What do you think?
Rate this book
Magnifica humanitas. Lettera Enciclica sulla custodia della persona umana nel tempo dell’intelligenza artificiale
Prima Enciclica di Papa Leone XIV, dedicata alla custodia della dignità e del valore della persona umana nella nostra epoca, segnata dall’avvento dell’intelligenza artificiale. Un testo atteso in tutto il mondo da moltissimi lettori per l’autorevolezza del Magistero Pontificio e per l’attualità della tematica, che ormai tocca quotidianamente la vita di ciascuno.
231 pages, Paperback
First published May 25, 2026
About the author
Pope Leo XIV
35 books65 followersThe first Augustinian Pope, Leo XIV is the second Roman Pontiff - after Pope Francis - from the Americas. Unlike Jorge Mario Bergoglio, however, the former Robert Francis Prevost is from the northern part of the continent, though he spent many years as a missionary in Peru before being elected head of the Augustinians for two consecutive terms. In Peru, he served as Bishop of Chiclayo from 2015-2023. He was made a cardinal by Pope Francis in 2023 and was elected to the papacy after Francis' death on May 8, 2025. His papal name, Leo, was chosen in honor of Pope Leo XIII.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
May 25, 2026
This slaps.
May 27, 2026
not a huge fan of the teleological view of history, but he’s the pope so that comes w the territory. not a Cat myself, but happy to see someone is saying something. bro might’ve read Ellul—from paragraph 112:
“When efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion.”
not necessarily Ellul coded, but check this out, paragraph 178:
“colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data, transforming personal lives into exploitable information. Entire regions, especially those marked by structural fragility and limited geopolitical relevance, are currently subjected to a new mindset of extraction: that of health data, epidemiological profiles, genetic maps and demographic information.”
also says “just war” theory is outdated
basedbasedbasedbased
“When efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion.”
not necessarily Ellul coded, but check this out, paragraph 178:
“colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data, transforming personal lives into exploitable information. Entire regions, especially those marked by structural fragility and limited geopolitical relevance, are currently subjected to a new mindset of extraction: that of health data, epidemiological profiles, genetic maps and demographic information.”
also says “just war” theory is outdated
basedbasedbasedbased
Read
May 26, 2026Main Takeaways:
- Pope Leo uses The Social Doctrine as a basis for his writing
- Social doctrine: “an exemplary practice (where the church) … when faced with historical changes, exercises her right and duty to examine social realities… and indicate paths for finding just solutions”; it is a dialogue with history, cultures and sciences that has unchanging truths.
- Principles of SD: inalienable dignity of the human person, the common good, universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice
- The Social Doctrine is not a spontaneous product of the modern age but was birthed through having to deal with the new things of the times (capital/labor conflict, workforce, economical and social transformations)
- It was written to find a way to seek wisdom in a living doctrine that “remains faithful to the Gospel while growing in response to the ‘new things’ of every era’”
- Highlighted the dignity of workers, fair wages and the idea that people have a fundamental value besides capital and profit
- There is no authentic evangelization that doesn’t also affect the structures of human society
- Denounces the concentration of economic power in the hands of the few and criticizes projects that undermine the freedom and responsibility of the individual
- SD is a conscience for the Church
- Recognizes that organized forms of society are safeguards for civil equilibrium and for protecting the common good and how true democracy is a means for ensuring proper exercises of authority
- Essentially, there is a need for law to take precedence over interests, economic disparities are grounds for tension and violence, and there is a need for mediation between the individual and the State
- State must provide support for the marginalized while also not impeding on individual freedom or responsibility
- Social doctrine implores us to discover our duty to implement the common good in our daily lives
- SD brings us to the heart of our faith: that God, “revealed in Jesus, is love itself in relationship” and that we are called to communion with God that can be discovered through self-giving
- The value of persons “does not depend on what they achieve or produce”, it is a given to being human
- Community is called to protect and promote human rights as it is an expression of intrinsic human dignity
- We should be able to act freely as much as possible, without harming the common good
- We should not allow a handful of actors to dictate safeguard processes on their own
- Faith invites us to live in solidarity and think and act in terms of community
- Social justice is being shaped by digital technologies - it changes the way we obtain information, communicate and access services
- It is important to regulate technology to combat hate/misinformation
- Technology advancements can foster participation in inequality, control, exclusion
- The BIG question: “do technological innovations truly help individuals and peoples to become more human and fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations?” - all tech advancements should be evaluated under this question
- Human intelligence guides tech innovations and responsibly determines their use and limits
- We all have a limited understanding of AI’s actual functioning, even those who “created” it
- current AI systems are more cultivated than built, they design the framework in which intelligence grows
- Some fundamental scientific aspects remain unknown, therefore there is an urgent need for a deepening of scientific research on the topic and an exercise of moral and spiritual discernment
- AI merely imitates certain functions of human intelligence tied to data processing
- “Do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain… do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean” - their learning is a form of statistical adaptation not indicating inner growth
- There is valuable use in AI but it requires vigilance
- Harmful uses of AI include manipulation of information and violations of privacy, also a danger when these systems are presented as neutral and objective when there are ideological biases
- AI is not morally neutral
- Responsibility must be emboldened in EVERY stage
- Important to discuss ethical frameworks and subject them “to the shared standards of social justice”
- AI must be “disarmed, welcoming and accessible”
- Humanity often flourishes through limitation, not just despite them
- Issues with AI: amplifies disinformation through manipulating content and exposing people to biased or misleading perspectives
- Truth of facts requires verification, cross-checking of sources and responsible argumentation
- Another issue: technological advancements have the significant ability to influence cultural change. As a result, people believe they can construct reality and whatever best suits their claim to truth
- “Communication is not only the transmission of information, but it is also the creation of a culture” - Digital environments shape how people perceive the world
- We are severely unprepared for technological advancements from an educational perspective - allows youth to be vulnerable to degrading content and makes it difficult for parents
- Lack of education causes dehumanization and stops development for critical and creative thought
- AI is rapidly transforming the workplace, it is important to keep humans at the center of design of systems
- He touches on unemployment and how AI might cause jobs to disappear
- Economy should value human dignity
- Talks about how digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict/war - cyberattacks, information manipulation, influencing campaigns
- Civilization of love - we must denounce evil, spread the Gospel, preserve in doing good, protect the vulnerable, opens paths to reconciliation; peace is found through justice so we must seek justice, we must engage in a dialogue in order to promote this
- Normalization of war and its relationship with “loss of historical memory”, which leads to a selective/distorted rewriting of the past
- AI and weapons
- Word became flesh -> dwells among us, we need to embody humanity
- Remain faithful to the truth, put God at the center of our lives, invest in education, cultivate relationships, love both justice and peace, let us be weavers of hope in our world (allow God’s Kingdom to take shape and share who we are and what we have)
- Pope Leo focuses on two images within the Bible: the Tower of Babel (dehumanizes and does not give reverence to God) and the rebuilding of Jerusalem (with Nehemiah’s direction to build the city back up with shared responsibility); he essentially uses these stories as a parallel to our choices to use technology/advancements
- Technology is never neutral - there are a lot of social and political effects to technology
- Building towards the common good
- Human dignity is being threatened by new forms of dehumanization - our duty is to remain human - safeguard humanity
- Humanity is something that no machine can ever replace
- We should place God at the forefront of our actions and humans at the center of our choices
- Abandon the Tower of Babel and choose to build up the common good
- God desires to dwell within the human heart, not a technological advancement where God is not revered
- AI as a development that challenges the categories of the social doctrine
- Church walks alongside of humanity, cannot be a stranger to the forces shaping society
- The Church actively participates in the processes where society grows and is organized
- God upholds the freedom of men and women
- Requires spiritual discernment to do so
- The function of the Social Doctrine serves as a foundation for collective discernment, again it is a process
- The Church must make its voice heard when injustice occurs, in order to promote communion
- Common good can be pursued with everyone’s contribution and it is the states responsibility to ensure cohesion
- In today’s age, we must include new forms of property (patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data) among universal goods
- Regulate tech to respect the environment, avoid waste, prevent new forms of exploitation
- Pope Leo uses The Social Doctrine as a basis for his writing
- Social doctrine: “an exemplary practice (where the church) … when faced with historical changes, exercises her right and duty to examine social realities… and indicate paths for finding just solutions”; it is a dialogue with history, cultures and sciences that has unchanging truths.
