificial intelligence primarily through its core moral principles: human dignity<\/a>, solidarity<\/a>, subsidiarity, resulting in the common good<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Church does not reject technological innovation but insists that new technologies must serve the human person<\/strong> rather than dominate or replace human responsibility.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Artificial intelligence governance is not primarily a technical problem. It is a question of power \u2014 who holds it, and who is protected from it.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In his 2020 message to the Pontifical Academy for Life<\/a>, he emphasized that human dignity, solidarity, and subsidiarity should guide what he called \u201calgor-ethics\u201d\u2014the ethical design of algorithms that promote the common good rather than concentrate technological power in the hands of a few. <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe dignity of the person, justice, subsidiarity and solidarity\u201d must guide the development of technologies that influence human decision-making.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n This warning reflects a broader concern within Catholic Social Teaching about what Pope Francis has called the \u201ctechnocratic paradigm\u201d\u2014a mindset that treats the world as a problem to be solved through technical control rather than a reality to be lived with moral responsibility.<\/span><\/p>\n AI governance is therefore not merely a technical issue.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n It is ultimately a question of power \u2014 who holds it, and who is protected from it.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe responsibility for managing this wisely pertains to every level of society, guided by the principle of subsidiarity and other principles of Catholic Social Teaching.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The implication is clear. The ethical governance of AI cannot be delegated solely to governments, corporations, or international bodies. Responsibility must instead be shared across all levels of society<\/strong>, including:<\/span><\/p>\n Subsidiarity’s critics argue it can license inaction \u2014 that local actors, lacking technical expertise and resources, will simply defer upward anyway, recreating the centralization it sought to prevent.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This is a real risk. The principle only functions when lower-level actors are genuinely equipped to exercise responsibility.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n AI governance under subsidiarity therefore requires capacity-building \u2014 funding local ethics boards, training municipal officials, supporting civil society auditors \u2014 not merely decentralizing authority onto institutions that cannot yet bear it.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n A practical way to apply this principle is what might be called a \u201csubsidiarity test\u201d<\/strong> for AI governance: At what level can this decision be made responsibly while remaining closest to the people affected by it?<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n If a local institution can govern the technology responsibly, higher authorities should support rather than replace it. Only when problems exceed that level should authority move upward.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This test helps policymakers distinguish between issues that genuinely require centralized coordination and those that should remain under the authority of communities, institutions, and nations closest to the consequences.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\nWHY AI GOVERNANCE MATTERS RIGHT NOW<\/strong><\/h3>\n
KEY TAKEWAY<\/strong><\/h3>\n
What is Subsidiarity in Catholic Social Teaching \u2014 and Why It Matters for AI<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
Subsidiarity\u2014articulated most clearly by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno<\/a>\u00a0(1931)\u2014holds that functions which can be performed effectively by lower-level communities (families, local businesses, towns) should not be seized by higher-level ones.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Artificial Intelligence and Catholic Social Teaching<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
Recent Vatican guidance\u2014including Pope Francis\u2019s reflections on \u201calgor-ethics\u201d and the 2025 document Antiqua et Nova\u2014emphasizes that AI governance must remain accountable to society at multiple levels, ensuring that technological power does not become detached from human dignity and moral responsibility.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe Vatican\u2019s Guidance: Antiqua et Nova<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
The Vatican\u2019s 2025 AI ethics document Antiqua et Nova<\/a>\u00a0applies Catholic Social Teaching directly to artificial intelligence.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
Subsidiarity ensures that each level contributes according to its proper competence.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nA Subsidiarity-Based Framework for AI Governance<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
Subsidiarity suggests a three-level framework for AI governance.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nTHE SUBSIDIARITY TEST<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Critics rightly ask: Can subsidiarity survive contact with a global platform? Meta’s algorithmic feed doesn’t pause at a border.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n