I remember the first time I used Artificial Intelligence (AI). It wasn’t ChatGPT, but when I was around 11 years old (I’m 20 for reference), in my coding class, a computer was being taught how to play the game Pac-Man. However, I never expected the massive, sudden rise in AI.  While AI can now help you cook better and tell you which movies are worth watching and assist with innumerable other tasks, it also poses a serious ethical concern that many people have raised, and which politicians now debate in terms of regulation—namely, government repression of liberties in general, and religious freedom specifically.

Repression through surveillance by governments has not been a new topic for me. I am originally from South Africa, and my family grew up as non-whites during the Apartheid system. Apartheid was largely a system of legal segregation, in which black people in South Africa were stripped of their citizenship and forced to live in inferior areas of the country. There were separate, unequal facilities for white people and non-white people; non-whites were not allowed to vote, and people of different races were not allowed to marry. While Apartheid was a racial system, there are parallels between surveillance states when it comes to curbing religious freedom and other human rights. I shudder to think how much worse the Apartheid regime’s authoritarian control might have been if today’s AI tools were available then.

Pope Leo XIV recently released an encyclical titled “Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.” In the encyclical, notably in the third chapter, Pope Leo notes that AI can stimulate a person but does not have a moral conscience or empathy. Pope Leo notes that AI must be “disarmed to free it from military, economic, and cognitive competition.” He also argues that “Technology can alleviate humanity’s sufferings and open new possibilities, but it must not deny the essence of humanity, which is our capacity for relationship and love.

A lot of people refer to the term “disarm” when it comes to Pope Leo’s encyclical on AI and interpret it as neutralizing AI. Pope Leo notes not to reject technology but rather to free it from the “mentality of armed competition” and “a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire to secure geopolitical or commercial dominance.” One can interpret “armed competition” and this race as a desire for power and control, which stems from greed. Pope Leo notes that AI must not dominate humanity; it must remain accessible and assist with the restoration of human culture and religion. Governments and those who create AI bear a special responsibility to prevent abuse of AI and a potential threat to the human person.

As Pope Leo recognizes, freedom of faith/conscience is an essential part of safeguarding the human person, but AI presents major risks to this freedom, as governments can utilize AI to oppress those based on their beliefs. Some notable uses of AI that can curb religious freedom include mass surveillance. This is widely used in China, boosting one of the most prominent and advanced surveillance systems, used in Xinjiang province, as well as penalizing those in terms of employment, travel, and education opportunities. It can be used through CCTV. Another method is predictive policing, which can identify individuals who pose high threats. Monitoring of the internet is another method used by authoritarian regimes, and AI can assist with streamlining this method. AI can also automate censorship of religious organizations. AI can also be used to monitor the language of religious leaders—a direct parallel with the Apartheid system, which used high-tech cameras at the time to surveil the non-white population.

As Pope Leo argues, AI needs a “new spiritual, ethical and political framework.” There have been increasing calls across the globe for a worldwide authority to implement safeguards, and several organizations come to mind, such as the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council.  When it comes to AI safeguards, the UN Security Council could suggest multiple ways to address the dangers of AI. To be sure, one must take into account whether governmental overreach is happening in this case. However, it should also be questioned whether, when it comes to the destruction of people’s rights, governments and multilateral organizations must intervene.

International monitoring systems could be set up, as with nuclear weapons and plants, or international human rights oversight boards. International institutions could be created and empowered to conduct a recurring audit of AI systems to make sure that they are not being abused by governments. In such a system, human dignity must be prioritized, so that AI cannot be used for religious persecution, nor to track dissent, nor to monitor private beliefs.

Of course, there might be concerns about whether any of the P5 powers (Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council: United States, China, Russia, France, and UK) might veto a resolution regarding this, as each P5 power has its own incentive to do what they want with AI and may use it for nefarious purposes. The US, Russia, and China all have AI as a major part of their economy, and it is in their interest not to limit AI. The ICJ, UN Human Rights Council, or the UN General Assembly might be able to give advisory opinions, but not legally binding opinions, which makes it difficult for there to be a body that can legally regulate AI worldwide.

Still, we must remember that sanctions imposed by the Security Council on the Apartheid-era South Africa helped end the Apartheid regime. Mobilizing international consensus and action is indeed challenging, but not impossible, as the South African experience proves.

International bodies must consider the imminent danger of AI when it comes to curbing religious freedom and other human rights. While difficult, international oversight bodies should be established to prevent abuse in AI. As Pope Leo argues, there must be a level of disarmament of AI such that it does not harm human rights, like religious freedom, that are core to the human person.