Pope Leo XIV’s upcoming trip to France includes a stop off at Metz, the home of one of the founding fathers of the European Union (EU), whose legacy, according to an expert, is echoed in Leo’s approach to artificial intelligence.
Speaking to Crux Now, Professor Pier Luigi Parcu, director of two centres within the Robert Schuman Centre, Italy, explained how Leo’s interventions on AI threw up an “interesting parallel” with the thought of Venerable Robert Schuman.
Schuman, a French statesmen born in Luxemburg, famously proposed pooling the steel and coal industries of France and West Germany in 1950 under a joint authority, in order to disincentivize conflict between the two countries, which is where Parcu saw the similarities.
“In 1950 the strategic resources were coal and steel. Today we might start with energy, critical infrastructure, digital technology and artificial intelligence,” Parcu said.
“This is where Pope Leo offers an interesting parallel. In Magnifica Humanitas, he writes: ‘Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of ‘armed’ competition.’ He is speaking not only of military uses, but also of the economic and cognitive race for technological dominance,” he added.
“Coal and steel were instruments of economic and military power. Schuman did not seek to abolish them. He placed them in a framework of shared governance,” he explained.
Parcu is Director of the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom as well as Director of the Centre for a Digital Society at the Robert Schuman Centre.
Parcu said that Schuman’s approach to peace was to build institutions that made it possible, which could be applied to the growing threat of AI.
“We cannot abolish competition in AI either. But common standards, transparency and international institutions can reduce the pressure to move faster simply because everyone else is doing so,” Parcu said.
“That is Schuman’s enduring lesson. Peace has to be constructed: By changing incentives, managing strategic interdependence and making cooperation durable,” he added.
Parcu also said that while Schuman “supported supranational institutions”, he also wanted to see “concrete achievements that people could recognize” and that the EU should be mindful of this.
“The EU today is much larger and more complex. Its risk is that citizens see an elaborate machinery of rules without seeing clearly enough the purpose and the benefits of acting together,” he said.
“The question Schuman would press us to answer is simple: What problem are we solving together that we could not solve as effectively separately? If the Union cannot answer that clearly, it has a problem of legitimacy,” he added.
In 2021, Pope Francis declared Schuman venerable after recognizing his “heroic virtues”, advancing his cause for canonization. Schuman was a resistance fighter during World War Two, and also served as president of the European Parliament between 1958-1960.
During Leo’s trip to France Sept. 25-28, he will stop off in Metz in the country’s northeast near to the borders with Germany and Luxemburg.
While there, Leo will go to the Robert Schuman Conference Centre where he will take part in an interreligious meeting, before attending another meeting titled “To the roots of Europe for peace and unity.”
“For me, Schuman’s great insight was very concrete. Peace does not come from good intentions alone. You have to build institutions that make cooperation rational and conflict increasingly costly,” Parcu said.
The full interview between Crux Now and Parcu is below.
Crux Now: What is the significance of Schuman’s legacy today?
Professor Pier Luigi Parcu: For me, Schuman’s great insight was very concrete. Peace does not come from good intentions alone. You have to build institutions that make cooperation rational and conflict increasingly costly.
That is what he meant by “de facto solidarity.” Coal and steel were not chosen for their symbolic value. They were strategic industries on which war depended. Putting them under a common authority changed the relationship between France and Germany in practical terms.
The principle remains modern: Europe advances when it takes problems that countries cannot solve effectively on their own and builds institutions to address them together.
Leo is expected to speak on European unity and peace while in Metz. Why was Schuman such an advocate for a united Europe?
You have to start with his generation’s experience. Europe had destroyed itself twice in thirty years. Schuman’s own life made the divisions particularly tangible: Lorraine, Luxembourg, Germany and France were not abstractions to him.
The remarkable idea after 1945 was to transform France and Germany from adversaries into partners. The Schuman Declaration set an ambitious goal: make another war between them “not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.”
You do not simply ask states to trust each other. You create institutions that make cooperation possible, and trust grows from what they achieve.
The far-right is surging across Europe. What would Schuman have to say about this?
I would be careful about putting opinions on today’s parties into Schuman’s mouth. But his political method does suggest a distinction. He valued nations and their traditions. European integration was never meant to erase them.
What he opposed was the idea that defending one nation requires antagonism towards its neighbors.
There are legitimate democratic arguments about borders, immigration, sovereignty and the distribution of power in the EU. The danger begins when every gain for another European country is seen as a loss for one’s own.
His answer was to build institutions capable of reconciling national interests, rather than pretending that those interests did not exist.
What role did Schuman’s faith have in his work? How significant would it be if he were canonized as a saint?
His Catholic faith was central to his life. It informed his views of human dignity, responsibility, solidarity and the common good. Schuman, Adenauer and De Gasperi were all shaped by Christian democratic thought.
Yet European integration was not a confessional project. What they helped build was a pluralist order of democracy, law and cooperation, open to people of every faith and none. Schuman translated personal convictions into institutions that others could share.
The Church recognized his heroic virtues in 2021. Canonization would have a particular significance for Catholics. More broadly, it would draw attention to a view of politics as service and responsibility.
Are there any aspects of the EU today that you think Schuman wouldn’t agree with?
I would resist claiming to know what Schuman would think about individual EU policies. He supported supranational institutions, but his method also demanded concrete achievements that people could recognize.
The EU today is much larger and more complex. Its risk is that citizens see an elaborate machinery of rules without seeing clearly enough the purpose and the benefits of acting together.
The question Schuman would press us to answer is simple: What problem are we solving together that we could not solve as effectively separately? If the Union cannot answer that clearly, it has a problem of legitimacy.
Schuman was known for working toward peace. What are the main threats to global peace today?
Some threats are familiar: War in Europe, rivalry among major powers, nuclear weapons and weakening international institutions. Others have become more prominent: Cyber conflict, disinformation, climate pressures and competition over energy, supply chains and critical technologies, including AI.
What concerns me most is the temptation to treat every dependency as a weapon or a weakness. Dependencies can certainly be exploited. But a world divided into hostile, self-contained blocs is not necessarily safer.
The challenge is to govern interdependence without ignoring its risks.
And how do you think Schuman would propose we tackle them?
We cannot know his answer to today’s problems. We do know his method: Find a strategic area in which states need one another, then establish common rules and institutions that make cooperation credible.
In 1950 the strategic resources were coal and steel. Today we might start with energy, critical infrastructure, digital technology and artificial intelligence.
This is where Pope Leo offers an interesting parallel. In Magnifica Humanitas, he writes: “Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of ‘armed’ competition.” He is speaking not only of military uses, but also of the economic and cognitive race for technological dominance.
Coal and steel were instruments of economic and military power. Schuman did not seek to abolish them.
He placed them in a framework of shared governance. We cannot abolish competition in AI either. But common standards, transparency and international institutions can reduce the pressure to move faster simply because everyone else is doing so.
That is Schuman’s enduring lesson. Peace has to be constructed: By changing incentives, managing strategic interdependence and making cooperation durable.
