What do you think?
Rate this book
Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence
With Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV offers a landmark reflection on human dignity in the age of artificial intelligence. Rooted in Catholic social teaching, this first encyclical challenges believers and all people of goodwill to ensure technology serves the human person, protects work, and advances justice, peace, and authentic solidarity.
82 pages, ebook
First published May 25, 2026
About the author
Pope Leo XIV
36 books64 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 63 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also says “just war” theory is outdated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
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
brb gonna go be profoundly human
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 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!
May 25, 2026
This is awesome. Some, myself included, may even call it…magnificent.
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.
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.”
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 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.
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
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.
Review of advance copy received from Author
Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, warns that technological innovation detached from the moral law will inevitably turn against humanity. AI must, therefore, be “disarmed” by subjecting it to a moral framework that tempers the Promethean hubris of its anti-human vision and steers its trajectory into alignment with truth and the sanctity of human dignity.
“Otherwise, those who control AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of these systems.” And "ultimately, they can influence a significant number of people concerning the truth about humanity, the world, the meaning of existence, the family and even God. This is pure power detached from truth, which subtly or overtly imposes what it wishes others to accept as true…Saint John Paul II reflected on the consequences of this ‘crisis of truth,’ going so far as to state that ‘once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes.’”
On education: Not only does AI threaten our perception of the truth, it erodes our ability to reason. “As Plato wrote, the deepest and most important things are learned only after much time and effort, by engaging in discussion with others, ‘striking upon’ ideas and experiences together like flint until the spark of understanding is kindled within us. We must learn, then, how to exercise restraint in the use of AI and to protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed.”
On war & AI: “All systems used in a war setting must guarantee the possibility of retracing and reconstructing decision-making processes, so that accountability and blame are not collapsed into “the machine.” Second, the decision to use lethal force cannot be delegated to opaque or automated processes, but must remain under effective, self-aware and responsible human control.”
On the authentic “more than human” (To me, these are the most important passages in the encyclical): “The expression ‘more than human’ is not an exclusive domain of technological promise. For centuries, the Christian tradition has maintained that human beings are not confined by the boundaries of their own nature; rather, they are called to self-transcendence, not through an escape from reality or a contempt for their limitations, but through their fulfillment in love. Faith recognizes an openness toward the ‘beyond,’ which originates as a gift from God. This transformation is a work of the Holy Spirit. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, this process of elevation and transformation ‘surpasses every capability of created nature,’ for an infinite disparity separates our finite nature from the life of God. Nevertheless, it remains possible to enter into the heart of that inexhaustible life, even as we journey through the limitations of this world. The one who makes this passage possible can only be the Eternal One who gives of himself. Indeed, it is God himself who overcomes the ‘infinite’ disproportion. In him, the re-creation of the human person happens. ‘If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new’ (2 Cor 5:17)."
"When we embrace the possibility of transcending ourselves through God’s grace, we do not deny our nature, nor do we become less human. On the contrary, as Pope Francis explained, ‘We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being.’ Herein lies the radical departure from Promethean dreams: what saves humanity is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms. In this light, 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.”
“Saint Augustine described human history as a struggle between two loves, which give rise to two ways of inhabiting the world and living together–or two ‘cities,’ as it were: on the one hand, the love of God and neighbor; on the other, the exclusive love of self. ‘Two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God even to the contempt of self.’ As throughout history, these two loves continue to contend for dominance in our hearts today.”
“No computational system, however sophisticated, can create a heart that gives itself, or a conscience that discerns good from evil. Even when machines excel in efficiency, a human face that asks to be gazed upon remains the center of our history. This human face is the fullness toward which history is moving. It is the mystery of ‘recapitulation’: the certainty that the Father has decreed to bring all things, those in heaven and those on earth, back to Christ, the one Head (cf. Eph 1:10). In this plan, nothing will be lost that is authentically human. Indeed, everything will be purified and reunited in the One, who gathers every fragment of life, every tear and every authentically human achievement, rescuing them from nothingness and delivering them, redeemed, to the Father.”
