What do you think?
Rate this book
Magnifique humanité - Magnifica humanitas -Encyclique: Lettre encyclique sur la protection de la personne humaine à l’ère de l’intelligence artificielle (Documents d'Église)
Prima Enciclica di Papa Leone XIV, dedicata alla custodia della dignità e del valore della persona umana nella nostra epoca, segnata dall’avvento dell’intelligenza artificiale. Un testo atteso in tutto il mondo da moltissimi lettori per l’autorevolezza del Magistero Pontificio e per l’attualità della tematica, che ormai tocca quotidianamente la vita di ciascuno.
166 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 25, 2026
About the author
Pope Leo XIV
36 books89 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 285 reviews
May 25, 2026
This slaps.
May 28, 2026
brb gonna go be profoundly human
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also says “just war” theory is outdated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 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.
Read
May 26, 2026Main Takeaways:
- Pope Leo uses The Social Doctrine as a basis for his writing
- Social doctrine: “an exemplary practice (where the church) … when faced with historical changes, exercises her right and duty to examine social realities… and indicate paths for finding just solutions”; it is a dialogue with history, cultures and sciences that has unchanging truths.
- Principles of SD: inalienable dignity of the human person, the common good, universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice
- The Social Doctrine is not a spontaneous product of the modern age but was birthed through having to deal with the new things of the times (capital/labor conflict, workforce, economical and social transformations)
- It was written to find a way to seek wisdom in a living doctrine that “remains faithful to the Gospel while growing in response to the ‘new things’ of every era’”
- Highlighted the dignity of workers, fair wages and the idea that people have a fundamental value besides capital and profit
- There is no authentic evangelization that doesn’t also affect the structures of human society
- Denounces the concentration of economic power in the hands of the few and criticizes projects that undermine the freedom and responsibility of the individual
- SD is a conscience for the Church
- Recognizes that organized forms of society are safeguards for civil equilibrium and for protecting the common good and how true democracy is a means for ensuring proper exercises of authority
- Essentially, there is a need for law to take precedence over interests, economic disparities are grounds for tension and violence, and there is a need for mediation between the individual and the State
- State must provide support for the marginalized while also not impeding on individual freedom or responsibility
- Social doctrine implores us to discover our duty to implement the common good in our daily lives
- SD brings us to the heart of our faith: that God, “revealed in Jesus, is love itself in relationship” and that we are called to communion with God that can be discovered through self-giving
- The value of persons “does not depend on what they achieve or produce”, it is a given to being human
- Community is called to protect and promote human rights as it is an expression of intrinsic human dignity
- We should be able to act freely as much as possible, without harming the common good
- We should not allow a handful of actors to dictate safeguard processes on their own
- Faith invites us to live in solidarity and think and act in terms of community
- Social justice is being shaped by digital technologies - it changes the way we obtain information, communicate and access services
- It is important to regulate technology to combat hate/misinformation
- Technology advancements can foster participation in inequality, control, exclusion
- The BIG question: “do technological innovations truly help individuals and peoples to become more human and fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations?” - all tech advancements should be evaluated under this question
- Human intelligence guides tech innovations and responsibly determines their use and limits
- We all have a limited understanding of AI’s actual functioning, even those who “created” it
- current AI systems are more cultivated than built, they design the framework in which intelligence grows
- Some fundamental scientific aspects remain unknown, therefore there is an urgent need for a deepening of scientific research on the topic and an exercise of moral and spiritual discernment
- AI merely imitates certain functions of human intelligence tied to data processing
- “Do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain… do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean” - their learning is a form of statistical adaptation not indicating inner growth
- There is valuable use in AI but it requires vigilance
- Harmful uses of AI include manipulation of information and violations of privacy, also a danger when these systems are presented as neutral and objective when there are ideological biases
- AI is not morally neutral
- Responsibility must be emboldened in EVERY stage
- Important to discuss ethical frameworks and subject them “to the shared standards of social justice”
- AI must be “disarmed, welcoming and accessible”
- Humanity often flourishes through limitation, not just despite them
- Issues with AI: amplifies disinformation through manipulating content and exposing people to biased or misleading perspectives
- Truth of facts requires verification, cross-checking of sources and responsible argumentation
- Another issue: technological advancements have the significant ability to influence cultural change. As a result, people believe they can construct reality and whatever best suits their claim to truth
- “Communication is not only the transmission of information, but it is also the creation of a culture” - Digital environments shape how people perceive the world
- We are severely unprepared for technological advancements from an educational perspective - allows youth to be vulnerable to degrading content and makes it difficult for parents
- Lack of education causes dehumanization and stops development for critical and creative thought
- AI is rapidly transforming the workplace, it is important to keep humans at the center of design of systems
- He touches on unemployment and how AI might cause jobs to disappear
- Economy should value human dignity
- Talks about how digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict/war - cyberattacks, information manipulation, influencing campaigns
- Civilization of love - we must denounce evil, spread the Gospel, preserve in doing good, protect the vulnerable, opens paths to reconciliation; peace is found through justice so we must seek justice, we must engage in a dialogue in order to promote this
- Normalization of war and its relationship with “loss of historical memory”, which leads to a selective/distorted rewriting of the past
- AI and weapons
- Word became flesh -> dwells among us, we need to embody humanity
- Remain faithful to the truth, put God at the center of our lives, invest in education, cultivate relationships, love both justice and peace, let us be weavers of hope in our world (allow God’s Kingdom to take shape and share who we are and what we have)
- Pope Leo focuses on two images within the Bible: the Tower of Babel (dehumanizes and does not give reverence to God) and the rebuilding of Jerusalem (with Nehemiah’s direction to build the city back up with shared responsibility); he essentially uses these stories as a parallel to our choices to use technology/advancements
- Technology is never neutral - there are a lot of social and political effects to technology
- Building towards the common good
- Human dignity is being threatened by new forms of dehumanization - our duty is to remain human - safeguard humanity
- Humanity is something that no machine can ever replace
- We should place God at the forefront of our actions and humans at the center of our choices
- Abandon the Tower of Babel and choose to build up the common good
- God desires to dwell within the human heart, not a technological advancement where God is not revered
- AI as a development that challenges the categories of the social doctrine
- Church walks alongside of humanity, cannot be a stranger to the forces shaping society
- The Church actively participates in the processes where society grows and is organized
- God upholds the freedom of men and women
- Requires spiritual discernment to do so
- The function of the Social Doctrine serves as a foundation for collective discernment, again it is a process
- The Church must make its voice heard when injustice occurs, in order to promote communion
- Common good can be pursued with everyone’s contribution and it is the states responsibility to ensure cohesion
- In today’s age, we must include new forms of property (patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data) among universal goods
- Regulate tech to respect the environment, avoid waste, prevent new forms of exploitation
- Pope Leo uses The Social Doctrine as a basis for his writing
- Social doctrine: “an exemplary practice (where the church) … when faced with historical changes, exercises her right and duty to examine social realities… and indicate paths for finding just solutions”; it is a dialogue with history, cultures and sciences that has unchanging truths.
- Principles of SD: inalienable dignity of the human person, the common good, universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice
- The Social Doctrine is not a spontaneous product of the modern age but was birthed through having to deal with the new things of the times (capital/labor conflict, workforce, economical and social transformations)
- It was written to find a way to seek wisdom in a living doctrine that “remains faithful to the Gospel while growing in response to the ‘new things’ of every era’”
- Highlighted the dignity of workers, fair wages and the idea that people have a fundamental value besides capital and profit
- There is no authentic evangelization that doesn’t also affect the structures of human society
- Denounces the concentration of economic power in the hands of the few and criticizes projects that undermine the freedom and responsibility of the individual
- SD is a conscience for the Church
- Recognizes that organized forms of society are safeguards for civil equilibrium and for protecting the common good and how true democracy is a means for ensuring proper exercises of authority
- Essentially, there is a need for law to take precedence over interests, economic disparities are grounds for tension and violence, and there is a need for mediation between the individual and the State
- State must provide support for the marginalized while also not impeding on individual freedom or responsibility
- Social doctrine implores us to discover our duty to implement the common good in our daily lives
- SD brings us to the heart of our faith: that God, “revealed in Jesus, is love itself in relationship” and that we are called to communion with God that can be discovered through self-giving
- The value of persons “does not depend on what they achieve or produce”, it is a given to being human
- Community is called to protect and promote human rights as it is an expression of intrinsic human dignity
- We should be able to act freely as much as possible, without harming the common good
- We should not allow a handful of actors to dictate safeguard processes on their own
- Faith invites us to live in solidarity and think and act in terms of community
- Social justice is being shaped by digital technologies - it changes the way we obtain information, communicate and access services
- It is important to regulate technology to combat hate/misinformation
- Technology advancements can foster participation in inequality, control, exclusion
- The BIG question: “do technological innovations truly help individuals and peoples to become more human and fraternal, while respecting our common home and future generations?” - all tech advancements should be evaluated under this question
- Human intelligence guides tech innovations and responsibly determines their use and limits
- We all have a limited understanding of AI’s actual functioning, even those who “created” it
- current AI systems are more cultivated than built, they design the framework in which intelligence grows
- Some fundamental scientific aspects remain unknown, therefore there is an urgent need for a deepening of scientific research on the topic and an exercise of moral and spiritual discernment
- AI merely imitates certain functions of human intelligence tied to data processing
- “Do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain… do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean” - their learning is a form of statistical adaptation not indicating inner growth
- There is valuable use in AI but it requires vigilance
- Harmful uses of AI include manipulation of information and violations of privacy, also a danger when these systems are presented as neutral and objective when there are ideological biases
- AI is not morally neutral
- Responsibility must be emboldened in EVERY stage
- Important to discuss ethical frameworks and subject them “to the shared standards of social justice”
- AI must be “disarmed, welcoming and accessible”
- Humanity often flourishes through limitation, not just despite them
- Issues with AI: amplifies disinformation through manipulating content and exposing people to biased or misleading perspectives
- Truth of facts requires verification, cross-checking of sources and responsible argumentation
- Another issue: technological advancements have the significant ability to influence cultural change. As a result, people believe they can construct reality and whatever best suits their claim to truth
- “Communication is not only the transmission of information, but it is also the creation of a culture” - Digital environments shape how people perceive the world
- We are severely unprepared for technological advancements from an educational perspective - allows youth to be vulnerable to degrading content and makes it difficult for parents
- Lack of education causes dehumanization and stops development for critical and creative thought
- AI is rapidly transforming the workplace, it is important to keep humans at the center of design of systems
- He touches on unemployment and how AI might cause jobs to disappear
- Economy should value human dignity
- Talks about how digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict/war - cyberattacks, information manipulation, influencing campaigns
- Civilization of love - we must denounce evil, spread the Gospel, preserve in doing good, protect the vulnerable, opens paths to reconciliation; peace is found through justice so we must seek justice, we must engage in a dialogue in order to promote this
- Normalization of war and its relationship with “loss of historical memory”, which leads to a selective/distorted rewriting of the past
- AI and weapons
- Word became flesh -> dwells among us, we need to embody humanity
- Remain faithful to the truth, put God at the center of our lives, invest in education, cultivate relationships, love both justice and peace, let us be weavers of hope in our world (allow God’s Kingdom to take shape and share who we are and what we have)
- Pope Leo focuses on two images within the Bible: the Tower of Babel (dehumanizes and does not give reverence to God) and the rebuilding of Jerusalem (with Nehemiah’s direction to build the city back up with shared responsibility); he essentially uses these stories as a parallel to our choices to use technology/advancements
- Technology is never neutral - there are a lot of social and political effects to technology
- Building towards the common good
- Human dignity is being threatened by new forms of dehumanization - our duty is to remain human - safeguard humanity
- Humanity is something that no machine can ever replace
- We should place God at the forefront of our actions and humans at the center of our choices
- Abandon the Tower of Babel and choose to build up the common good
- God desires to dwell within the human heart, not a technological advancement where God is not revered
- AI as a development that challenges the categories of the social doctrine
- Church walks alongside of humanity, cannot be a stranger to the forces shaping society
- The Church actively participates in the processes where society grows and is organized
- God upholds the freedom of men and women
- Requires spiritual discernment to do so
- The function of the Social Doctrine serves as a foundation for collective discernment, again it is a process
- The Church must make its voice heard when injustice occurs, in order to promote communion
- Common good can be pursued with everyone’s contribution and it is the states responsibility to ensure cohesion
- In today’s age, we must include new forms of property (patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data) among universal goods
- Regulate tech to respect the environment, avoid waste, prevent new forms of exploitation
May 30, 2026
La situación es tal que aquí estoy, estando de acuerdo, e incluso aplaudiendo, con lo que un papa católico explica. Una lectura preciosa, actual e imperdible. No tengo ninguna fe en un ser superior, y me rehuso a darle participación a una religión organizada en mi vida, pero es también imposible no entender lo que León XIV explica sobre el futuro de la humanidad.
Hoy nuestra relación con la vida parece estar en crisis. Todo lo que representa un “límite” —incapacidad, enfermedad, ancianidad, sufrimiento, vulnerabilidad— tiende a ser leído principalmente como un defecto que hay que corregir, más que como un espacio en el que el ser humano madura y se abre a la relación. En cambio, debemos recordar que el ser humano no florece a pesar del límite, sino a menudo a través del límite. Una visión de la realidad a la luz de la fe ayuda a reconocer lo que llamamos “contingencia” de las cosas de este mundo. Si por un lado es necesario tratar de eliminar el sufrimiento que marca la vida humana, por el otro, es sabio reconocer nuestra finitud constitutiva.
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 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!
June 22, 2026
a boldly elaborate and beautifully constructed insight into what it means to be human, worth anyone's time
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...
June 10, 2026
This is so rich and beautiful. I think it’s such a landmark CST document in the way that it summarizes the entire tradition up to now, incorporates theological developments (the dignity of women, care for creation, the universal call to holiness), and applies it all to the modern “res novae” which need our attention and consideration. Now that’s what I call scrutinizing the signs of the times and interpreting them in the light of the gospel!!!
As I said from the beginning, there’s nothing new about Papa Leo’s emphases here, but his prayerful and tactful way of stating them, in combination with the unique times for which they are written, makes his words still so powerful.
I think his main call here is for us to remember who we are, that our true magnificence is found in “the grandeur of humanity, in which God has made his dwelling,” and that the Kingdom of God is an already-but-not-yet reality for which we are called to strive through concrete action in our specific vocations <3
As I said from the beginning, there’s nothing new about Papa Leo’s emphases here, but his prayerful and tactful way of stating them, in combination with the unique times for which they are written, makes his words still so powerful.
I think his main call here is for us to remember who we are, that our true magnificence is found in “the grandeur of humanity, in which God has made his dwelling,” and that the Kingdom of God is an already-but-not-yet reality for which we are called to strive through concrete action in our specific vocations <3
June 8, 2026
I feel kinda obliged to rate this 5/5 since the boss in the Vatican might see this review.
June 29, 2026
Perbenismo parrocchiale unito a carsiche reminiscenze reazionarie.
Read
May 31, 2026I think I had the wrong expectations going into this with the amount of news I saw about Leo condemning AI; In reality it provided a more nuanced analysis of the capacity for abuse by those with control over it. I think if he had come out and said ‘Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind’ as was written in the orange catholic bible of Dune it would certainly have turned more heads but in the modern era he doesn’t have the power to make it true so it would have been empty words. By choosing instead to target the systems that are allowing AI to be used to subjugate the people I feel people will be more willing to hear the message and reflect on what it means. Obviously if you’re not catholic it will be slightly harder to reflect on his words as there was plenty about how it must be done while thinking about god but I do think the core message is universal and I hope that by positioning the influence of the Catholic Church against the abuse of working people Pope Leo will be able to make at least some change.
June 22, 2026
read like a manifest ❤️🔥🔝
June 3, 2026
i have understood your instructions your holiness, i will enact the gospels in my community by bombing a data centre
Read
July 3, 2026I finished the Encyclical last week and it is still sitting with me. Pope Leo XIV did an excellent job examining AI in a holistic view, directing the reader towards the beauty of humanity as a way to approach AI, bringing up humankind, and through that reexamining AI and its uses. Weird reading a paper from the Vatican that has content that could be found in an Isaac Asimov book, yet integrating itself with the Christian faith so well (albiet maybe a little too Catholic for me in different parts). I took some highlights, some banger quotes, from the paper that stuck out to me, adding some of my thoughts too, starting with how he started his introduction.
The comparison Pope Leo XIV makes at the beginning between the Tower of Babel and Nehemiah’s rebuilding of the walls was such a lovely choice, showing that the way to build something is not by people being a homogenous collective, building through pride and through the opposition of God, as Babel did. Instead it is done by people in their uniqueness, their diversity, contributing how they can, with what they can, from their individual gifts like how Nehemiah brought the community together for the rebuilding of Jerusalem: “The narrative shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people all play a part. It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones.” Artificial Intelligence takes away the uniqueness that each individual can offer, asserting itself, in many ways, above humanity, with people even seeing it as god, or at least something more valuable than what one’s fellow human can offer to them.
I loved the way Pope Leo XIV talked about the beauty of humanity being limited:
“Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognizing the face of God and others. Indeed, precisely because we experience limits — vulnerability, suffering and failure — we can recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of others” It is so romantic the way he is able to talk about the limits of humanity as something wonderful, something AI cannot wrestle with. Even what we cannot do is something to appreciate as it pushes us to live in community with each other, pushes us out of our loneliness and solitude. These limits are important to accept and appreciate since “If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy.” This imperfectness being perfect reminds me of what Paul says in 2nd Corinthians, “But [God] said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” I love the fact that we are perfectly imperfect. I love the fact we all are not as “smart” as AI. I love the fact we can grow and be changed by our interactions with each other.
He even goes Dostoevskian with the way he brings up meaning through limitations and suffering: “Even when limitations are experienced as inner suffering, human wisdom teaches us not to deny or suppress it, but to integrate it. To eliminate suffering entirely would mean, in the end, extinguishing love and desire as well. Those who love and desire cannot avoid passing through trial and suffering; and over the years, we carry within us lessons that leave their mark like scars, the memories of a journey shaped by freedom and failure, dreams and disappointments. It is only thanks to the interplay of these elements that the wonders of the soul occur within us, allowing us to sense the richness of our humanity. To renounce this adventure, both tragic and splendid, in the name of a presumed transcendence of all limits, could mean many things, but it would no longer be human.” Suffering is a nasty topic to wrestle with, but whether we agree on its purpose, it is something every human goes through in some forms, some more than others. It is not something that AI can ever experience, never knowing what it means to suffer stops it from truly knowing what it means to be a human being. Although I may not enjoy suffering, I relish in the fact that it separates me from AI.
Pope Leo XIV even celebrates the joys of just passing time with each other, not achieving anything but enjoying each other as people sharing sweet nothings with one another: “Indeed, dialogue is an ordinary part of human life and does not only concern relations between States. It involves acquiring an attitude that seeks to forge bonds of fraternity built on listening, an open demeanor, making time for each other and even wasting time together. For if we experience authentic encounters with others, with those who are different, strangers and migrants, it becomes much more difficult even to imagine war.”
Near the end he ties it back well to religion, something quite unique to Christianity is the incarnation, the fact that we serve a God who took on human form with its limits, a person who is fully God and fully human, a limitless God who found glory in the limits of humanity: “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.” Humanity was created in God’s image and God took that form Himself as Jesus, a form AI can only try to emulate, never truly being able to relate to us as He does, and Pope Leo XIV reminds us that through this upholding of Jesus as human also harkens the fact that we have 8.3 billion people who share that image that we need to uphold too.
The idea that what we “do for the least of these brothers and sisters”, is something we do for Him: “The quality of a civilization is measured not by the power of its means, but by the care it is able to offer, by its ability to recognize the other as a face not merely as a function. The ability to care for one another is a fundamental dimension of our humanity, one that is learned and mastered through lived experience. Reading stories to a child, offering company to an elderly person and arranging a home so that it is welcoming are simple gestures often rooted in family life. They teach us to value care at a societal level and train us to recognize others as persons worthy of attention.” Taking part in the little things in life with everyone around us is something that we can do to show the splendor of humanity, as a way to protest AI, something AI can never achieve is the beautiful presence we share with each other.
Many more banger quotes in the encyclical for you to discover! Great paper, glad I read it. Had the joys of reading the first 1/3 with a group of people, the community made it better to actively discuss and ask questions, hearing each others unique thoughts at the same time, would recommend.
The comparison Pope Leo XIV makes at the beginning between the Tower of Babel and Nehemiah’s rebuilding of the walls was such a lovely choice, showing that the way to build something is not by people being a homogenous collective, building through pride and through the opposition of God, as Babel did. Instead it is done by people in their uniqueness, their diversity, contributing how they can, with what they can, from their individual gifts like how Nehemiah brought the community together for the rebuilding of Jerusalem: “The narrative shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people all play a part. It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones.” Artificial Intelligence takes away the uniqueness that each individual can offer, asserting itself, in many ways, above humanity, with people even seeing it as god, or at least something more valuable than what one’s fellow human can offer to them.
I loved the way Pope Leo XIV talked about the beauty of humanity being limited:
“Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognizing the face of God and others. Indeed, precisely because we experience limits — vulnerability, suffering and failure — we can recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of others” It is so romantic the way he is able to talk about the limits of humanity as something wonderful, something AI cannot wrestle with. Even what we cannot do is something to appreciate as it pushes us to live in community with each other, pushes us out of our loneliness and solitude. These limits are important to accept and appreciate since “If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy.” This imperfectness being perfect reminds me of what Paul says in 2nd Corinthians, “But [God] said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” I love the fact that we are perfectly imperfect. I love the fact we all are not as “smart” as AI. I love the fact we can grow and be changed by our interactions with each other.
He even goes Dostoevskian with the way he brings up meaning through limitations and suffering: “Even when limitations are experienced as inner suffering, human wisdom teaches us not to deny or suppress it, but to integrate it. To eliminate suffering entirely would mean, in the end, extinguishing love and desire as well. Those who love and desire cannot avoid passing through trial and suffering; and over the years, we carry within us lessons that leave their mark like scars, the memories of a journey shaped by freedom and failure, dreams and disappointments. It is only thanks to the interplay of these elements that the wonders of the soul occur within us, allowing us to sense the richness of our humanity. To renounce this adventure, both tragic and splendid, in the name of a presumed transcendence of all limits, could mean many things, but it would no longer be human.” Suffering is a nasty topic to wrestle with, but whether we agree on its purpose, it is something every human goes through in some forms, some more than others. It is not something that AI can ever experience, never knowing what it means to suffer stops it from truly knowing what it means to be a human being. Although I may not enjoy suffering, I relish in the fact that it separates me from AI.
Pope Leo XIV even celebrates the joys of just passing time with each other, not achieving anything but enjoying each other as people sharing sweet nothings with one another: “Indeed, dialogue is an ordinary part of human life and does not only concern relations between States. It involves acquiring an attitude that seeks to forge bonds of fraternity built on listening, an open demeanor, making time for each other and even wasting time together. For if we experience authentic encounters with others, with those who are different, strangers and migrants, it becomes much more difficult even to imagine war.”
Near the end he ties it back well to religion, something quite unique to Christianity is the incarnation, the fact that we serve a God who took on human form with its limits, a person who is fully God and fully human, a limitless God who found glory in the limits of humanity: “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.” Humanity was created in God’s image and God took that form Himself as Jesus, a form AI can only try to emulate, never truly being able to relate to us as He does, and Pope Leo XIV reminds us that through this upholding of Jesus as human also harkens the fact that we have 8.3 billion people who share that image that we need to uphold too.
The idea that what we “do for the least of these brothers and sisters”, is something we do for Him: “The quality of a civilization is measured not by the power of its means, but by the care it is able to offer, by its ability to recognize the other as a face not merely as a function. The ability to care for one another is a fundamental dimension of our humanity, one that is learned and mastered through lived experience. Reading stories to a child, offering company to an elderly person and arranging a home so that it is welcoming are simple gestures often rooted in family life. They teach us to value care at a societal level and train us to recognize others as persons worthy of attention.” Taking part in the little things in life with everyone around us is something that we can do to show the splendor of humanity, as a way to protest AI, something AI can never achieve is the beautiful presence we share with each other.
Many more banger quotes in the encyclical for you to discover! Great paper, glad I read it. Had the joys of reading the first 1/3 with a group of people, the community made it better to actively discuss and ask questions, hearing each others unique thoughts at the same time, would recommend.
May 25, 2026
This is awesome. Some, myself included, may even call it…magnificent.
June 11, 2026
I read Pope Leo's encyclical to see if the hubbub around it is justified or in any way accurate. I don't think it's exactly an ecclesiastical censure of artificial intelligence, but it is a whole bunch of warnings about the ways that generative AI may damage human dignity under our current psychotic economic structures.
"Even when machines excel in efficiency, a human face that asks to be gazed upon remains the center of our history."
I'm new to papal reaction content, so it's interesting to see all of the references in here to previous encyclicals (particularly Rerum Novarum, written by a previous Pope Leo), as well as to scripture, liturgical treatises and even to Tolkien, amounting to the same compassionate, ecumenical pronouncements about workers contending with LLMs and ruthless profit extraction that you might find in a Haymarket text.
There were a bunch of other topics I didn't expect to find covered here in a lil sacerdotal 'zine but which Leo burnishes as well as any academic: transhumanism, subsidiarity, myths of human optimization, and technocratic paradigms. The general Vatican verdict on AI seems to be the same verdict reached by any literate person who isn't looking to extract a giant, taxpayer-subsidized profit from it. As Nic Cage said, we should not let robots do our dreaming for us.
A large chunk of the 82-page encyclical itself is spent re-affirming what I'm learning (as a lifelong lapsed Catholic) are professedly permanent fixtures of the Catholic social doctrine: the common good, social justice, human dignity, and the universal destination of goods (i.e. the commons, in which Leo XIV includes digital resources as constituent parts).
However, the one thing I think any layperson might wanna know and which the Catholic Church ought to spend the rest of its mission on Earth addressing: Pope Leo makes reference to a previous encyclical from Pope Francis wherein Francis thanks journalists: "I also thank you for what you tell us about what goes wrong in the Church, for helping us not to sweep it under the carpet, and for the voice you have given to the victims of abuse."
The most I've ever dared hoped for (as a means of deterring predators from the cloth) is that the Catholic Church has lost quite a bit of institutional muscle and might not be the shortcut to power and plausible respectability for sex pests that it used to be. That's a pretty low bar of accountability, but my expectations for this cabal of purported volcels who sit around while religious sisters cook for them has been pretty low. It does seem like our unchaste pedophiles have been more drawn to public than to clerical office of late, though maybe I have a recency bias.
Where the question of abortion came up, Leo made none of the doctrinal allowances and equivocation of yore about "unformed" vs "animated" fetuses and there's yet little theological distinction between contraception and abortifacients, so we probably needn't cape too hard for a cool Chicagoland Pope. Leo and Francis may at least allow non-liturgical blessings for same-sex couples, but I also always figured the supreme pontiff has a red phone on his desk what rings any time two furtive monsignors hike up their priestly vestments together to commit a victimless sin within the Leonine Walls.
Leo does aver that the Church has always strongly supported labor unions and the right to associate (I presume sometime after the Church stopped rationalizing non-chattel forms of slavery): "....and reiterates the requirement that wages be proportionate not only to performance, but also to the needs of workers and their families." There are a lotta good, high-minded passages on the rights of workers, though Leo doesn't go so far as to say that none of these things have ever, or will ever, be realized under capitalism.
I have more affection for cause than for crusader, but I'm all for solidarity across leanings, and was mostly happy with what I found in here. I'm also increasingly of the opinion that if I don't semi-regularly read and refresh on some political theory or philosophical thesis affirming that there is hardly such a thing as moral neutrality, then I have no working framework to be anything other than reactionary. I've at least done my diligence this month.
"Even when machines excel in efficiency, a human face that asks to be gazed upon remains the center of our history."
I'm new to papal reaction content, so it's interesting to see all of the references in here to previous encyclicals (particularly Rerum Novarum, written by a previous Pope Leo), as well as to scripture, liturgical treatises and even to Tolkien, amounting to the same compassionate, ecumenical pronouncements about workers contending with LLMs and ruthless profit extraction that you might find in a Haymarket text.
There were a bunch of other topics I didn't expect to find covered here in a lil sacerdotal 'zine but which Leo burnishes as well as any academic: transhumanism, subsidiarity, myths of human optimization, and technocratic paradigms. The general Vatican verdict on AI seems to be the same verdict reached by any literate person who isn't looking to extract a giant, taxpayer-subsidized profit from it. As Nic Cage said, we should not let robots do our dreaming for us.
A large chunk of the 82-page encyclical itself is spent re-affirming what I'm learning (as a lifelong lapsed Catholic) are professedly permanent fixtures of the Catholic social doctrine: the common good, social justice, human dignity, and the universal destination of goods (i.e. the commons, in which Leo XIV includes digital resources as constituent parts).
However, the one thing I think any layperson might wanna know and which the Catholic Church ought to spend the rest of its mission on Earth addressing: Pope Leo makes reference to a previous encyclical from Pope Francis wherein Francis thanks journalists: "I also thank you for what you tell us about what goes wrong in the Church, for helping us not to sweep it under the carpet, and for the voice you have given to the victims of abuse."
The most I've ever dared hoped for (as a means of deterring predators from the cloth) is that the Catholic Church has lost quite a bit of institutional muscle and might not be the shortcut to power and plausible respectability for sex pests that it used to be. That's a pretty low bar of accountability, but my expectations for this cabal of purported volcels who sit around while religious sisters cook for them has been pretty low. It does seem like our unchaste pedophiles have been more drawn to public than to clerical office of late, though maybe I have a recency bias.
Where the question of abortion came up, Leo made none of the doctrinal allowances and equivocation of yore about "unformed" vs "animated" fetuses and there's yet little theological distinction between contraception and abortifacients, so we probably needn't cape too hard for a cool Chicagoland Pope. Leo and Francis may at least allow non-liturgical blessings for same-sex couples, but I also always figured the supreme pontiff has a red phone on his desk what rings any time two furtive monsignors hike up their priestly vestments together to commit a victimless sin within the Leonine Walls.
Leo does aver that the Church has always strongly supported labor unions and the right to associate (I presume sometime after the Church stopped rationalizing non-chattel forms of slavery): "....and reiterates the requirement that wages be proportionate not only to performance, but also to the needs of workers and their families." There are a lotta good, high-minded passages on the rights of workers, though Leo doesn't go so far as to say that none of these things have ever, or will ever, be realized under capitalism.
I have more affection for cause than for crusader, but I'm all for solidarity across leanings, and was mostly happy with what I found in here. I'm also increasingly of the opinion that if I don't semi-regularly read and refresh on some political theory or philosophical thesis affirming that there is hardly such a thing as moral neutrality, then I have no working framework to be anything other than reactionary. I've at least done my diligence this month.
Read
June 9, 2026León XIV firma su primera encíclica con una pregunta que llevo tiempo haciéndome desde otro ángulo, el jurídico: ¿para quién es la tecnología? Y verla formulada así, desde la fe, desde la tradición que va de Rerum Novarum hasta hoy, me ha producido esa extraña satisfacción de reconocer que el pensamiento cristiano sigue siendo capaz de llegar al hueso de las cosas cuando se lo propone.
La imagen de Babel no es nueva, claro. Pero aquí no es adorno retórico: es el diagnóstico exacto de lo que ocurre cuando el progreso se construye sin preguntarse el fin. Y Nehemías como contrapropuesta —cada familia su tramo de muralla, nadie solo, nadie prescindible— tiene una belleza que va más allá de la alegoría. Es una eclesiología, casi sin quererlo.
Lo que sostiene todo el texto, en realidad, es antropología. No solo ética tecnológica ni doctrina social en sentido estrecho: es una defensa de lo que el ser humano es, frente a todo lo que hoy promete redefinirlo. El transhumanismo, la reducción a dato, la eficiencia como criterio último — León los confronta desde la Encarnación, que es la apuesta más radical de la historia: que lo humano, con sus límites y su fragilidad, vale tanto que Dios quiso habitarlo. Desde ahí, los límites no son errores a corregir sino parte constitutiva de la dignidad. Eso no lo dice cualquier documento de regulación tecnológica.
El capítulo sobre el trabajo me ha parecido el más verdadero. Hay en él una comprensión del miedo concreto —el del trabajador que ve su oficio disolverse— que no es paternalismo sino compasión con nombres propios. Y la defensa de la dignidad laboral no suena a nostalgia: suena a mandato.
Mi única reserva es el capítulo final, sobre paz y multilateralismo. Es necesario, sí, y valiente en lo que dice sobre las armas y la IA militar. Pero en algún momento cae en un voluntarismo que el resto del texto había evitado: *relanzar el diálogo* necesita más carne en el hueso cuando el mundo está como está.
Aun así: qué alegría que el nuevo papa escriba así. Con hondura, sin miedo al presente, con esa confianza serena en que la fe tiene algo que decir —y que vale la pena escuchar— incluso aquí.
La imagen de Babel no es nueva, claro. Pero aquí no es adorno retórico: es el diagnóstico exacto de lo que ocurre cuando el progreso se construye sin preguntarse el fin. Y Nehemías como contrapropuesta —cada familia su tramo de muralla, nadie solo, nadie prescindible— tiene una belleza que va más allá de la alegoría. Es una eclesiología, casi sin quererlo.
Lo que sostiene todo el texto, en realidad, es antropología. No solo ética tecnológica ni doctrina social en sentido estrecho: es una defensa de lo que el ser humano es, frente a todo lo que hoy promete redefinirlo. El transhumanismo, la reducción a dato, la eficiencia como criterio último — León los confronta desde la Encarnación, que es la apuesta más radical de la historia: que lo humano, con sus límites y su fragilidad, vale tanto que Dios quiso habitarlo. Desde ahí, los límites no son errores a corregir sino parte constitutiva de la dignidad. Eso no lo dice cualquier documento de regulación tecnológica.
El capítulo sobre el trabajo me ha parecido el más verdadero. Hay en él una comprensión del miedo concreto —el del trabajador que ve su oficio disolverse— que no es paternalismo sino compasión con nombres propios. Y la defensa de la dignidad laboral no suena a nostalgia: suena a mandato.
Mi única reserva es el capítulo final, sobre paz y multilateralismo. Es necesario, sí, y valiente en lo que dice sobre las armas y la IA militar. Pero en algún momento cae en un voluntarismo que el resto del texto había evitado: *relanzar el diálogo* necesita más carne en el hueso cuando el mundo está como está.
Aun así: qué alegría que el nuevo papa escriba así. Con hondura, sin miedo al presente, con esa confianza serena en que la fe tiene algo que decir —y que vale la pena escuchar— incluso aquí.
June 1, 2026
Interesantísima la primera Encíclica de León XIV. Para releer y aplicar en muchas de sus partes. Lo más relevante es lo mucho que se está hablando...y el debate y la reflexión que aporta a la conversación pública.
June 25, 2026
A parte qualche parte un po' ridondante, si legge bene. Il contenuto è interessante e può aiutare una presa di coscienza sul nostro rapporto alla tecnologia, in particolare l'IA.
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 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 31, 2026
Va a ser review larga, voy por puntos:
- Me encanta que haya sido el Papa la primera voz institucional en hablar claramente sobre la IA, más allá de someterse de forma acrítica o rechazarla por completo (también de manera acrítica). Me gusta que haga verdaderos análisis acerca del impacto y sobre todo que dé pautas sobre el comportamiento que debe tomar tanto la sociedad civil como los cristianos. Esto vuelve a colocar al Papa y la Iglesia en un centro internacional que se estaba perdiendo, y me gusta.
- Evidentemente, lo hace sin perder la cristiandad: hay que mantenernos humanos y el significado último de eso es parecernos a Cristo y seguirlo a Él. Con esto, se rechaza el positivismo jurídico que nos tiene presos, nuestra dignidad no viene de la Constitución y es absoluta e inviolable no porque lo diga un papel o por estar en tal o cual capítulo, sino porque nos viene de Dios.
- Muy sorprendida (para bien) de que León XIV utilice términos de Carl Schmitt. Es muy necesario después de los horrores de tanto Kelsen.
- Me gusta mucho el análisis del colonialismo en la era digital, no basado ya en los Estados sino en los entes privados, llevado a cabo mediante el tratamiento y la propiedad de datos, patentes, medios… quien tiene la patente y los datos de forma dominante tiene mucho poder sobre poblaciones enteras, por ejemplo, y una pauta que da León XIV es precisamente la democratización de esos tipos de propiedad industrial, intelectual o de datos (esta encíclica me va a servir de manera genuina en mi futuro profesional).
- Aunque no se haya metido expresamente en el tema, creo que esta encíclica es suficiente para que tantos cristianos dejen de utilizar la IA para hacer “arte” sacro o textos religiosos. El arte sacro debe ser exclusivamente humano porque estamos llamados a ser transformados mediante la participación en la Creación para dar gloria a Dios (que es fin último de todo arte sacro) y una IA jamás podrá hacer eso, aunque técnicamente pueda ser mejor (también muy en desacuerdo con esa apreciación estoy).
En general, me ha gustado un montón y me cae muy bien este Papa, es carismático y cercano con la gente, pero también es muy inteligente y hace análisis muy buenos de la realidad actual.
- Me encanta que haya sido el Papa la primera voz institucional en hablar claramente sobre la IA, más allá de someterse de forma acrítica o rechazarla por completo (también de manera acrítica). Me gusta que haga verdaderos análisis acerca del impacto y sobre todo que dé pautas sobre el comportamiento que debe tomar tanto la sociedad civil como los cristianos. Esto vuelve a colocar al Papa y la Iglesia en un centro internacional que se estaba perdiendo, y me gusta.
- Evidentemente, lo hace sin perder la cristiandad: hay que mantenernos humanos y el significado último de eso es parecernos a Cristo y seguirlo a Él. Con esto, se rechaza el positivismo jurídico que nos tiene presos, nuestra dignidad no viene de la Constitución y es absoluta e inviolable no porque lo diga un papel o por estar en tal o cual capítulo, sino porque nos viene de Dios.
- Muy sorprendida (para bien) de que León XIV utilice términos de Carl Schmitt. Es muy necesario después de los horrores de tanto Kelsen.
- Me gusta mucho el análisis del colonialismo en la era digital, no basado ya en los Estados sino en los entes privados, llevado a cabo mediante el tratamiento y la propiedad de datos, patentes, medios… quien tiene la patente y los datos de forma dominante tiene mucho poder sobre poblaciones enteras, por ejemplo, y una pauta que da León XIV es precisamente la democratización de esos tipos de propiedad industrial, intelectual o de datos (esta encíclica me va a servir de manera genuina en mi futuro profesional).
- Aunque no se haya metido expresamente en el tema, creo que esta encíclica es suficiente para que tantos cristianos dejen de utilizar la IA para hacer “arte” sacro o textos religiosos. El arte sacro debe ser exclusivamente humano porque estamos llamados a ser transformados mediante la participación en la Creación para dar gloria a Dios (que es fin último de todo arte sacro) y una IA jamás podrá hacer eso, aunque técnicamente pueda ser mejor (también muy en desacuerdo con esa apreciación estoy).
En general, me ha gustado un montón y me cae muy bien este Papa, es carismático y cercano con la gente, pero también es muy inteligente y hace análisis muy buenos de la realidad actual.
Read
June 9, 2026Pope Leo XIV hits every mark in this... There's really nothing in here that can be contended with. His first encyclical is so fitting, given his STEM background, and the papal name that he took: taking after Pope Leo XIII who played a significant role in establishing catholic social teaching, and condemning the effects of the Industrial Revolution of his time. Pope Leo XIV explores various moral issues arising from our current technological revolution: From the profiting of technological firms from the use of their technology in fuelling ongoing wars, to addictive social media algorithms deteriorating inner freedom, and the inhumane working conditions behind the many devices so prevalent in the privileged world. It's so refreshing hearing all the doubts and conflicting thoughts regarding Artificial Intelligence being put into words. And I love how direct and clear he is - always linking his reasoning back to the gospels, and the ultimate commandment that is to love our neighbour, starting with the poorest.
In short, he affirms that humans each have an inherent dignity: humans are never a means, nor is our dignity to be determined by our efficiency or productivity. Technology is good so long as it is utilised and shared in a way that promotes the common good and true societal progress (whereas our current "progress" is only in the hands of a few, excluding and jeopardizing countless others). He relates our current era to that of the construction of the Tower of Babel - a mere desire for power rather than the pursuit of charity and goodness. Ultimately humans cannot be "perfected" by technology, rather, we must shape our technology such that it can bring about good.
Also loved his inclusion of a LOTR quote and the numerous mathematical references! Very on-character. 😂
In short, he affirms that humans each have an inherent dignity: humans are never a means, nor is our dignity to be determined by our efficiency or productivity. Technology is good so long as it is utilised and shared in a way that promotes the common good and true societal progress (whereas our current "progress" is only in the hands of a few, excluding and jeopardizing countless others). He relates our current era to that of the construction of the Tower of Babel - a mere desire for power rather than the pursuit of charity and goodness. Ultimately humans cannot be "perfected" by technology, rather, we must shape our technology such that it can bring about good.
Also loved his inclusion of a LOTR quote and the numerous mathematical references! Very on-character. 😂
June 9, 2026
“We are called to reflect on the great “construction sites” of our era and ask: what are we building?”
“We cannot consider AI to be morally neutral”
“to disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity“
“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 is matured and opens itself to relationship.”
“for an algorithm, an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, however, an error can be a catalyst for profound change”
“These have become the new “rare earths“ of power: vital data, which, when aggregated and analyzed, can be used to train predictive models, guide investment strategies, anticipate crises, and above all, determine who and what is deemed to matter“
“We are also witnessing a disconcerting loss of historical memory“
Excellent read, though repetitive and idealistic in spots, which is about much more than AI and the industry’s unsurprising disinterest in human dignity. Really appreciated his emphasis on our desire to eliminate anything in us that is seen as a defect and a limit. (Maybe the pope was as surprised as I was to find out people in their late 20s / early 30s get Botox now, and looksmaxxing is a thing for men!)
“We cannot consider AI to be morally neutral”
“to disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity“
“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 is matured and opens itself to relationship.”
“for an algorithm, an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, however, an error can be a catalyst for profound change”
“These have become the new “rare earths“ of power: vital data, which, when aggregated and analyzed, can be used to train predictive models, guide investment strategies, anticipate crises, and above all, determine who and what is deemed to matter“
“We are also witnessing a disconcerting loss of historical memory“
Excellent read, though repetitive and idealistic in spots, which is about much more than AI and the industry’s unsurprising disinterest in human dignity. Really appreciated his emphasis on our desire to eliminate anything in us that is seen as a defect and a limit. (Maybe the pope was as surprised as I was to find out people in their late 20s / early 30s get Botox now, and looksmaxxing is a thing for men!)
Read
June 21, 2026Beyond grateful for this witness to Truth—that in every generation we must renew again a commitment to the elevation of the human person, especially among the one at the margins; that technological innovation is, more often than not, a means of rendering the person into mere technology ("human capital"), thereby bolstering the proud and the mighty; and that, with Holy Mary, we can choose to see the proud and mighty as already cast down, the hungry as already filled with good things.
"Take heart, for I have overcome the world!"
Some questions lingering:
Does the definition provided for the common good lend itself to the same kind of mechanistic efficiency which Leo decries? Similarly, does a teleological view of history not necessarily avail itself to transhumanistic ideals? How can personal uses of artificial intelligence be justified when so often it erodes the capacity for attention, the bedrock of love and truth-seeking?
"Take heart, for I have overcome the world!"
Some questions lingering:
Does the definition provided for the common good lend itself to the same kind of mechanistic efficiency which Leo decries? Similarly, does a teleological view of history not necessarily avail itself to transhumanistic ideals? How can personal uses of artificial intelligence be justified when so often it erodes the capacity for attention, the bedrock of love and truth-seeking?
May 31, 2026
woke popeeeee
Quite a beautiful and poetic encyclical that explores protecting human consciousness in the age of AI. It shares a good amount of common ground with classical socialist/Marxist texts and even Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto in its critique of surveillance/exploitation of labor/class disparities.
Similar to Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum during the Industrial Revolution, Pope Leo XIV’s focus is more on the unchecked power of global tech monopolies rather than the vision of a worker-led revolution…womp womp
Even though it is a refreshing read from a world leader, it is difficult to reconcile the deep nuance of this piece with the reality that the same author does not believe in the validity of LGBTQ+ relationships.
A few quotes I loved:
“In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human.”
“Even today, colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data, transforming personal lives into exploitable information…If technology promises emancipation, yet
produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity.”
“Nothing in the world of Al is immaterial or magical.
Every seemingly immediate and flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving vast networks of natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above all, people.”
Quite a beautiful and poetic encyclical that explores protecting human consciousness in the age of AI. It shares a good amount of common ground with classical socialist/Marxist texts and even Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto in its critique of surveillance/exploitation of labor/class disparities.
Similar to Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum during the Industrial Revolution, Pope Leo XIV’s focus is more on the unchecked power of global tech monopolies rather than the vision of a worker-led revolution…womp womp
Even though it is a refreshing read from a world leader, it is difficult to reconcile the deep nuance of this piece with the reality that the same author does not believe in the validity of LGBTQ+ relationships.
A few quotes I loved:
“In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human.”
“Even today, colonialism assumes new forms. It no longer dominates only bodies, but appropriates data, transforming personal lives into exploitable information…If technology promises emancipation, yet
produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity.”
“Nothing in the world of Al is immaterial or magical.
Every seemingly immediate and flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving vast networks of natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above all, people.”
June 15, 2026
Más marxismo católico, de modo que nada nuevo en Roma. Es como leer un programa electoral de cualquier partido, porque de todo socialismo bebe. Rezo para que algún día esto cambie. Le doy un 2 porque siquiera algo de Magisterio incorpora. Una pena.
P.S. Tras escuchar sólo elogios, me alegra verme de nuevo con la minoría.
P.S. Tras escuchar sólo elogios, me alegra verme de nuevo con la minoría.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 285 reviews