I have to admit, I was surprised to see the Pope writing about artificial intelligence.
At first glance, AI might seem a long way from the traditional concerns of the Church. But having read Pope Leo XIV’s recent paper, Magnifica Humanitas, I was struck by how relevant and thoughtful it is. The central message is not anti-technology. It is a challenge to all leaders — in business, politics, finance and society — to ask whether AI is being developed and used in a way that genuinely serves people.
Two points particularly stood out to me.
The first is that AI should not be shaped by the few, for the few. A technology this powerful will affect work, finance, education, public services, communication and even democracy itself. It should not be controlled only by a small number of powerful companies, governments or technologists. The conversation needs to include business leaders, policymakers, employees, customers, communities and civil society.
The second is his reflection on work. Work is not simply a way of earning money. At its best, work gives people purpose, identity, responsibility and a sense of contribution. That matters deeply in any discussion about AI. If technology is used only to reduce headcount or remove human involvement, we risk misunderstanding what work means in people’s lives.
Both points are highly relevant to finance.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant technology issue. It is already shaping how businesses communicate, analyse data, assess risk, serve customers and make decisions. For lenders, investors and property professionals, the opportunities are significant. AI can help improve efficiency, spot patterns, speed up administration, reduce duplication and support better-informed decision-making.
But as Magnifica Humanitas argues, the central question is not simply whether AI is powerful. It is whether it serves human beings well.
Technology can help us move faster, but speed is not the same as wisdom. Automation can help us process more information, but information is not the same as judgement. AI can help us identify risk, but it cannot replace responsibility.
At BLG, we operate in a sector where these distinctions matter. Development finance is not abstract. Behind every facility are real people: developers taking risk, contractors and suppliers relying on cashflow, families who will eventually live in new homes, and communities affected by what gets built. The decisions we make as lenders influence whether projects proceed, whether SMEs can grow, and whether much-needed housing is delivered.
That is why AI should be approached as a tool to strengthen human decision-making, not replace it.
AI can improve finance — but it must be governed properly
Used well, AI could bring real benefits to development finance. It can help lenders analyse project information more quickly, identify inconsistencies, monitor portfolios, assess market data and streamline routine tasks. It could reduce administrative friction for borrowers and allow teams to spend more time on the work that genuinely requires experience: understanding risk, structuring transactions, supporting clients and making balanced commercial decisions.
For SME developers, this matters. Smaller businesses often do not have the same administrative resources as larger housebuilders. Anything that makes funding processes clearer, faster and more consistent has the potential to support growth and delivery.
However, the benefits of AI depend on how it is used. If automated systems become opaque, rigid or poorly governed, they can create new forms of unfairness. A model can look objective while embedding incomplete data, historic bias or assumptions that do not reflect the reality of a particular project. A system can generate a decision quickly without giving the borrower a meaningful explanation. A lender can become over-reliant on outputs that appear precise but may not reflect the full commercial picture.
That would be a poor outcome for finance, and a poor outcome for the property sector.
Good lending has always required both analysis and judgement. The numbers matter, but so do track record, delivery capability, local market knowledge, planning context, cost control, borrower behaviour and the practical realities of construction. AI may assist in reviewing these factors, but it should not remove the need for experienced people to interpret them.
Managed by the many, not the few
One of the strongest messages from Magnifica Humanitas is that AI should not be left in the hands of a narrow group of decision-makers.
That point matters for business. AI systems are increasingly influencing what people see, how decisions are made, how services are accessed and how opportunities are allocated. If those systems are designed, owned and governed by only a small number of powerful actors, there is a risk that society becomes dependent on technologies it does not properly understand or control.
This does not mean slowing innovation for the sake of it. It means recognising that the governance of AI should be broad, transparent and accountable. Business leaders have a role to play in that. So do governments, regulators, educators, employees, customers and communities.
For lenders, this is especially important. Access to capital is a vital part of economic life. If AI is used in credit processes, monitoring, pricing or client assessment, it must be governed carefully. Borrowers should not be left facing black-box decisions that cannot be explained or challenged.
Responsible AI in finance should therefore be built around openness, accountability and human review. The aim should be better decisions, not hidden decisions.
Human accountability must remain clear
One of the most important principles in responsible AI is accountability. When AI supports a decision, someone must still be responsible for that decision.
This is particularly important in finance. Lending decisions affect access to capital, business growth and livelihoods. If an AI-assisted process contributes to a decline, a delay or a change in terms, the borrower should not be left facing a black box. There should be a clear explanation, an opportunity for human review and a named decision-maker accountable for the outcome.
This is not just an ethical point. It is also good business practice. Trust is central to lending. Borrowers may accept difficult decisions when they understand the reasoning. They are much less likely to trust a process that feels automated, impersonal or unexplained.
In development finance, where every project has its own complexities, the ability to talk through risk remains essential. A good lender does not simply say yes or no. A good lender understands the project, challenges assumptions, structures appropriately and works with the borrower to find a responsible path forward.
AI can support that process. It should not replace it.
Work is about more than money
The second point that stayed with me was the Pope’s reflection on work.
In business, it is easy to talk about work mainly in terms of cost, productivity and efficiency. Those things matter. But they are not the whole story. Work also gives people purpose. It gives structure to life, creates responsibility, builds skills and allows people to contribute to something beyond themselves.
That is an important lens through which to view AI.
There is a temptation in every technological shift to frame progress mainly as cost reduction. But the most valuable use of AI in a relationship-based business is not simply to remove people from the process. It is to help people do better, more meaningful and more valuable work.
In finance, that may mean freeing relationship managers, credit teams and portfolio specialists from repetitive administrative tasks so they can focus on higher-value activity. It may mean better early-warning indicators, stronger monitoring and improved consistency in documentation. It may mean using data more effectively while preserving the commercial judgement that experienced lenders bring.
The right question is not: “How much human involvement can we remove?”
The better question is: “How can technology help our people serve clients, manage risk and support good projects more effectively?”
That distinction matters. Businesses that use AI simply to automate judgement may create efficiency in the short term but weaken trust and resilience over time. Businesses that use AI to enhance judgement can become faster, more consistent and more responsive while still preserving the human responsibility at the heart of good decision-making.
What responsible AI should mean for lenders
For lenders, responsible AI should be built around a few practical principles.
First, AI should be used with a clear purpose. Not every process needs automation. The best applications will be those that solve real problems for clients, colleagues or risk management.
Second, data quality matters. AI is only as useful as the information it is trained on and the assumptions built into it. Poor data produces poor decisions, even when presented with confidence.
Third, human review must remain central for material decisions. Credit, conduct and client outcomes should not be delegated entirely to automated systems.
Fourth, transparency is essential. Clients and colleagues should understand when AI is being used, what role it plays and where accountability sits.
Fifth, governance must keep pace with adoption. Boards and senior leaders need to understand not just the opportunity, but also the operational, reputational, regulatory and ethical risks.
Finally, AI should be judged by whether it improves outcomes. Does it help clients? Does it improve risk management? Does it make decisions fairer, clearer and better informed? Does it strengthen the business without weakening human accountability?
Keeping people at the centre
The property sector needs innovation. The UK needs more homes, more productive SMEs, more efficient funding processes and better use of data. AI can contribute to all of that.
But technology should serve the real economy, not distance us from it. Development finance exists to support the delivery of tangible projects: homes, communities, jobs and enterprise. That requires capital, but it also requires trust, judgement and relationships.
That is why I found Magnifica Humanitas so interesting. It is not a technical paper, and it does not pretend to be. Its value is that it asks a bigger leadership question: as AI becomes more powerful, how do we ensure that people remain at the centre?
For BLG, that is a challenge worth taking seriously.
AI will become part of the future of finance. The task is to ensure that it strengthens the qualities that matter most: sound judgement, clear accountability, fair treatment, responsible risk-taking and support for the SME developers helping to build the homes the UK needs.
Technology can help us lend better. It should never make us forget why we lend in the first place.
– Peter Wade, Chairman of BLG