- Principles of SD: inalienable dignity of the human person, the common good, universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice
- The Social Doctrine is not a spontaneous product of the modern age but was birthed through having to deal with the new things of the times (capital/labor conflict, workforce, economical and social transformations)
- It was written to find a way to seek wisdom in a living doctrine that “remains faithful to the Gospel while growing in response to the ‘new things’ of every era’”
- Highlighted the dignity of workers, fair wages and the idea that people have a fundamental value besides capital and profit
- There is no authentic evangelization that doesn’t also affect the structures of human society
- Denounces the concentration of economic power in the hands of the few and criticizes projects that undermine the freedom and responsibility of the individual
- SD is a conscience for the Church
- Recognizes that organized forms of society are safeguards for civil equilibrium and for protecting the common good and how true democracy is a means for ensuring proper exercises of authority
- Essentially, there is a need for law to take precedence over interests, economic disparities are grounds for tension and violence, and there is a need for mediation between the individual and the State
- State must provide support for the marginalized while also not impeding on individual freedom or responsibility
- Social doctrine implores us to discover our duty to implement the common good in our daily lives
- SD brings us to the heart of our faith: that God, “revealed in Jesus, is love itself in relationship” and that we are called to communion with God that can be discovered through self-giving
- The value of persons “does not depend on what they achieve or produce”, it is a given to being human
- Community is called to protect and promote human rights as it is an expression of intrinsic human dignity
- We should be able to act freely as much as possible, without harming the common good
- We should not allow a handful of actors to dictate safeguard processes on their own
- Faith invites us to live in solidarity and think and act in terms of community
- Social justice is being shaped by digital technologies - it changes the way we obtain information, communicate and access services
- It is important to regulate technology to combat hate/misinformation
- Technology advancements can foster participation in inequality, control, exclusion
- The BIG question: “do technological innovations truly help individuals and peoples to become more human and fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations?” - all tech advancements should be evaluated under this question
- Human intelligence guides tech innovations and responsibly determines their use and limits
- We all have a limited understanding of AI’s actual functioning, even those who “created” it
- current AI systems are more cultivated than built, they design the framework in which intelligence grows
- Some fundamental scientific aspects remain unknown, therefore there is an urgent need for a deepening of scientific research on the topic and an exercise of moral and spiritual discernment
- AI merely imitates certain functions of human intelligence tied to data processing
- “Do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain… do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean” - their learning is a form of statistical adaptation not indicating inner growth
- There is valuable use in AI but it requires vigilance
- Harmful uses of AI include manipulation of information and violations of privacy, also a danger when these systems are presented as neutral and objective when there are ideological biases
- AI is not morally neutral
- Responsibility must be emboldened in EVERY stage
- Important to discuss ethical frameworks and subject them “to the shared standards of social justice”
- AI must be “disarmed, welcoming and accessible”
- Humanity often flourishes through limitation, not just despite them
- Issues with AI: amplifies disinformation through manipulating content and exposing people to biased or misleading perspectives
- Truth of facts requires verification, cross-checking of sources and responsible argumentation
- Another issue: technological advancements have the significant ability to influence cultural change. As a result, people believe they can construct reality and whatever best suits their claim to truth
- “Communication is not only the transmission of information, but it is also the creation of a culture” - Digital environments shape how people perceive the world
- We are severely unprepared for technological advancements from an educational perspective - allows youth to be vulnerable to degrading content and makes it difficult for parents
- Lack of education causes dehumanization and stops development for critical and creative thought
- AI is rapidly transforming the workplace, it is important to keep humans at the center of design of systems
- He touches on unemployment and how AI might cause jobs to disappear
- Economy should value human dignity
- Talks about how digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict/war - cyberattacks, information manipulation, influencing campaigns
- Civilization of love - we must denounce evil, spread the Gospel, preserve in doing good, protect the vulnerable, opens paths to reconciliation; peace is found through justice so we must seek justice, we must engage in a dialogue in order to promote this
- Normalization of war and its relationship with “loss of historical memory”, which leads to a selective/distorted rewriting of the past
- AI and weapons
- Word became flesh -> dwells among us, we need to embody humanity
- Remain faithful to the truth, put God at the center of our lives, invest in education, cultivate relationships, love both justice and peace, let us be weavers of hope in our world (allow God’s Kingdom to take shape and share who we are and what we have)
- Pope Leo focuses on two images within the Bible: the Tower of Babel (dehumanizes and does not give reverence to God) and the rebuilding of Jerusalem (with Nehemiah’s direction to build the city back up with shared responsibility); he essentially uses these stories as a parallel to our choices to use technology/advancements
- Technology is never neutral - there are a lot of social and political effects to technology
- Building towards the common good
- Human dignity is being threatened by new forms of dehumanization - our duty is to remain human - safeguard humanity
- Humanity is something that no machine can ever replace
- We should place God at the forefront of our actions and humans at the center of our choices
- Abandon the Tower of Babel and choose to build up the common good
- God desires to dwell within the human heart, not a technological advancement where God is not revered
- AI as a development that challenges the categories of the social doctrine
- Church walks alongside of humanity, cannot be a stranger to the forces shaping society
- The Church actively participates in the processes where society grows and is organized
- God upholds the freedom of men and women
- Requires spiritual discernment to do so
- The function of the Social Doctrine serves as a foundation for collective discernment, again it is a process
- The Church must make its voice heard when injustice occurs, in order to promote communion
- Common good can be pursued with everyone’s contribution and it is the states responsibility to ensure cohesion
- In today’s age, we must include new forms of property (patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data) among universal goods
- Regulate tech to respect the environment, avoid waste, prevent new forms of exploitation
May 28, 2026
brb gonna go be profoundly human
Read
May 28, 2026Happy to report that Pope Leo slapped with this one. A call to arms that is at time challenging to see the way forward, but he constantly is reminding and encouraging in the Hope of the Gospel. I am looking forward to revisiting to go back and recapture some of the nuggets I enjoyed particularly. The first and last sentences were bangers along with paragraphs 118-120, 232.
May 28, 2026
ESPAÑOL: Importante encíclica que plantea muchas cuestiones que ya son esenciales o lo serán pronto para nuestra vida diaria, debido a los avances tecnológicos ya obtenidos o esperados. Veamos algunas citas significativas:
Del capítulo 2, párrafo 72: En las decisiones que se refieren a los flujos económicos, las plataformas digitales, la gestión de los datos y los algoritmos, no se puede dejar que pocos actores por sí solos orienten los procesos, sino que es necesario construir formas de cooperación que respeten los diversos niveles de la comunidad mundial y los hagan corresponsables del bien común.
En el párrafo 76: Hoy esta responsabilidad se extiende también a las infraestructuras digitales e informativas; como el ambiente natural, también el "ecosistema digital" puede ser cuidado o explotado, compartido o monopolizado. La solidaridad requiere que las decisiones en materia de datos, algoritmos, plataformas e IA tengan en cuenta no sólo el beneficio inmediato de algunos, sino el impacto en todos los pueblos y en las generaciones futuras.
En el párrafo 85: Las innovaciones tecnológicas -incluida la inteligencia artificial- no son neutrales; pueden aumentar la participación y la justicia, o ampliar las desigualdades, el control y la exclusión. Como toda herramienta, que puede utilizarse bien o mal.
Del capítulo 3, párrafo 128: [U]na tecnología que clasifica y optimiza lo que ya existe puede ser, sin querer, un obstáculo al cambio y al crecimiento. Para un algoritmo, el error es algo que hay que corregir; para una persona, puede ser el inicio de un cambio profundo. El futuro de una persona no es calculable, sino que está confiado a su libertad -elevada por la inagotable gracia divina- y a las relaciones que cultiva.
El capítulo 4 analiza las consecuencias negativas que puede tener la IA: contra la verdad; la dignidad del tranajo; sobre la libertad, a través de la dependencia y la mercantilización del hombre.
El capítulo 5 es un alegato contra la guerra, y un análisis de la civilización del amor que deberíamos construir para alcanzar la paz mundial lo antes posible.
En el párrafo 238 (Conclusión): Educar a las nuevas generaciones para que logren creer que la evolución de las tecnologías no sigue un camino inevitable, sino que puede estar orientada por la responsabilidad personal y colectiva, constituye uno de los servicios más valiosos al bien común.
Aquí va un enlace a un artículo de mi blog sobre lo que dice la encíclica sobre la inteligencia artificial: https://divulciencia.blogspot.com/202...
ENGLISH: This important encyclical raises many issues, some essential now, or which will soon be essential for our daily lives, due to technological advances already achieved or anticipated. Let's look at a few significant quotes:
From Chapter 2, paragraph 72: When it comes to decisions regarding economic flows and digital platforms, as well as the governance of data and algorithms, we cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own; instead, we must build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make them jointly responsible for the common good.
In paragraph 76: Today, this responsibility also extends to digital and information infrastructure. Like the natural environment, the "digital ecosystem" can be preserved or exploited, shared or monopolized. Solidarity demands that decisions regarding data, algorithms, platforms and artificial intelligence take into account not only the immediate benefit for a few, but also the impact on all peoples and on future generations.
In paragraph 85: Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral, for they can either foster participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control and exclusion. As every tool, which can be used for good or for evil purposes.
From Chapter 3, paragraph 128: [A] technology that merely classifies and optimizes what already exists can, however unintentionally, become an obstacle to change and growth. For an algorithm, an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, however, an error can be a catalyst for profound change. A person’s future is not calculable, but depends on one’s freedom - elevated by the inexhaustible grace of God - and on the relationships cultivated.
Chapter 4 analyzes possible negative consequences of AI: against truth; against the dignity of work; and against freedom, through dependency and the commercialization of humankind.
Chapter 5 is a plea against war and an analysis of the civilization of love that we should build to achieve world peace as soon as possible.
From paragraph 238 (Conclusion): Teaching new generations that technological evolution does not follow a predetermined path, but can be guided by personal and collective responsibility, constitutes one of the most valuable services to the common good.
This is a link to a post in my blog about what the encyclical says about artificial intelligence: https://populscience.blogspot.com/202...
Del capítulo 2, párrafo 72: En las decisiones que se refieren a los flujos económicos, las plataformas digitales, la gestión de los datos y los algoritmos, no se puede dejar que pocos actores por sí solos orienten los procesos, sino que es necesario construir formas de cooperación que respeten los diversos niveles de la comunidad mundial y los hagan corresponsables del bien común.
En el párrafo 76: Hoy esta responsabilidad se extiende también a las infraestructuras digitales e informativas; como el ambiente natural, también el "ecosistema digital" puede ser cuidado o explotado, compartido o monopolizado. La solidaridad requiere que las decisiones en materia de datos, algoritmos, plataformas e IA tengan en cuenta no sólo el beneficio inmediato de algunos, sino el impacto en todos los pueblos y en las generaciones futuras.
En el párrafo 85: Las innovaciones tecnológicas -incluida la inteligencia artificial- no son neutrales; pueden aumentar la participación y la justicia, o ampliar las desigualdades, el control y la exclusión. Como toda herramienta, que puede utilizarse bien o mal.
Del capítulo 3, párrafo 128: [U]na tecnología que clasifica y optimiza lo que ya existe puede ser, sin querer, un obstáculo al cambio y al crecimiento. Para un algoritmo, el error es algo que hay que corregir; para una persona, puede ser el inicio de un cambio profundo. El futuro de una persona no es calculable, sino que está confiado a su libertad -elevada por la inagotable gracia divina- y a las relaciones que cultiva.
El capítulo 4 analiza las consecuencias negativas que puede tener la IA: contra la verdad; la dignidad del tranajo; sobre la libertad, a través de la dependencia y la mercantilización del hombre.
El capítulo 5 es un alegato contra la guerra, y un análisis de la civilización del amor que deberíamos construir para alcanzar la paz mundial lo antes posible.
En el párrafo 238 (Conclusión): Educar a las nuevas generaciones para que logren creer que la evolución de las tecnologías no sigue un camino inevitable, sino que puede estar orientada por la responsabilidad personal y colectiva, constituye uno de los servicios más valiosos al bien común.
Aquí va un enlace a un artículo de mi blog sobre lo que dice la encíclica sobre la inteligencia artificial: https://divulciencia.blogspot.com/202...
ENGLISH: This important encyclical raises many issues, some essential now, or which will soon be essential for our daily lives, due to technological advances already achieved or anticipated. Let's look at a few significant quotes:
From Chapter 2, paragraph 72: When it comes to decisions regarding economic flows and digital platforms, as well as the governance of data and algorithms, we cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own; instead, we must build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make them jointly responsible for the common good.
In paragraph 76: Today, this responsibility also extends to digital and information infrastructure. Like the natural environment, the "digital ecosystem" can be preserved or exploited, shared or monopolized. Solidarity demands that decisions regarding data, algorithms, platforms and artificial intelligence take into account not only the immediate benefit for a few, but also the impact on all peoples and on future generations.
In paragraph 85: Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral, for they can either foster participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control and exclusion. As every tool, which can be used for good or for evil purposes.
From Chapter 3, paragraph 128: [A] technology that merely classifies and optimizes what already exists can, however unintentionally, become an obstacle to change and growth. For an algorithm, an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, however, an error can be a catalyst for profound change. A person’s future is not calculable, but depends on one’s freedom - elevated by the inexhaustible grace of God - and on the relationships cultivated.
Chapter 4 analyzes possible negative consequences of AI: against truth; against the dignity of work; and against freedom, through dependency and the commercialization of humankind.
Chapter 5 is a plea against war and an analysis of the civilization of love that we should build to achieve world peace as soon as possible.
From paragraph 238 (Conclusion): Teaching new generations that technological evolution does not follow a predetermined path, but can be guided by personal and collective responsibility, constitutes one of the most valuable services to the common good.
This is a link to a post in my blog about what the encyclical says about artificial intelligence: https://populscience.blogspot.com/202...
May 30, 2026
La situación es tal que aquí estoy, estando de acuerdo, e incluso aplaudiendo, con lo que un papa católico explica. Una lectura preciosa, actual e imperdible. No tengo ninguna fe en un ser superior, y me rehuso a darle participación a una religión organizada en mi vida, pero es también imposible no entender lo que León XIV explica sobre el futuro de la humanidad.
Hoy nuestra relación con la vida parece estar en crisis. Todo lo que representa un “límite” —incapacidad, enfermedad, ancianidad, sufrimiento, vulnerabilidad— tiende a ser leído principalmente como un defecto que hay que corregir, más que como un espacio en el que el ser humano madura y se abre a la relación. En cambio, debemos recordar que el ser humano no florece a pesar del límite, sino a menudo a través del límite. Una visión de la realidad a la luz de la fe ayuda a reconocer lo que llamamos “contingencia” de las cosas de este mundo. Si por un lado es necesario tratar de eliminar el sufrimiento que marca la vida humana, por el otro, es sabio reconocer nuestra finitud constitutiva.
May 26, 2026
What a gift to the Church this teaching is.
Some highlights:
“Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together.”
“Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral for they can either foster Stier participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control, and exclusion. For this reason, they must be evaluated by asking a crucial question: do they truly help individuals and peoples to become more human and fraternal, respecting our common home and future generations?”
“We cannot consider AI to be morally neutral.”
“Our central question [is]: what does it mean to safeguard our humanity?… when efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are attempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship, and communion.”
“Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI ‘make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?’”
“The pervasiveness of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper-stimulation, which gives rise to fatigue, boredom and apathy concerning the effort required for seeking the truth.”
“Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used. The speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained at risk extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which is a process that bears for only over time.”
“The subtler forms of addiction linked to the ‘digital attention economy’ should not be underestimated, since platforms and services are often designed to capture users’ time and attention, exploiting their vulnerabilities and weakening their inner freedom.”
“What saves humanity is the divine love that descends into the most fragile point of our history and renews it from within. For this reason, as a believer among believers, I invite everyone to contemplate, in the face of the Son of God, the grandeur of humanity that shines a light also on the era of AI. In Christ, we are called to cooperate in the work of creation, rather than be disinterested, observers of tech, technological processes that limit our freedom and responsibility.”
“In the humble fidelity of daily life, even the era of AI can become a time in which the Holy Spirit brings about the civilization of love in our lives. Indeed, the Lord continues to make all things new and offers every era the possibility of becoming part of salvation history in the light of the Incarnation.”
I mainly focused on sharing quotes pertaining to Pope Leo’s teaching on AI, but there is a lot more in this document worth reading and reflecting on, especially in relation to war in the modern era. May the good and gracious Lord use these words to help us to never forget the grandeur of humanity!
Some highlights:
“Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together.”
“Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral for they can either foster Stier participation and justice or exacerbate inequality, control, and exclusion. For this reason, they must be evaluated by asking a crucial question: do they truly help individuals and peoples to become more human and fraternal, respecting our common home and future generations?”
“We cannot consider AI to be morally neutral.”
“Our central question [is]: what does it mean to safeguard our humanity?… when efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are attempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship, and communion.”
“Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI ‘make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?’”
“The pervasiveness of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper-stimulation, which gives rise to fatigue, boredom and apathy concerning the effort required for seeking the truth.”
“Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used. The speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained at risk extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which is a process that bears for only over time.”
“The subtler forms of addiction linked to the ‘digital attention economy’ should not be underestimated, since platforms and services are often designed to capture users’ time and attention, exploiting their vulnerabilities and weakening their inner freedom.”
“What saves humanity is the divine love that descends into the most fragile point of our history and renews it from within. For this reason, as a believer among believers, I invite everyone to contemplate, in the face of the Son of God, the grandeur of humanity that shines a light also on the era of AI. In Christ, we are called to cooperate in the work of creation, rather than be disinterested, observers of tech, technological processes that limit our freedom and responsibility.”
“In the humble fidelity of daily life, even the era of AI can become a time in which the Holy Spirit brings about the civilization of love in our lives. Indeed, the Lord continues to make all things new and offers every era the possibility of becoming part of salvation history in the light of the Incarnation.”
I mainly focused on sharing quotes pertaining to Pope Leo’s teaching on AI, but there is a lot more in this document worth reading and reflecting on, especially in relation to war in the modern era. May the good and gracious Lord use these words to help us to never forget the grandeur of humanity!
Read
May 30, 2026The Pope is indeed still Catholic.
As someone who is not Catholic, there’s some areas where there’s naturally going to be disagreement, particularly sections on economics and war, as one cannot expect the Pope to not say the Catholic thing on these subjects. I did think this was worth the read just because of the media attention it received. I think there is something valuable about the fact that the secular world and people of other Christian and non-Christian cares about what the papacy has to say and it’s something that magisterial Protestants should seek to recover.
Personally I found rerum novarum more compelling, but the sections against trans humanism, particularly the section on human suffering (p. 120) as something integral to being human, were very strong.
As someone who is not Catholic, there’s some areas where there’s naturally going to be disagreement, particularly sections on economics and war, as one cannot expect the Pope to not say the Catholic thing on these subjects. I did think this was worth the read just because of the media attention it received. I think there is something valuable about the fact that the secular world and people of other Christian and non-Christian cares about what the papacy has to say and it’s something that magisterial Protestants should seek to recover.
Personally I found rerum novarum more compelling, but the sections against trans humanism, particularly the section on human suffering (p. 120) as something integral to being human, were very strong.
June 1, 2026
Interesantísima la primera Encíclica de León XIV. Para releer y aplicar en muchas de sus partes. Lo más relevante es lo mucho que se está hablando...y el debate y la reflexión que aporta a la conversación pública.
May 25, 2026
This is awesome. Some, myself included, may even call it…magnificent.
May 31, 2026
woke popeeeee
Quite a beautiful and poetic encyclical that explores protecting human consciousness in the age of AI. It shares a good amount of common ground with classical socialist/Marxist texts and even Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto in its critique of surveillance/exploitation of labor/class disparities.
Similar to Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum during the Industrial Revolution, Pope Leo XIV’s focus is more on the unchecked power of global tech monopolies rather than the vision of a worker-led revolution…womp womp
Even though it is a refreshing read from a world leader, it is difficult to reconcile the deep nuance of this piece with the reality that the same author does not believe in the validity of LGBTQ+ relationships.
A few quotes I loved:
“In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human.”
“Even today, colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data, transforming personal lives into exploitable information…If technology promises emancipation, yet
produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity.”
“Nothing in the world of Al is immaterial or magical.
Every seemingly immediate and flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving vast networks of natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above all, people.”
Quite a beautiful and poetic encyclical that explores protecting human consciousness in the age of AI. It shares a good amount of common ground with classical socialist/Marxist texts and even Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto in its critique of surveillance/exploitation of labor/class disparities.
Similar to Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum during the Industrial Revolution, Pope Leo XIV’s focus is more on the unchecked power of global tech monopolies rather than the vision of a worker-led revolution…womp womp
Even though it is a refreshing read from a world leader, it is difficult to reconcile the deep nuance of this piece with the reality that the same author does not believe in the validity of LGBTQ+ relationships.
A few quotes I loved:
“In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human.”
“Even today, colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data, transforming personal lives into exploitable information…If technology promises emancipation, yet
produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity.”
“Nothing in the world of Al is immaterial or magical.
Every seemingly immediate and flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving vast networks of natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above all, people.”
May 25, 2026
Read it, pray with it, live it. Great opening for Pope Leo.
“Yet despite this downward spiral, we can also glimpse a great part of humanity that is striving to remain human and working to build a holy city of coexistence and peace. All too often, we are unwitting builders and clumsy architects of this city, capable of generous gestures but lacking an overall vision. This building is slower, less visible and less spectacular, and awaits a better understanding and greater coordination so that it may become the conscious and clear responsibility of every community, from families to States, and the relations of Nations. It is this prospect of commitment, this construction site of hope, that we call the ‘civilization of love.’”
“Yet despite this downward spiral, we can also glimpse a great part of humanity that is striving to remain human and working to build a holy city of coexistence and peace. All too often, we are unwitting builders and clumsy architects of this city, capable of generous gestures but lacking an overall vision. This building is slower, less visible and less spectacular, and awaits a better understanding and greater coordination so that it may become the conscious and clear responsibility of every community, from families to States, and the relations of Nations. It is this prospect of commitment, this construction site of hope, that we call the ‘civilization of love.’”
May 28, 2026
Debería ser de obligada lectura para toda persona que desarrolle Inteligencia Artificial. Con la clarividencia del corpus de la Tradición de la Iglesia y la modernidad del Papa León XIV, esta encíclica supone el pilar sobre el que debemos cimentar cualquier desarrollo tecnológico. Obsesiva en cuanto a poner al hombre y su dignidad infinita en el centro, habla sin pelos en la lengua: critica, pide perdón, recomienda y advierte a partes iguales.
Dificil llevarse solo una cita, pero para no errar en el tiro, una de la Sagrada Escritura << Que cada cual se fije bien de qué manera construye>> (1 Cor 3,10)
Dificil llevarse solo una cita, pero para no errar en el tiro, una de la Sagrada Escritura << Que cada cual se fije bien de qué manera construye>> (1 Cor 3,10)
May 26, 2026
“We can embrace the technological progress that alleviates suffering and unlocks new possibilities, provided that we do not abandon the very essence of our humanity, namely the capacity for relationship and love.”
May 27, 2026
there were some great lines in here, could’ve rated higher if I understood the theology
May 26, 2026
So rich.
May 27, 2026
Really balanced take on the dignity of the human person in the age of AI. Definitely still processing everything, but this gave me a lot to think about.
Read
May 31, 2026I’ll probably be wait a bit to write down more thought. But here is my current thought: It has childlike faith in a beautiful way.
May 28, 2026
I thought this was a fantastic read that shows Pope Leo XIV to be a real visionary for our (4th industrial revolution - AI)
A big theme in this letter is Augustine's City of God in which humanity is given the choice to build either of two cities: the city of man (built on power, pride, and greed) or the city of God (built on truth, love, and humility).
The 21st century's attempt to use AI to grow in power and eliminate suffering is and will become an effort to, as Pope Leo says, build the Tower of Babel in the city of man. This needs to be avoided at all costs. He says,
10. "We must, then, avoid the “Babel syndrome,” namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance. "
Another issue he brings up is that our fourth industrial revolution has created a technocracy. W;hereas the past was dominated by powerful kings and states, our 21st century and beyond will be dominated by powerful private corporations who create and control AI which states depend on. Rather than allowing a select few to hold a monopoly of power with these systems, the Catholic Social Teaching principle of subsidiarity (bringing the primary power to local communities) comes in:
107. "We cannot be satisfied with merely calling for the moralization of machines — the so-called “alignment” of AI with human values — without also having the courage to insist on a further condition: the possibility of openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved and subjecting them to shared standards of social justice. Otherwise, those who control AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of these systems. A more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few. What is needed is a more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating, and of protecting the opportunities for communities still to be able to participate and ask questions."
Overall, what I appreciated about this encyclical was its message of hope. There is no sense of him being a luddite or a doomsayer. Instead, Pope Leo challenges us to make true humanity the basis for all technological innovation. The purpose of technology should be to make us more human, not the other way around:
129. "Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI “make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?”138 If the answer is yes, then we can recognize it as an opportunity to be embraced responsibly, on a path of patient, shared reconstruction, akin to the rebuilding of Jerusalem narrated in the Book of Nehemiah. If, however, power grows while the heart withers and human bonds fray, then we are faced with a new form of Babel — a construction that is grandiose, yet fundamentally dehumanizing.”
A big theme in this letter is Augustine's City of God in which humanity is given the choice to build either of two cities: the city of man (built on power, pride, and greed) or the city of God (built on truth, love, and humility).
The 21st century's attempt to use AI to grow in power and eliminate suffering is and will become an effort to, as Pope Leo says, build the Tower of Babel in the city of man. This needs to be avoided at all costs. He says,
10. "We must, then, avoid the “Babel syndrome,” namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance. "
Another issue he brings up is that our fourth industrial revolution has created a technocracy. W;hereas the past was dominated by powerful kings and states, our 21st century and beyond will be dominated by powerful private corporations who create and control AI which states depend on. Rather than allowing a select few to hold a monopoly of power with these systems, the Catholic Social Teaching principle of subsidiarity (bringing the primary power to local communities) comes in:
107. "We cannot be satisfied with merely calling for the moralization of machines — the so-called “alignment” of AI with human values — without also having the courage to insist on a further condition: the possibility of openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved and subjecting them to shared standards of social justice. Otherwise, those who control AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of these systems. A more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few. What is needed is a more active political involvement that is capable of slowing things down when everything is accelerating, and of protecting the opportunities for communities still to be able to participate and ask questions."
Overall, what I appreciated about this encyclical was its message of hope. There is no sense of him being a luddite or a doomsayer. Instead, Pope Leo challenges us to make true humanity the basis for all technological innovation. The purpose of technology should be to make us more human, not the other way around:
129. "Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI “make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?”138 If the answer is yes, then we can recognize it as an opportunity to be embraced responsibly, on a path of patient, shared reconstruction, akin to the rebuilding of Jerusalem narrated in the Book of Nehemiah. If, however, power grows while the heart withers and human bonds fray, then we are faced with a new form of Babel — a construction that is grandiose, yet fundamentally dehumanizing.”
June 1, 2026
When the College of Cardinals elected the first American pope a year ago, they really hit the nail on the head. (Nail on the cross?) It was said such a thing would never happen while the United States was a world superpower. Go figure. Now that we aren’t, well… We know a guy, if you know what I mean.
Leo—may I call you Father Bob still?—clearly came of age in the ‘Godspell’-scented ‘70s. He’s optimistic like that. But he also has seen a lot of stuff in his postings. He is no stranger to tech (he reportedly plays Words With Friends with his brother back in Chicago), and you KNOW he’s following the White Sox memes online. Father Bob is no stranger to the ways of the wired world.
There are the typical topics we’ve come to expect in an encyclical, as well as a call to leaders to do the right thing. Now, though, the most reported part of the document—the discussion of AI—does not come until roughly the middle, after talk of social justice (springboarding from Leo XIII), after the economics lesson. In 2026, it feels like a shattering yet natural progression: Now that we have established the haves and have-nots and the moral responsibility to level the playing field, we must take care not to use AI to drive them further apart. (As I told my daughter many years ago, a computer cannot love you back.) Judging by the number of people who use AI chatbots for companionship and advice (for starters), this is a concern that is already getting lost. As for technology leading to dehumanization, the pope might as well be talking about nuclear power. Each is destructive in its own way—albeit with tremendous potential for good. He also writes about the dangers of a manipulative internet on our vulnerable human family, bottom to top, and the indignity of unemployment. Look no further than Mark Zuckerberg taking his $300 million yacht out for a spin in Lake Union this week, right after canning 1,400 of his employees in Seattle. Just another example of the profanity our creation has wrought. (In an overlooked moment, the pope apologizes for the Christian world’s role in promoting slavery over the past two millennia. He warns about current and future technologies, as well, perpetuating these and other forms of slavery. I can also argue, personally, that we—yes, you and I—are already in thrall.)
I believe ‘Magnifica Humanitas’ is a valuable ecumenical and interfaith document for our times. It appeals to our higher angels—regardless of faith tradition—and the simple moral message that is refreshingly radical in 21st century America in particular. In that, Pope Leo is a man of his time, just in time, and in the right place.
Occupy humanity. Rounded up to five stars.
Leo—may I call you Father Bob still?—clearly came of age in the ‘Godspell’-scented ‘70s. He’s optimistic like that. But he also has seen a lot of stuff in his postings. He is no stranger to tech (he reportedly plays Words With Friends with his brother back in Chicago), and you KNOW he’s following the White Sox memes online. Father Bob is no stranger to the ways of the wired world.
There are the typical topics we’ve come to expect in an encyclical, as well as a call to leaders to do the right thing. Now, though, the most reported part of the document—the discussion of AI—does not come until roughly the middle, after talk of social justice (springboarding from Leo XIII), after the economics lesson. In 2026, it feels like a shattering yet natural progression: Now that we have established the haves and have-nots and the moral responsibility to level the playing field, we must take care not to use AI to drive them further apart. (As I told my daughter many years ago, a computer cannot love you back.) Judging by the number of people who use AI chatbots for companionship and advice (for starters), this is a concern that is already getting lost. As for technology leading to dehumanization, the pope might as well be talking about nuclear power. Each is destructive in its own way—albeit with tremendous potential for good. He also writes about the dangers of a manipulative internet on our vulnerable human family, bottom to top, and the indignity of unemployment. Look no further than Mark Zuckerberg taking his $300 million yacht out for a spin in Lake Union this week, right after canning 1,400 of his employees in Seattle. Just another example of the profanity our creation has wrought. (In an overlooked moment, the pope apologizes for the Christian world’s role in promoting slavery over the past two millennia. He warns about current and future technologies, as well, perpetuating these and other forms of slavery. I can also argue, personally, that we—yes, you and I—are already in thrall.)
I believe ‘Magnifica Humanitas’ is a valuable ecumenical and interfaith document for our times. It appeals to our higher angels—regardless of faith tradition—and the simple moral message that is refreshingly radical in 21st century America in particular. In that, Pope Leo is a man of his time, just in time, and in the right place.
Occupy humanity. Rounded up to five stars.
May 31, 2026
Va a ser review larga, voy por puntos:
- Me encanta que haya sido el Papa la primera voz institucional en hablar claramente sobre la IA, más allá de someterse de forma acrítica o rechazarla por completo (también de manera acrítica). Me gusta que haga verdaderos análisis acerca del impacto y sobre todo que dé pautas sobre el comportamiento que debe tomar tanto la sociedad civil como los cristianos. Esto vuelve a colocar al Papa y la Iglesia en un centro internacional que se estaba perdiendo, y me gusta.
- Evidentemente, lo hace sin perder la cristiandad: hay que mantenernos humanos y el significado último de eso es parecernos a Cristo y seguirlo a Él. Con esto, se rechaza el positivismo jurídico que nos tiene presos, nuestra dignidad no viene de la Constitución y es absoluta e inviolable no porque lo diga un papel o por estar en tal o cual capítulo, sino porque nos viene de Dios.
- Muy sorprendida (para bien) de que León XIV utilice términos de Carl Schmitt. Es muy necesario después de los horrores de tanto Kelsen.
- Me gusta mucho el análisis del colonialismo en la era digital, no basado ya en los Estados sino en los entes privados, llevado a cabo mediante el tratamiento y la propiedad de datos, patentes, medios… quien tiene la patente y los datos de forma dominante tiene mucho poder sobre poblaciones enteras, por ejemplo, y una pauta que da León XIV es precisamente la democratización de esos tipos de propiedad industrial, intelectual o de datos (esta encíclica me va a servir de manera genuina en mi futuro profesional).
- Aunque no se haya metido expresamente en el tema, creo que esta encíclica es suficiente para que tantos cristianos dejen de utilizar la IA para hacer “arte” sacro o textos religiosos. El arte sacro debe ser exclusivamente humano porque estamos llamados a ser transformados mediante la participación en la Creación para dar gloria a Dios (que es fin último de todo arte sacro) y una IA jamás podrá hacer eso, aunque técnicamente pueda ser mejor (también muy en desacuerdo con esa apreciación estoy).
En general, me ha gustado un montón y me cae muy bien este Papa, es carismático y cercano con la gente, pero también es muy inteligente y hace análisis muy buenos de la realidad actual.
- Me encanta que haya sido el Papa la primera voz institucional en hablar claramente sobre la IA, más allá de someterse de forma acrítica o rechazarla por completo (también de manera acrítica). Me gusta que haga verdaderos análisis acerca del impacto y sobre todo que dé pautas sobre el comportamiento que debe tomar tanto la sociedad civil como los cristianos. Esto vuelve a colocar al Papa y la Iglesia en un centro internacional que se estaba perdiendo, y me gusta.
- Evidentemente, lo hace sin perder la cristiandad: hay que mantenernos humanos y el significado último de eso es parecernos a Cristo y seguirlo a Él. Con esto, se rechaza el positivismo jurídico que nos tiene presos, nuestra dignidad no viene de la Constitución y es absoluta e inviolable no porque lo diga un papel o por estar en tal o cual capítulo, sino porque nos viene de Dios.
- Muy sorprendida (para bien) de que León XIV utilice términos de Carl Schmitt. Es muy necesario después de los horrores de tanto Kelsen.
- Me gusta mucho el análisis del colonialismo en la era digital, no basado ya en los Estados sino en los entes privados, llevado a cabo mediante el tratamiento y la propiedad de datos, patentes, medios… quien tiene la patente y los datos de forma dominante tiene mucho poder sobre poblaciones enteras, por ejemplo, y una pauta que da León XIV es precisamente la democratización de esos tipos de propiedad industrial, intelectual o de datos (esta encíclica me va a servir de manera genuina en mi futuro profesional).
- Aunque no se haya metido expresamente en el tema, creo que esta encíclica es suficiente para que tantos cristianos dejen de utilizar la IA para hacer “arte” sacro o textos religiosos. El arte sacro debe ser exclusivamente humano porque estamos llamados a ser transformados mediante la participación en la Creación para dar gloria a Dios (que es fin último de todo arte sacro) y una IA jamás podrá hacer eso, aunque técnicamente pueda ser mejor (también muy en desacuerdo con esa apreciación estoy).
En general, me ha gustado un montón y me cae muy bien este Papa, es carismático y cercano con la gente, pero también es muy inteligente y hace análisis muy buenos de la realidad actual.
May 28, 2026
"Even when machines excel in efficiency, a human face that asks to be gazed upon remains the center of our history"
Good points:
Speaks to the modern person, gives a human and modest voice to a man who Catholics consider to be god's representative. We see, without his saying it, his background in poorer areas. His focus is always on those with less and the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots as technology speeds ahead faster than we can possibly keep up with it, with no brakes.
Tackles the issue of technology without denouncing it, calls for a sustainable approach to it. Other pressing issues raised include modern day slavery, war, economic divide, and preservation of the family (by providing good economic conditions to people can start and maintain one)
As an ex Catholic, an atheist, who is reading an encyclical for the first time - we receive a great history of previous encyclicals and the spiritual basis for the message provided, regardless of your belief in the Bible or lack thereof
Absolutely brilliant quotes can be taken from this which I expect will become iconic in the near future
Bad points:
A lot of words to say sometimes something very plain and some repetition
Sounds at times like a HR email - speaking in circles, a lot of problems raised and not many clear ways to navigate them apart from a very short part of the last chapter
Well worth a read! Faith not required - the Pope himself even addressed it to Catholics, Christians and all those of good will
Good points:
Speaks to the modern person, gives a human and modest voice to a man who Catholics consider to be god's representative. We see, without his saying it, his background in poorer areas. His focus is always on those with less and the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots as technology speeds ahead faster than we can possibly keep up with it, with no brakes.
Tackles the issue of technology without denouncing it, calls for a sustainable approach to it. Other pressing issues raised include modern day slavery, war, economic divide, and preservation of the family (by providing good economic conditions to people can start and maintain one)
As an ex Catholic, an atheist, who is reading an encyclical for the first time - we receive a great history of previous encyclicals and the spiritual basis for the message provided, regardless of your belief in the Bible or lack thereof
Absolutely brilliant quotes can be taken from this which I expect will become iconic in the near future
Bad points:
A lot of words to say sometimes something very plain and some repetition
Sounds at times like a HR email - speaking in circles, a lot of problems raised and not many clear ways to navigate them apart from a very short part of the last chapter
Well worth a read! Faith not required - the Pope himself even addressed it to Catholics, Christians and all those of good will
Read
May 31, 2026No tiene sentido calificar con estrellas un texto de características tan especiales. Primero porque, aunque el autor se identifique con el nombre de León XIV, son innumerables las manos y las cabezas que le han dado una forma definitiva. Segundo porque la intención del escrito trasciende cualquier tipo de creación ensayística o literaria. Y, tercero, porque es un documento concebido para sentar cátedra, no necesariamente como se redacta una ley, sino como una guía a la que habrá que volver más veces para verificar o corregir el recorrido. En cualquier caso, una lectura interesante, necesaria.
Read
June 1, 2026Aldri lest noe av en pave før så det var et veldig random innfall å lese dette brevet (?) lol
Overraskende mange gode poeng og sitater. Han hadde faktisk fått 6 på fagsamtale i geografi 👍 Litt mindre kristen yapping enn jeg forventa også, så det var et pluss altså, han holdt seg på et interessant nivå. Skulle ha lest tower of babel først
føles fortsatt veldig rart at dette er virkeligheten og ikke en av androide-bøkene mine. gandalf blir også sitert i teksten btw
Overraskende mange gode poeng og sitater. Han hadde faktisk fått 6 på fagsamtale i geografi 👍 Litt mindre kristen yapping enn jeg forventa også, så det var et pluss altså, han holdt seg på et interessant nivå. Skulle ha lest tower of babel først
føles fortsatt veldig rart at dette er virkeligheten og ikke en av androide-bøkene mine. gandalf blir også sitert i teksten btw
May 25, 2026
I loved this and truly believe it will be one of the most powerful encyclicals written in our life time. Pope Leo has a heart of love and a way of speaking truth and freedom in his words. Give this a read!!
May 29, 2026
Me ha parecido INTERESANTISIMO. Todo todo todo el mundo deberia leerlo y reflexionar
May 29, 2026
Bars from beginning to end.
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
A great first encyclical.
He illustrates our attitude toward AI—and indeed any other technology—using two biblical stories: the Tower of Babel and Nehemiah’s rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. The former is a project that focuses on people rather than God and elevates worldly means to an absolute. The result is well known. The latter, on the other hand, is an organized effort carried out in love and with an eye toward the Most High, which then also has an impact on people.
As human beings, we have the choice to approach new technologies in one way or another. This central theme runs throughout the entire encyclical, and Pope Leo details the dangers of mishandling and the benefits of properly handling artificial intelligence. Throughout the work, it becomes clear that a conscious approach to this new technology is close to his heart, and he thus refutes accusations of technophobia.
—
A significant portion of the document’s opening is devoted to outlining the fundamentals of modern Catholic social teaching, beginning with Leo XIII, and how these have evolved since then. This provides a solid foundation for what follows and is useful for every Catholic to know, regardless of the rest of the encyclical.
Turning to the present, the Pope then speaks primarily of the danger posed by private companies, whose pursuit of profit—if not restrained by conscience—will have disastrous consequences for workers, families, the environment, young people, social cohesion, and entire countries. He does not fail to call on these very actors to take responsibility, which I particularly appreciated. All too often, even on this topic, we shift the blame solely onto technocrats, which isn’t entirely wrong, but as a father, for example, I also have a duty not to expose my child to these new circumstances without protection. However, the responsibility lies primarily with the creators of artificial intelligence and its manifestations, for „we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral.“ (104); a key statement in my opinion.
Transhumanism is quite rightly identified as the root of the problem, which—in combination with a materialistic worldview that is rampant in the West—views humans merely as a deficient collection of atoms that needs to be improved. In my opinion, the following remark strikes me as one of the most important:
Furthermore:
The Pope highlights the overall lack of a foundation of shared truth within society. Human beings cannot create their own truth and values; both must necessarily be derived from something greater than themselves. Even less can a society survive without such a foundation. Therefore, the challenge posed by AI is also an opportunity for us as a society to come closer together and to reflect once again on what truly matters and what we have in common and where we are heading.
In subsequent sections, the Pope discusses the dignity of work—which, according to modern thinking, should be minimized because it has no intrinsic value—and the danger of unemployment. These texts are also highly recommended, but to keep this within reasonable limits, I will leave it at this quote:
The following chapter explores the commodification of human beings and the misuse of their digital identities, as well as the dangers this poses should an overreaching government unscrupulously seize control of them. „At the root of these problems lies a technocratic and post-humanist mentality that tends to regard the human person as an object to be manipulated or a resource to be optimized, removing all safeguards against the unchecked pursuit of profit.“ (172). This would lead to a new form of slavery.
Everything that has been said so far is succinctly summarized in section 180:
Chapter 5 addresses a highly controversial and unavoidable aspect of artificial intelligence: warfare.
