Pope Leo XIV will unveil his first encyclical on artificial intelligence next week, and the Vatican has chosen a self-described atheist and Anthropic cofounder with a trail of anti-religious blog posts to help present it. Christopher Olah, a 33-year-old AI researcher, is one of a handful of secular figures tapped to speak at Monday's press conference for the document, titled "Magnifica Humanitas," the New York Post reported exclusively.

The encyclical is supposed to focus on protecting human dignity in the age of AI. But the selection of Olah raises a pointed question: Why is the Catholic Church handing a microphone to someone who has publicly mocked its faith, questioned its scriptures, and identified as an atheist, while tensions between the Vatican and the Trump White House continue to escalate?

Olah's record on religion

Olah's personal writings, still viewable online, paint a picture that sits uneasily beside a papal podium. In a 2010 blog post, Olah described confronting a group of evangelists who told him Jesus loved him. His response, by his own account, was to challenge the Bible's moral authority:

"I responded by asking if the Bible was the word of God, and when they said yes, I started asking about how their loving God could have committed genocide and infanticide (Exodus 11), promoted slavery (Leviticus 25), and ordered rape (Judges 21)."

In another post from 2010, Olah drew parallels between Jesus and the Greek philosopher Socrates, suggesting the early Church borrowed from pagan sources to bolster its claims:

"If you (living in the Roman Empire) want to convince your friends that this Jesus figure was executed unjustly, it would be very tempting to make him as similar as possible to Socrates."

That same year, Olah shared a link on his personal X account to a website urging UK residents to protest a visit by Pope Benedict XVI. Months later, he shared an Irish Times article headlined "Charges initiated against Pope for crimes against humanity."

His profile on a website for a movement called "Sentientism", whose adherents say they believe in "evidence, reason and compassion for all sentient beings", lists him as an "ethical vegan and an atheist." An Anthropic spokesperson told the Post that Olah has no affiliation with the organization and holds no position in it.

Anthropic says the posts are old news

Anthropic pushed back on the significance of the blog posts. A spokesperson told the Post that the writings do not reflect Olah's current views:

"These posts don't reflect Chris's views today. He holds religion and people of faith in high regard, and has led Anthropic's efforts to seek counsel from leaders across multiple religion and cross-cultural beliefs."

There is some evidence for this claim. An April article in The Atlantic described Olah as an atheist who nonetheless believes Claude, Anthropic's chatbot, is a "thinking, feeling entity in need of 'moral formation.'" The piece noted that Olah's team had contacted Catholic officials, including a priest, a bishop, and a theologian, for feedback when crafting what Anthropic employees call Claude's "soul document," a guide that governs the chatbot's moral compass.

Olah reportedly compared his own role at Anthropic to that of a priest training Claude on how to "be a good person, in some sense." On May 18, he posted on X that he was "honored to speak at the presentation."

"The questions posed by AI are bigger than the AI community. We urgently need the world, religions, civil society, academics, governments, to participate in creating a positive outcome."

That is a reasonable sentiment. But consulting Catholic thinkers behind closed doors is a far cry from standing at a Vatican lectern to present a papal encyclical. The gap between private outreach and public honor is the gap that critics are now flagging.

Critics see a misplaced priority

Nathan Leamer, executive director of the advocacy group Build American AI and himself a Christian, did not mince words about the Vatican's choice. He told the Post:

"It is disappointing that secularists are the centerpiece of this event. We should be leaning on those who believe in the eternal to guide this discourse, not a person who believes they are God."

Leamer's frustration reflects a broader unease among faithful Catholics who have watched Pope Leo XIV make a series of appointments and decisions that seem to prioritize secular credibility over doctrinal fidelity.

Other speakers slated for Monday's event include Cardinals Victor Manuel and Michael Czerny, along with theologians Anna Rowlands and Leocadie Lushombo. Leo himself is also scheduled to deliver remarks. The Vatican has not disclosed what Olah will specifically discuss.

The Trump-Vatican fault line

The timing makes the optics worse. Pope Leo has been vocally critical of policies embraced by President Trump, including the administration's immigration stance and the U.S. war in Iran. Trump has said he is "not a fan" of Leo. Vice President JD Vance, however, struck a more conciliatory note on May 19, saying he was "looking forward to reading" the AI encyclical and describing it as "a very, very important document."

Anthropic itself is locked in a legal fight with the Trump administration. The company is suing after the Department of War labeled it a supply chain risk. President Trump has described Anthropic's leadership, including CEO Dario Amodei, as "left wing nutjobs."

Against that backdrop, the Vatican's decision to give a prominent speaking role to an Anthropic cofounder reads less like a neutral academic invitation and more like a deliberate signal. Whether the signal is aimed at Silicon Valley, at Washington, or at both, it lands at a moment when the pope and the president are already at odds on multiple fronts.

Olah's role inside Anthropic

Olah is not a minor figure at the company. He is a veteran of both OpenAI and Google, and he sits on the team that built Claude's "soul document", the internal framework that shapes how the chatbot handles moral and ethical questions. He has also expressed support on X for Open Philanthropy, a group at the forefront of the controversial "Effective Altruism" movement, writing in 2018 that he would "seriously consider working there" if he wasn't working on AI.

The Effective Altruism movement has drawn scrutiny in recent years for its outsized influence on AI policy and its sometimes utopian claims about steering technology toward humanity's benefit. That Olah moves in these circles is not disqualifying on its own. But it does raise the question of whether the Vatican is importing a worldview, secular, utilitarian, Silicon Valley-centric, that sits in direct tension with the encyclical's stated purpose of defending human dignity from a Catholic perspective.

The Church has faced other moments of internal friction under Leo's pontificate. The Vatican's recent confrontation with traditionalist Catholic groups over unauthorized bishop ordinations showed a papacy willing to assert authority in one direction while extending an open hand in another.

And Leo's willingness to convene an exorcist delegation at the Vatican over concerns about rising occultism suggests the pope is not indifferent to spiritual matters. The question is why that same seriousness does not extend to vetting the public faces of a major doctrinal statement on technology.

What Monday will reveal

The Post reached out to Olah, Anthropic, and the Vatican for comment. The Vatican has not provided details on the scope of Olah's remarks.

The encyclical itself may be substantive and worth reading. Vance's interest suggests the White House sees value in engaging with the document, even as the broader relationship between the administration and the Holy See remains strained. The content of "Magnifica Humanitas" will matter more in the long run than the guest list at its unveiling.

But guest lists are signals, and the Vatican knows that. When you put a self-described atheist with a history of mocking Catholic scripture on the stage to present a papal teaching, you are telling the world something about your priorities, whether you mean to or not.

A Church that cannot find a faithful Catholic qualified to discuss artificial intelligence is not a Church short on talent. It is a Church that has decided secular approval matters more than the flock it claims to shepherd.