“Otherwise, those who control AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of these systems.” And "ultimately, they can influence a significant number of people concerning the truth about humanity, the world, the meaning of existence, the family and even God. This is pure power detached from truth, which subtly or overtly imposes what it wishes others to accept as true…Saint John Paul II reflected on the consequences of this ‘crisis of truth,’ going so far as to state that ‘once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes.’”
On education: Not only does AI threaten our perception of the truth, it erodes our ability to reason. “As Plato wrote, the deepest and most important things are learned only after much time and effort, by engaging in discussion with others, ‘striking upon’ ideas and experiences together like flint until the spark of understanding is kindled within us. We must learn, then, how to exercise restraint in the use of AI and to protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed.”
On war & AI: “All systems used in a war setting must guarantee the possibility of retracing and reconstructing decision-making processes, so that accountability and blame are not collapsed into “the machine.” Second, the decision to use lethal force cannot be delegated to opaque or automated processes, but must remain under effective, self-aware and responsible human control.”
On the authentic “more than human” (To me, these are the most important passages in the encyclical): “The expression ‘more than human’ is not an exclusive domain of technological promise. For centuries, the Christian tradition has maintained that human beings are not confined by the boundaries of their own nature; rather, they are called to self-transcendence, not through an escape from reality or a contempt for their limitations, but through their fulfillment in love. Faith recognizes an openness toward the ‘beyond,’ which originates as a gift from God. This transformation is a work of the Holy Spirit. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, this process of elevation and transformation ‘surpasses every capability of created nature,’ for an infinite disparity separates our finite nature from the life of God. Nevertheless, it remains possible to enter into the heart of that inexhaustible life, even as we journey through the limitations of this world. The one who makes this passage possible can only be the Eternal One who gives of himself. Indeed, it is God himself who overcomes the ‘infinite’ disproportion. In him, the re-creation of the human person happens. ‘If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new’ (2 Cor 5:17)."
"When we embrace the possibility of transcending ourselves through God’s grace, we do not deny our nature, nor do we become less human. On the contrary, as Pope Francis explained, ‘We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being.’ Herein lies the radical departure from Promethean dreams: what saves humanity is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms. In this light, 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.”
“Saint Augustine described human history as a struggle between two loves, which give rise to two ways of inhabiting the world and living together–or two ‘cities,’ as it were: on the one hand, the love of God and neighbor; on the other, the exclusive love of self. ‘Two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God even to the contempt of self.’ As throughout history, these two loves continue to contend for dominance in our hearts today.”
“No computational system, however sophisticated, can create a heart that gives itself, or a conscience that discerns good from evil. Even when machines excel in efficiency, a human face that asks to be gazed upon remains the center of our history. This human face is the fullness toward which history is moving. It is the mystery of ‘recapitulation’: the certainty that the Father has decreed to bring all things, those in heaven and those on earth, back to Christ, the one Head (cf. Eph 1:10). In this plan, nothing will be lost that is authentically human. Indeed, everything will be purified and reunited in the One, who gathers every fragment of life, every tear and every authentically human achievement, rescuing them from nothingness and delivering them, redeemed, to the Father.”
May 27, 2026
I haven't been able to sit down and properly read much this summer, but I saw this in recent media and decided to read it myself. I read this text in English.
I would like to say that, as a Catholic, I have never felt more connected to a Pope. Every sentence, every word, down to the alphabetical characters of this letter are quotable. A lot of this review will be commentary on his quotes; I am in awe of his ability to clearly articulate a statement on the church and its relationship with the complexities of our modern world.
Pope Leo XIV begins chapter two by establishing the church as a living reality while recognizing its deeply ingrained roots. "The Social Doctrine of the Church is a living reality, in dialogue with history, cultures and sciences. At the same time, it enshrines a core set of unchanging truths" (Pope Leo XIV 46). This felt important to establish early on, and it really shows a progressive standpoint; the Pope not only recognizes the church as a unified community with a history, but an ever-evolving, ever-growing, forever-learning community at that.
Later, Pope Leo XIV addressed the church and its current relationship with artificial intelligence, tying in nicely with the theme of a church that evolves with time, as opposed to slowly and staunchly moving through it. I've copied and pasted below a quote that I felt really addressed the church's stance on modern technology, such as artificial intelligence. I should preface this by recognizing the Pope's own statement: "It is not my intention here to offer a comprehensive treatment of artificial intelligence, nor to give an overview of the extensive relevant literature, since authoritative contributions already exist, including within the ecclesial context" (Pope Leo XIV 97).
"...integral human development is the framework through which we can interpret the changes of our time, including those brought about by the digital revolution. Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral, for they can either foster 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 humane and fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations?" (Pope Leo XIV 85).
I encourage people to read section 100 of the Pope's letter for a more comprehensive explanation, but it is too long for me to justify copying and pasting into a Goodreads review.
Chapter three overall reminded me of Paris Paloma's recent single, titled "Miyazaki." It is a song that rebels against the use of generative AI in the humanities, titled after the prolific, passionate Japanese artist Hayao Miyazaki. As Pope Leo XIV put it: "culture and art preserve this spark [referring to our human sense of justice], resisting the normalization of evil" (Pope Leo XIV 122).
In section 124, I noticed that Pope Leo XIV mentions Laura Montoya, Saint Teresa of Calcutta, Dorothy Day, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, Maria Montessori, Elisabeth Elliot, Wangari Maathai, Benazir Bhutto and "countless others from every continent" as women who made this world more humane. At the time of this review, I am student at a historically women's college, and I find myself fascinated with the history of women, their contributions to society, and their historical oppression. By mentioning these bold women and their names, Pope Leo XIV is quietly spreading a message greater than a simple shoutout.
I appreciated Pope Leo XIV's take on the importance of recognizing history as something that affects us today. He continually brings up how past events tie into the modern world, how important it is that we learn from the past and learn from our mistakes, and how our present society should review its oppressive systems and change, lest we fall victim to further injustice. "memory of past complicity and blindness in the face of the injustice of slavery becomes a call to vigilance" (Pope Leo XIV 177).
In section 213, the Pope quotes J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the The Lord of the Rings trilogy. “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.” By quoting Lord of the Rings, the Pope is making a statement beyond rising against evil, but also rewriting the traditionally Catholic viewpoint on fantasy and magic. It is a fight against extremist interpretation of the Bible, and one that I will happily agree with, as a fan of most tabletop role-playing games and Magic: The Gathering.
Never did I think I would live to see the day where a text cites the Bible and Lord of the Rings in tandem with each other, written by the Pope no less, yet here I leave this review, in awe of a religion of which I sometimes find myself struggling with. It is a Pope like this that reminds me what my faith really means to me, and this letter served as a nice wakeup call to retire my sword in this crusade against fascism, but to instead ready my pen and embrace those who oppose me with open arms. We are all fighting a common enemy in the end.
I would like to say that, as a Catholic, I have never felt more connected to a Pope. Every sentence, every word, down to the alphabetical characters of this letter are quotable. A lot of this review will be commentary on his quotes; I am in awe of his ability to clearly articulate a statement on the church and its relationship with the complexities of our modern world.
Pope Leo XIV begins chapter two by establishing the church as a living reality while recognizing its deeply ingrained roots. "The Social Doctrine of the Church is a living reality, in dialogue with history, cultures and sciences. At the same time, it enshrines a core set of unchanging truths" (Pope Leo XIV 46). This felt important to establish early on, and it really shows a progressive standpoint; the Pope not only recognizes the church as a unified community with a history, but an ever-evolving, ever-growing, forever-learning community at that.
Later, Pope Leo XIV addressed the church and its current relationship with artificial intelligence, tying in nicely with the theme of a church that evolves with time, as opposed to slowly and staunchly moving through it. I've copied and pasted below a quote that I felt really addressed the church's stance on modern technology, such as artificial intelligence. I should preface this by recognizing the Pope's own statement: "It is not my intention here to offer a comprehensive treatment of artificial intelligence, nor to give an overview of the extensive relevant literature, since authoritative contributions already exist, including within the ecclesial context" (Pope Leo XIV 97).
"...integral human development is the framework through which we can interpret the changes of our time, including those brought about by the digital revolution. Technological innovations, including artificial intelligence, are not neutral, for they can either foster 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 humane and fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations?" (Pope Leo XIV 85).
I encourage people to read section 100 of the Pope's letter for a more comprehensive explanation, but it is too long for me to justify copying and pasting into a Goodreads review.
Chapter three overall reminded me of Paris Paloma's recent single, titled "Miyazaki." It is a song that rebels against the use of generative AI in the humanities, titled after the prolific, passionate Japanese artist Hayao Miyazaki. As Pope Leo XIV put it: "culture and art preserve this spark [referring to our human sense of justice], resisting the normalization of evil" (Pope Leo XIV 122).
In section 124, I noticed that Pope Leo XIV mentions Laura Montoya, Saint Teresa of Calcutta, Dorothy Day, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, Maria Montessori, Elisabeth Elliot, Wangari Maathai, Benazir Bhutto and "countless others from every continent" as women who made this world more humane. At the time of this review, I am student at a historically women's college, and I find myself fascinated with the history of women, their contributions to society, and their historical oppression. By mentioning these bold women and their names, Pope Leo XIV is quietly spreading a message greater than a simple shoutout.
I appreciated Pope Leo XIV's take on the importance of recognizing history as something that affects us today. He continually brings up how past events tie into the modern world, how important it is that we learn from the past and learn from our mistakes, and how our present society should review its oppressive systems and change, lest we fall victim to further injustice. "memory of past complicity and blindness in the face of the injustice of slavery becomes a call to vigilance" (Pope Leo XIV 177).
In section 213, the Pope quotes J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the The Lord of the Rings trilogy. “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.” By quoting Lord of the Rings, the Pope is making a statement beyond rising against evil, but also rewriting the traditionally Catholic viewpoint on fantasy and magic. It is a fight against extremist interpretation of the Bible, and one that I will happily agree with, as a fan of most tabletop role-playing games and Magic: The Gathering.
Never did I think I would live to see the day where a text cites the Bible and Lord of the Rings in tandem with each other, written by the Pope no less, yet here I leave this review, in awe of a religion of which I sometimes find myself struggling with. It is a Pope like this that reminds me what my faith really means to me, and this letter served as a nice wakeup call to retire my sword in this crusade against fascism, but to instead ready my pen and embrace those who oppose me with open arms. We are all fighting a common enemy in the end.
Read
May 30, 2026A handful of the many quotes in here that express what I've been waiting for someone to say to the world:
"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. We must lovingly safeguard the grandeur of humanity bestowed upon us and revealed in its fullness in Christ, the splendor of which no machine can ever replace."
"Work is not considered simply as a problem to be dealt with or a means of generating income, but a fundamental good for the person, a principle of economic activity and the key to the entire societal
question. Through work, human beings bring their freedom, creativity and capacity for cooperation into play, contributing to the cultural and moral elevation of society. In light of this, the various kinds of job insecurity, fragmented career paths and automation must not be evaluated solely in terms of efficiency, but in relation to the dignity of the worker, the right to sufficient remuneration and the genuine possibility of participating in society."
"Important and sensitive decisions — concerning employment, credit, access to public services or even a person’s reputation — risk being fully delegated to automated systems that do not know “compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change,” and can therefore give rise to new forms of exclusion. There are clearly harmful uses, such as the manipulation of information or violations of privacy. Yet there is also a subtler danger, for when AI systems present themselves as neutral and objective, they end up reflecting and reinforcing the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers and developers."
"What does it mean to safeguard our humanity? The risk extends beyond the misuse of certain technologies. More gravely, the pervasive technocratic paradigm in which we are immersed, and that is amplified by the digital revolution and AI, threatens to normalize an anti-human vision. In that vision, the fullness of life is equated with having more, reducing weakness, eliminating uncertainty and exerting total control. 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."
"Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis today. 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."
"When we embrace the possibility of transcending ourselves through God’s grace, we do not deny our nature, nor do we become less human. On the contrary, as Pope Francis explained, “We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being.” Herein lies the radical departure from Promethean dreams: what saves humanity is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms. In this light, 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."
"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. We must lovingly safeguard the grandeur of humanity bestowed upon us and revealed in its fullness in Christ, the splendor of which no machine can ever replace."
"Work is not considered simply as a problem to be dealt with or a means of generating income, but a fundamental good for the person, a principle of economic activity and the key to the entire societal
question. Through work, human beings bring their freedom, creativity and capacity for cooperation into play, contributing to the cultural and moral elevation of society. In light of this, the various kinds of job insecurity, fragmented career paths and automation must not be evaluated solely in terms of efficiency, but in relation to the dignity of the worker, the right to sufficient remuneration and the genuine possibility of participating in society."
"Important and sensitive decisions — concerning employment, credit, access to public services or even a person’s reputation — risk being fully delegated to automated systems that do not know “compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and above all, the hope that people are able to change,” and can therefore give rise to new forms of exclusion. There are clearly harmful uses, such as the manipulation of information or violations of privacy. Yet there is also a subtler danger, for when AI systems present themselves as neutral and objective, they end up reflecting and reinforcing the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers and developers."
"What does it mean to safeguard our humanity? The risk extends beyond the misuse of certain technologies. More gravely, the pervasive technocratic paradigm in which we are immersed, and that is amplified by the digital revolution and AI, threatens to normalize an anti-human vision. In that vision, the fullness of life is equated with having more, reducing weakness, eliminating uncertainty and exerting total control. 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."
"Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis today. 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."
"When we embrace the possibility of transcending ourselves through God’s grace, we do not deny our nature, nor do we become less human. On the contrary, as Pope Francis explained, “We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being.” Herein lies the radical departure from Promethean dreams: what saves humanity is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms. In this light, 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."
May 27, 2026
Pope Leo XIV released this encyclical 2 days ago. It’s 82 pages / ∼42,300 words and focuses on “safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence”.
*What he’s saying about AI:*
1. *“AI needs to be disarmed”*
The phrase is deliberate. He’s calling for lethal autonomous weapons to be banned and for AI in warfare to face the “strictest ethical constraints”. His argument: no algorithm can make war morally acceptable.
2. *Power concentration is the real problem*
Control over AI infrastructure, data, and platforms sits with a handful of corporations, not states. When that happens, it becomes opaque, evades oversight, and creates new dependencies and inequalities.
3. *It’s not neutral tech*
AI “takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it”. So the ethics question has to start earlier - at how systems are designed and what idea of the person is baked into the data and models.
4. *Human dignity > efficiency*
He warns against letting technology become the standard by which everything is judged. That reduces people to “cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency”. He also flags risks to relationships, critical thinking, and the labor market.
5. *Call for governance*
He wants robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, and international coordination on AI governance comparable to nuclear arms control. And he stresses that political systems must guide tech toward the common good, dignified work, and fair distribution of benefits.
*Why it matters:*
It’s the first major encyclical on AI, and it’s already being called a benchmark for policymakers, researchers, and tech leaders. He even presented it alongside Anthropic co-founder Christopher Olah, which is a first for the Vatican.
The tone isn’t anti-tech. He acknowledges AI’s positive uses. But the core message is: if we don’t govern AI now, it will govern us - and “magnificent humanity” gets lost in the process.
Pope Leo quotes Gandolf, from Lord of the Rings:
“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.”
And Leo goes on to say: I would like to propose five paths toward daily and public responsibility: the need to disarm words, building peace through justice, adopting the perspective of victims, cultivating a healthy realism and reviving dialogue and multilateralism.
*What he’s saying about AI:*
1. *“AI needs to be disarmed”*
The phrase is deliberate. He’s calling for lethal autonomous weapons to be banned and for AI in warfare to face the “strictest ethical constraints”. His argument: no algorithm can make war morally acceptable.
2. *Power concentration is the real problem*
Control over AI infrastructure, data, and platforms sits with a handful of corporations, not states. When that happens, it becomes opaque, evades oversight, and creates new dependencies and inequalities.
3. *It’s not neutral tech*
AI “takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it”. So the ethics question has to start earlier - at how systems are designed and what idea of the person is baked into the data and models.
4. *Human dignity > efficiency*
He warns against letting technology become the standard by which everything is judged. That reduces people to “cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency”. He also flags risks to relationships, critical thinking, and the labor market.
5. *Call for governance*
He wants robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, and international coordination on AI governance comparable to nuclear arms control. And he stresses that political systems must guide tech toward the common good, dignified work, and fair distribution of benefits.
*Why it matters:*
It’s the first major encyclical on AI, and it’s already being called a benchmark for policymakers, researchers, and tech leaders. He even presented it alongside Anthropic co-founder Christopher Olah, which is a first for the Vatican.
The tone isn’t anti-tech. He acknowledges AI’s positive uses. But the core message is: if we don’t govern AI now, it will govern us - and “magnificent humanity” gets lost in the process.
Pope Leo quotes Gandolf, from Lord of the Rings:
“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.”
And Leo goes on to say: I would like to propose five paths toward daily and public responsibility: the need to disarm words, building peace through justice, adopting the perspective of victims, cultivating a healthy realism and reviving dialogue and multilateralism.
Review of advance copy
An absolutely fantastic first encyclical by Pope Leo XIV. This is super long for an encyclical; it took me probably about 3 hours to get through and I typically read at a pretty quick pace. Quick preface to this review: you don't need to wait for the print edition of this book to come out to read it, you can go straight to the Vatican website to have immediate access. First and foremost, I think even non-Catholics, non-Christians, and even atheists could read this and find a lot of beneficial information here. The encyclical opens with Pope Leo speaking contrasting two different stories: the Tower of Babel and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem as written in Nehemiah. He essentially says that these are the two options open to us, moving towards pride and selfishness and away from God, or moving towards faith, hope, and love, and towards God. From here, the encyclical is divided into 5 chapters. Chapters 1 and 2 deal with Catholic social teaching and human dignity; chapters 3 and 4 deal with the role of AI and the digital revolution and how they tie into the topics of the first two chapters, and chapter 5 specifically talks about warfare and how it affects everything else. First off, if you want to know more about Catholic social teaching, this was basically a concise crash course in it. As you can tell by the broad topics this encyclical addresses, Pope Leo tackles A LOT of modern day issues, ranging from the commidification of human beings, truth in the media, communications, human relationships, the nature of work, human rights, the good and the bad of AI, morality, and more and more. There is seriously a lot going on here and there was no way I was going to keep everything straight on a single read, so I'm looking forward to commentary on it from others as time passes. But all in all, I thought there was a ton of food for thought here and that all of these topics are really important and relevant to the world today. I'd highly recommend reading it for yourself first before delving into any commentary.
Review of advance copy received from Author
Like most encyclicals, this one says little in many words. Like most papal writings on the Roman Church’s social teaching, there’s a naïveté about the state’s ability to preemptively recognize problems, the state’s incentives to solve them, the second-order consequences of the state’s solutions, and the state’s capture by private interests. The sections directly addressing AI could have been written by an EU commission with little change. Often, the discussion on AI and energy parrots disproven NIMBY talking points. Throughout, there is a presumption that economic and social change must be managed by big institutions. As a big institution, I’m sure this suits the Roman Church quite well. Lastly, I would have hoped for some engagement with (or at least acknowledgment of) the theology of technology as central to culture-making and to the creation mandate (e.g. Dessauer, Quinzio). Instead, the pope assumes that technology is not a fundamental part of human culture and cultivation, but again, a problematic force to be managed and constrained. On AI specifically, this document will do more harm than good.