Pope Leo points not only to the ethical problem of anonymous, i.e., AI-controlled, acts of war, but also to the current climate of ever-increasing potential for conflict and an ever-greater willingness to resort to military force. This potential can also be fueled by AI. Likewise, the greed of the sprawling military-industrial complexes, the existence of radical groups and criminal networks for which war represents a profitable business, poses a major danger. In a chilling final sentence, he says: „Here, the objective is no longer a definitive victory, but the perpetuation of conflict as a source of power and income.“ (196)
In the last 40 or so sections, he calls for realism and realistic idealism, for taking Jesus Christ as our guide, in order to create a civilization of love out of the darkness, just as Nehemiah once did. Magnifica Humanitas is to illuminate the age of AI (233).
I could write just as much again and still not have said everything. Magnifica Humanitas is very dense and well-structured, so I can only urge everyone, whether Christian or not, to read it in its entirety.
So far I have had nothing but praise, but I must also offer some criticism. Pope Leo often speaks of “human progress” or “social progress.” Toward the end, he even mentions human, decidedly secular institutions that were meant to preserve peace but have lost their strength in recent years and decades because those involved have lost the will to do so, which has led, among other things, to this conflict-ridden age. In contrast, I say that there is peace only in Christ. Any purely human institution that has no connection to Christ operates according to purely human—that is, deficient—standards, which can guarantee at most only a superficial peace. As a general rule, I would say: In doubt, give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. I am certain that Pope Leo shares this view, but unfortunately the encyclical sometimes gives the impression that purely human endeavors could secure true peace and that we, as human beings, could somehow “evolve” through sheer will.
These are technicalities, but they seem somewhat odd in the overall context of the encyclical because, at first glance, they would appear to contradict some of the points made in the text. But as I mentioned earlier, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here.
All in all, it is a very good encyclical that responds appropriately to an urgent issue of our time.
—
My highlights:
Introduction: 10, 12
Chapter 1 – A dynamic approach faithful to the Gospel: 21, 26, 27
Chapter 2 – Foundations and principles of the social doctrine of the Church: 55, 56
Chapter 3 – Technology and dominance. The grandeur of humanity in light of the promises of AI: 94, 102, 104, 106, 110, 112-113, 117-118, 120, 127
Chapter 4 – Safeguarding Humanity at a time of transformation. Truth, Work, Freedom: 133, 140-141, 146, 149, 161, 166, 170-174, 178, 180
Chapter 5 – The culture of power and the civilization of love: 183, 190, 193, 196, 198, 204, 207-208, 211, 222, 227
Conclusion: 231-233
He illustrates our attitude toward AI—and indeed any other technology—using two biblical stories: the Tower of Babel and Nehemiah’s rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. The former is a project that focuses on people rather than God and elevates worldly means to an absolute. The result is well known. The latter, on the other hand, is an organized effort carried out in love and with an eye toward the Most High, which then also has an impact on people.
As human beings, we have the choice to approach new technologies in one way or another. This central theme runs throughout the entire encyclical, and Pope Leo details the dangers of mishandling and the benefits of properly handling artificial intelligence. Throughout the work, it becomes clear that a conscious approach to this new technology is close to his heart, and he thus refutes accusations of technophobia.
—
A significant portion of the document’s opening is devoted to outlining the fundamentals of modern Catholic social teaching, beginning with Leo XIII, and how these have evolved since then. This provides a solid foundation for what follows and is useful for every Catholic to know, regardless of the rest of the encyclical.
Turning to the present, the Pope then speaks primarily of the danger posed by private companies, whose pursuit of profit—if not restrained by conscience—will have disastrous consequences for workers, families, the environment, young people, social cohesion, and entire countries. He does not fail to call on these very actors to take responsibility, which I particularly appreciated. All too often, even on this topic, we shift the blame solely onto technocrats, which isn’t entirely wrong, but as a father, for example, I also have a duty not to expose my child to these new circumstances without protection. However, the responsibility lies primarily with the creators of artificial intelligence and its manifestations, for „we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral.“ (104); a key statement in my opinion.
Transhumanism is quite rightly identified as the root of the problem, which—in combination with a materialistic worldview that is rampant in the West—views humans merely as a deficient collection of atoms that needs to be improved. In my opinion, the following remark strikes me as one of the most important:
„Everything that appears as a “limit” — incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability — tends to be seen primarily as a defect to be corrected, rather than as a reality through which our humanity matures and opens itself to relationship. And yet we must remember that humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them. The light of faith offers a perspective on reality that helps us recognize what we call the “contingency” of the things of this world. While it is right to strive to alleviate the suffering that marks human life, it is also wise to acknowledge our fundamental finitude, knowing that “religious experience, and in particular Christian faith, propose that we live, without oversimplification, this ambivalence between human greatness and limitation, interpreting it in the light of our original and fundamental relationship with God.”“ (118).
Furthermore:
„If technological development advances without a corresponding ethical and social progress, the result may be an increase in means without a growth in humanity: “having more” without “being more.” In such a scenario, there is a risk that individuals will be evaluated principally according to the outcomes they produce.“ (94). This way of thinking culminates into this: „For this reason, humanity — in all its grandeur and woundedness — must never be replaced or surpassed.“ (126)
The Pope highlights the overall lack of a foundation of shared truth within society. Human beings cannot create their own truth and values; both must necessarily be derived from something greater than themselves. Even less can a society survive without such a foundation. Therefore, the challenge posed by AI is also an opportunity for us as a society to come closer together and to reflect once again on what truly matters and what we have in common and where we are heading.
In subsequent sections, the Pope discusses the dignity of work—which, according to modern thinking, should be minimized because it has no intrinsic value—and the danger of unemployment. These texts are also highly recommended, but to keep this within reasonable limits, I will leave it at this quote:
„The family, however, is a fragile social good immediately affected by the economic and technological transformations reshaping the nature of work. It thus requires cultural, juridical and economic support. The devastating impact of unemployment and job insecurity on family structures is well known. In the short term, it may seem advantageous to reduce labor costs or maximize financial efficiency, but in the long term this undermines the very foundations of social coexistence. While technological successes are celebrated, the social fabric is progressively eroded, as if by a silent virus.“ (166)
The following chapter explores the commodification of human beings and the misuse of their digital identities, as well as the dangers this poses should an overreaching government unscrupulously seize control of them. „At the root of these problems lies a technocratic and post-humanist mentality that tends to regard the human person as an object to be manipulated or a resource to be optimized, removing all safeguards against the unchecked pursuit of profit.“ (172). This would lead to a new form of slavery.
Everything that has been said so far is succinctly summarized in section 180:
„The various areas just considered— the search for the truth in public life, education in the digital environment, the transformation of work, the fragility of families and new forms of slavery—are not isolated phenomena. Rather, they reflect a common underlying issue, namely that if technology becomes the ultimate criterion, the human person risks being reduced to data, a cog in a machine or a commodity. If, however, technology is integrated with a wise perspective, it can become an instrument of growth, justice and fraternity.“
Chapter 5 addresses a highly controversial and unavoidable aspect of artificial intelligence: warfare.
Pope Leo points not only to the ethical problem of anonymous, i.e., AI-controlled, acts of war, but also to the current climate of ever-increasing potential for conflict and an ever-greater willingness to resort to military force. This potential can also be fueled by AI. Likewise, the greed of the sprawling military-industrial complexes, the existence of radical groups and criminal networks for which war represents a profitable business, poses a major danger. In a chilling final sentence, he says: „Here, the objective is no longer a definitive victory, but the perpetuation of conflict as a source of power and income.“ (196)
In the last 40 or so sections, he calls for realism and realistic idealism, for taking Jesus Christ as our guide, in order to create a civilization of love out of the darkness, just as Nehemiah once did. Magnifica Humanitas is to illuminate the age of AI (233).
I could write just as much again and still not have said everything. Magnifica Humanitas is very dense and well-structured, so I can only urge everyone, whether Christian or not, to read it in its entirety.
So far I have had nothing but praise, but I must also offer some criticism. Pope Leo often speaks of “human progress” or “social progress.” Toward the end, he even mentions human, decidedly secular institutions that were meant to preserve peace but have lost their strength in recent years and decades because those involved have lost the will to do so, which has led, among other things, to this conflict-ridden age. In contrast, I say that there is peace only in Christ. Any purely human institution that has no connection to Christ operates according to purely human—that is, deficient—standards, which can guarantee at most only a superficial peace. As a general rule, I would say: In doubt, give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. I am certain that Pope Leo shares this view, but unfortunately the encyclical sometimes gives the impression that purely human endeavors could secure true peace and that we, as human beings, could somehow “evolve” through sheer will.
These are technicalities, but they seem somewhat odd in the overall context of the encyclical because, at first glance, they would appear to contradict some of the points made in the text. But as I mentioned earlier, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here.
All in all, it is a very good encyclical that responds appropriately to an urgent issue of our time.
—
My highlights:
Introduction: 10, 12
Chapter 1 – A dynamic approach faithful to the Gospel: 21, 26, 27
Chapter 2 – Foundations and principles of the social doctrine of the Church: 55, 56
Chapter 3 – Technology and dominance. The grandeur of humanity in light of the promises of AI: 94, 102, 104, 106, 110, 112-113, 117-118, 120, 127
Chapter 4 – Safeguarding Humanity at a time of transformation. Truth, Work, Freedom: 133, 140-141, 146, 149, 161, 166, 170-174, 178, 180
Chapter 5 – The culture of power and the civilization of love: 183, 190, 193, 196, 198, 204, 207-208, 211, 222, 227
Conclusion: 231-233
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
Pope Leo says all the right things in this text, but unfortunately for him, content does not exist without form. Leo should know this, being a philosophical thinker like he is. Thus, though he hits on every common sense point that any person in power should understand, it comes off as weaker than it should because of its lack of flare. I know, maybe I'm nitpicking, but this is the leader of the largest religious organization in the world, and half of his text is in passive voice (if not literally, at least in spirit). He extensively cites previous popes and even sometimes the church fathers, but he misses out on the flame of the holy spirit which gave those older writers such an edge. I'm not talking about the sneering schadenfreude of Tertullian, but the righteous indignation of John Chrysostom. He gave sermons on how rich people are going to hell, and it electrified the early church. His texts stand the test of time as a condemnation of the chief sin of our age.
Leo of course denounces capitalists who forget about ethics, but he does it in a passive voice, without naming names or providing any idea of what God's righteous wrath is. I understand that he is wisely following in the footsteps of Francis by maintaining an ecumenical and open-minded approach, but there is no room to be open-minded with the people actively destroying our world; to them, this timidity comes off as something you can ignore without repercussion. I fear that though this text technically takes all the right stances, it is not nearly forceful enough to be felt in the hearts of countless conservative Catholics and capitalists in general. Too many of them will write off Leo as a liberal like Francis, gleefully pursuing profit over ethics. Leo had an extraordinary opportunity to show the world his voice, and strangely it sounds more like intern-research than something he wrote himself, dare I say.
I don't mean any of this in an offensive way, of course. I deeply respect Leo for his various public political positions, but I don't think he's going nearly far enough. For example, his central Babel/Nehemiah dichotomy is a decent one, but almost feels too basic, too general. Where is the urgency? Where is the defense against post-humanists? Merely re-asserting common-sense positions isn't all that compelling.
Which was probably my most striking realization while reading this: I volunteer for an academic journal called Ecokritike. Some of the articles I comment on are genuinely impressive, providing urgent reminders of the interconnectedness of all life on Earth. But at the same time, much of it speaks disparagingly about humans, often using the pejorative "more-than-human" to describe non-human life. I fear that in the coming decades, the world political landscape will unhelpfully bifurcate into human-supremacy versus pan-organism-relativism (which will include technology as an organism). The former group will overwhelmingly support unbridled capitalism and pollution (rather than a sane ethics like Leo's), while the former will oppose things in two directions: first by post-humanist merging with machines (and demanding rights for them), and second by anarcho-primitivist autoannihilationism/antinatalism. I'm really not looking forward to the politics of the future, as it has no place for me or for Leo, if we don't get our act together.
Which is why I'm so surprised by the "banality of good" that Leo propagates here. He seems to merely look at the present, certainly not the future, and barely the past. Though he rightfully points to the incarnation as the central way Christians should understand embodiment and technology, he leaves out entirely any mention of icons, iconoclasm, or any other relevant church controversies. I understand that those are more Eastern controversies, but I fear the Western church is unprepared for the complications of our own creations versus God's creation. The East, as pressured by Islam, had to reckon with what was idolatry and what was godly pointing-toward-Christ (a la John the Baptist), whereas the West has had the luxury of decadence.
Even more troubling, Leo tends to be complacent in his language, using terms such as "technological advancement" (which buys into the false teleology of scientific "progress"), among others. He rightfully points out how science can do harm when it bites off more than it can chew, just as technology needs to have ethics at its root, but it's already too late: AI (by which I mean most LLMs) is already an unethical technology, trained on illegally-sourced data and using excessive amounts of electricity, water, real-estate, precious metals, and manpower. Leo is scared of dominating, instead wanting to encourage community; but I might ask: what community can we have in the wreckage of the now? Isn't it a bit late to say "let's just hang out guys?" To me, the problem is much deeper than "getting along" or "seeing others as humans:" technology has irreversibly harmed our humanity, destroying the average person's capacity to make deep friendships and experience life unmediated by screens. We don't watch live music, we record live music. We don't wake up with the sun, we wake up with alarms. We don't do much of anything without technology. Hell, I listened to this text via an AI-audio app, ironically enough. We can't "work with technology," we have to first learn how to work without it. Even more importantly, we have to fight for the human right of technological abstinence, rather than pandering to those who hate God and want to destroy us. "Using AI ethically", worse than a cliche, is an insidious oxymoron. I'm shocked that Leo can't see that.
Leo of course denounces capitalists who forget about ethics, but he does it in a passive voice, without naming names or providing any idea of what God's righteous wrath is. I understand that he is wisely following in the footsteps of Francis by maintaining an ecumenical and open-minded approach, but there is no room to be open-minded with the people actively destroying our world; to them, this timidity comes off as something you can ignore without repercussion. I fear that though this text technically takes all the right stances, it is not nearly forceful enough to be felt in the hearts of countless conservative Catholics and capitalists in general. Too many of them will write off Leo as a liberal like Francis, gleefully pursuing profit over ethics. Leo had an extraordinary opportunity to show the world his voice, and strangely it sounds more like intern-research than something he wrote himself, dare I say.
I don't mean any of this in an offensive way, of course. I deeply respect Leo for his various public political positions, but I don't think he's going nearly far enough. For example, his central Babel/Nehemiah dichotomy is a decent one, but almost feels too basic, too general. Where is the urgency? Where is the defense against post-humanists? Merely re-asserting common-sense positions isn't all that compelling.
Which was probably my most striking realization while reading this: I volunteer for an academic journal called Ecokritike. Some of the articles I comment on are genuinely impressive, providing urgent reminders of the interconnectedness of all life on Earth. But at the same time, much of it speaks disparagingly about humans, often using the pejorative "more-than-human" to describe non-human life. I fear that in the coming decades, the world political landscape will unhelpfully bifurcate into human-supremacy versus pan-organism-relativism (which will include technology as an organism). The former group will overwhelmingly support unbridled capitalism and pollution (rather than a sane ethics like Leo's), while the former will oppose things in two directions: first by post-humanist merging with machines (and demanding rights for them), and second by anarcho-primitivist autoannihilationism/antinatalism. I'm really not looking forward to the politics of the future, as it has no place for me or for Leo, if we don't get our act together.
Which is why I'm so surprised by the "banality of good" that Leo propagates here. He seems to merely look at the present, certainly not the future, and barely the past. Though he rightfully points to the incarnation as the central way Christians should understand embodiment and technology, he leaves out entirely any mention of icons, iconoclasm, or any other relevant church controversies. I understand that those are more Eastern controversies, but I fear the Western church is unprepared for the complications of our own creations versus God's creation. The East, as pressured by Islam, had to reckon with what was idolatry and what was godly pointing-toward-Christ (a la John the Baptist), whereas the West has had the luxury of decadence.
Even more troubling, Leo tends to be complacent in his language, using terms such as "technological advancement" (which buys into the false teleology of scientific "progress"), among others. He rightfully points out how science can do harm when it bites off more than it can chew, just as technology needs to have ethics at its root, but it's already too late: AI (by which I mean most LLMs) is already an unethical technology, trained on illegally-sourced data and using excessive amounts of electricity, water, real-estate, precious metals, and manpower. Leo is scared of dominating, instead wanting to encourage community; but I might ask: what community can we have in the wreckage of the now? Isn't it a bit late to say "let's just hang out guys?" To me, the problem is much deeper than "getting along" or "seeing others as humans:" technology has irreversibly harmed our humanity, destroying the average person's capacity to make deep friendships and experience life unmediated by screens. We don't watch live music, we record live music. We don't wake up with the sun, we wake up with alarms. We don't do much of anything without technology. Hell, I listened to this text via an AI-audio app, ironically enough. We can't "work with technology," we have to first learn how to work without it. Even more importantly, we have to fight for the human right of technological abstinence, rather than pandering to those who hate God and want to destroy us. "Using AI ethically", worse than a cliche, is an insidious oxymoron. I'm shocked that Leo can't see that.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews