Magnifica Humanitas

Although I am not a fan of the Chicago White Sox (wrong color hose), I greeted the election of Pope Leo with enthusiasm, especially when he chose the name ‘Leo’ in honor of Leo XIII, one of my intellectual heroes.

150 years ago, Leo cut through the Capitalist vs. Communist rhetoric of his day and put forward an alternative, and compelling, vision of a good society. Importantly, the elder Leo did not fixate on the form of a government but on its actual policies.

So I was severely disappointed by Leo XIV’s first Encyclical (Magnifica Humanitas, 5/15/2026). The text, not yet widely available in print, demands a much more detailed response, but please consider this as a first pass:

Technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity…

Wow! That Leo feels a need to make such a statement near the beginning of his Encyclical is chilling.

Technology is a charism, just like preaching, teaching, and speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 12). Among extant terrestrial life forms, this behavior is almost exclusively the franchise of homo sapiens. Other species adapt to environmental change better than we do but we do a much ‘better’ job of modifying that environment.

Technology is near the core of what it means to be human.

Today, however, we find ourselves facing a new situation. The power and prevalence of emerging technologies are interwoven into the fabric of daily life, shaping decision-making processes and deeply affecting the collective imagination. 

Every technology is ‘interwoven into the fabric of daily life’… That’s how technology works! That’s what it is! Respectfully, Leo needs to brush up on his Marx, Ellul, McLuhan, Buckminster Fuller, et al.

New technologies open up a horizon extending in directions that are imaginable but not yet fully predictable. This complicates the assessment of their potential impact and the long-term effects they may have on both the dignity of individuals and the common good.

Leo is fixated on the concepts of human dignity and common good; both are deeply problematic. Re human dignity, we are born naked, helpless, and covered in mucus. We spend the next 18+ years trying to survive the abuse, neglect, miseducation, and regimentation known as a ‘happy childhood’; we follow that with 40+ years of wage slavery known as a ‘career’. Then we grow old, get sick, regress, and die. Some dignity!

I’m sorely tempted to leave things here (so that I can enter the academy of 20^th century French intellectuals…and I’m not even French, mes amis)… but I can’t. There is another side of the story: each of us is also the image and likeness of ‘God’, you know, that omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent fellow that we all once believed in.

According to Sartre (fellow 20^th century French intellectual), God is the being whose essence (qualities) precedes his existence. And according to Aquinas (not French) et al., that essence is Good; Good manifests in our world as Beauty, Truth, and Justice.

So perhaps we do enjoy some dignity after all. One of the ‘avatars’ of this God we emulate is Creator. So we create. Our creative function (techne) confers dignity as do our artistic, intellectual (gnosis), and legislative (mishpat) functions.

Lastly, nothing is ever fully predictable, especially potential impacts and long-term effects. That’s why they’re called ‘potential’ and ‘long term’; otherwise they’d be called ‘actual’ and ‘immediate’.

In the past, it was largely up to the State to guide and direct innovation.

Really, in the entire history of the world, has any State ever really ‘guided and directed innovation’ - though not for lack of trying (USSR et al.)?

The Church values democracy insofar as it guarantees the effective participation of citizens, enables them to elect and peacefully replace their leaders and prevents power from being monopolized by small elite groups motivated by particular or ideological interests.

Agreed. The church correctly values these things…though they have never existed. “I dream of things that never were and ask ‘Why not?’” (Bobby Kennedy)

Human rights are inviolable, since they are “inherent in the human person and in human dignity.” Consequently, they are universal and inalienable. 

Among the numerous implications of the common good, immediate significance is taken on by the principle of the universal destination of goods. First of all, this principle reminds us that the earth’s goods — soil, water, air and natural resources — are given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all, and that every person has an inherent right to the use of such goods, both now and in the future.

Leo’s notion of common good seems to imply equal access and therefore socialism, which Leo XIII abhorred and which subsequent Church teaching seems to condemn.

Certainly there is a right to private property, which has its own specific meaning and purpose, yet it is always subordinate to the universal destination of goods.  According to John Paul II, this subordination is the golden rule of social conduct and the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order.”

Between Robber Baron Capitalism and Democratic Socialism, there is a vast middle ground. As far back as the 1960’s John Rawls proposed a theory of a just society that was based on three principles: (1) universal civil liberties, (2) a safety net guaranteed to deliver cash and benefits equivalent to a living wage, and (3) otherwise, unrestrained economic activity. No homelessness, no food insecurity, unlimited opportunity.

In the Church’s tradition, property has been viewed as a means of protecting and managing goods so that they may better serve the common good. 

The Church has traditionally valued private property as a way of protecting that property from the rapacious appetite of the State so that it may be deployed by individuals (owners) in ways that ultimately contribute to the common good.

Starting with Leo XIII and the beginnings of modern social teaching, the Church has insisted that neither the individual nor the family should be subsumed by the State, but should be allowed to act freely, as far as possible, without harming the common good…

The Church’s social teaching emphasizes that solidarity is both a principle and a virtue. As a principle, it expresses the objective order of relationships among individuals, groups and peoples, pointing to an awareness of interdependence whereby the good of each person depends on the good of others.

Amen to that!

As with every major technological shift, AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise and access to data.

Perhaps, but conversely AI, alongside personal computerization and social media, radically democratizes access to data (information) and communication media and places exponentially enhanced agentic power in the hands of the individual.

Will you consider me mean spirited if I point out that the Church’s own track record in this area is ‘checkered’? It was not that long ago that the Church actively discouraged laity from reading the Bible. Then Martin Luther dragged the Church kicking and screaming into the 16^th century; 500 years on, will it be Sam Altman who drags the Church into the 21^st? 

The search for truth is an essential element of democracy, which is itself a means of contributing to the common good…Democracy does not consist of rules and procedures alone, but above all of a solid concordance with the facts and a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society as a whole.

At its theoretical best, Democracy is a process by which ‘the people’ determine those facts and then, based on those facts, formulate social (political and economic) policy. Pope Leo puts the cart before the horse. He assumes that the result of fact finding and deliberation will always be ‘a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society as a whole’. Alas, the history of electoral democracy does not support Leo’s optimism.

Above all, however, the Magisterium has recognized in work “the essential key” to understanding the entire social question, since it is through their work that individuals develop many dimensions of their existence.

Let’s conduct a survey: how many people feel that their work has helped them ‘develop many dimensions of their existence’ (whatever that means)?

Work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfilment. 

Ah, a hidden variable is revealed! According to Genesis, one of humanity’s punishments for Adam’s transgression was the need to live by the sweat of one’s brow. Were the necessity of work to be overcome, would we be undermining scripture?

While AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines (and)… relegate(s) them to rigid and repetitive tasks.

Leo has his Revolutions mixed up. It was the Industrial Revolution (19^th century) that subordinated workers to their machines and condemned them to mind numbing tasks. It is the AI Revolution (21^st century) that will free workers from this drudgery.

The need to keep up with the pace of technology can erode workers’ sense of agency and stifle the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work.

Au contraire, AI boosts workers’ agentic powers and rewards, often handsomely, innovative thinking…”because it is so rare.” (Mutiny on the Bounty)

Precisely in order to avoid this drift, it is necessary to design systems that are centered on the human person and not solely on performance.

What could be less dignifying and more dehumanizing that the suggestion that peak performance is incompatible with the human person. Tell that to Bach, or Van Gogh, or James Joyce. Thank God, they didn’t get the memo!

It is certainly desirable for technology to relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks… Yet, the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule.

So, relieving ‘humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks’ is ‘certainly desirable’…but let’s not do it?

Economic freedom is not absolute; it must always be measured against the common good and the dignity of every person.

Economic freedom is a cornerstone of human dignity and indispensable to the aggressive pursuit of the common good.

A just society requires a vigilant State.

This is grotesquely anti-scriptural. The Book of Judges (justice makers) details a glorious 250 year period in Israel’s history: “In those days, Israel had no king, everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” (21: 25, et al.)

Jesus, handed a Roman coin, did not issue a white paper proposing monetary reform; he just gave it back. (Mt. 22: 21)

In continuity with the tradition inaugurated by Leo XIII, the Church renews her firm condemnation of all forms of slavery, trafficking and the commodification of persons.

All forms of slavery except, apparently, Wage Slavery. And what is ‘labor’ (vs. work) other than the commodification of the person? That’s precisely what labor is…’value added’!

But worst of all, Pope Leo has squandered what an incredible opportunity…for society and for the Church. A new day is dawning, with or without Pope Leo’s blessing, and it begs for inspiration and guidance; both are utterly lacking in Magnifica Humanitas.

As for the Church, this was an opportunity to assume a leadership role in shaping a new ‘ethic of abundance’ : How to ensure that newly created wealth works to improve the human condition generally. Instead, Leo responds with the worn out ‘ethic of scarcity’ – quelle domage!