The sections on the issues of screen time, etc. and post-/trans-humanism were sound if unoriginal, and guidance on these issues may prove useful.
The sections on the issues of screen time, etc. and post-/trans-humanism were sound if unoriginal, and guidance on these issues may prove useful.
May 26, 2026
5⭐️!!!! Okay adding my review here with tongue in cheek (because I think this is silly) but WOW what a good mic-drop, first encyclical from the only American-born pope. I owe this one an ongoing re-read but I appreciate the boldness and thoughtful commentary on big technological changes in our present day. As someone who works in the tech industry myself and can see both the benefits and risks of AI - I feel really seen and in-step with “da pope” and his teachings.
This homie gives both practical guidance (*cough* parents, don’t give your kids smartphones so young WTF *cough) and poses deep moral questions (what it means to be human in the age of AI - when machines can achieve faster outcomes than any human could).
LASTLY, after reading this absolute masterpiece from cover to cover… I can conclude that Pope Leo XIV is actually very thoughtful and careful when speaking on matters of theology (that’s me barking directly at the current, IMO “bad catholic” US VP HAHA).
Recommend to all humans (who are indeed magnificent just by existence), not just Christians and certainly not just Catholics. Da Pope is Da Man!! 💛🇻🇦
This homie gives both practical guidance (*cough* parents, don’t give your kids smartphones so young WTF *cough) and poses deep moral questions (what it means to be human in the age of AI - when machines can achieve faster outcomes than any human could).
LASTLY, after reading this absolute masterpiece from cover to cover… I can conclude that Pope Leo XIV is actually very thoughtful and careful when speaking on matters of theology (that’s me barking directly at the current, IMO “bad catholic” US VP HAHA).
Recommend to all humans (who are indeed magnificent just by existence), not just Christians and certainly not just Catholics. Da Pope is Da Man!! 💛🇻🇦
May 27, 2026
‘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. The risk of dehumanization — of building a future that excludes God and reduces the other to a means — is an ancient and ever-new temptation that today takes on a technical guise.’
'So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences.'
‘humanity — in all its grandeur and woundedness — must never be replaced or surpassed. 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.’
viva il papa !
'So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences.'
‘humanity — in all its grandeur and woundedness — must never be replaced or surpassed. 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.’
viva il papa !
Review of advance copy
Not a review, just a favorite passage from the conclusion:
"The Blessed Virgin Mary not only teaches us to recognize God’s invisible work, but also directs our gaze to “the points at which humanity is broken and the world becomes distorted: the contrast between the humble and the powerful, the poor and the rich, the satiated and the hungry,” teaching us “to look at the world from a lower position: through the eyes of those who suffer rather than the mighty; to view history through the eyes of the little ones, rather than through the perspective of the powerful; to interpret the events of history from the viewpoint of the widow, the orphan, the stranger, the wounded child, the exile and the fugitive.” The Blessed Virgin thus becomes “poet and prophetess of Redemption,” because on her lips is proclaimed “the strongest and most innovative hymn ever articulated, the Magnificat; it is she who reveals the transformative vision of the Christian economy, the historical and social result that still draws its origin and strength from Christianity.”
"The Blessed Virgin Mary not only teaches us to recognize God’s invisible work, but also directs our gaze to “the points at which humanity is broken and the world becomes distorted: the contrast between the humble and the powerful, the poor and the rich, the satiated and the hungry,” teaching us “to look at the world from a lower position: through the eyes of those who suffer rather than the mighty; to view history through the eyes of the little ones, rather than through the perspective of the powerful; to interpret the events of history from the viewpoint of the widow, the orphan, the stranger, the wounded child, the exile and the fugitive.” The Blessed Virgin thus becomes “poet and prophetess of Redemption,” because on her lips is proclaimed “the strongest and most innovative hymn ever articulated, the Magnificat; it is she who reveals the transformative vision of the Christian economy, the historical and social result that still draws its origin and strength from Christianity.”
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews