Magnifica Humanitas

1700 words, 8 minute read.

Although I am not a fan of the Chicago White Sox (wrong color hose), I greeted the election of our new Pope 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 just society. Importantly, the elder Leo did not fixate on the form of government but on its policies.

So I was severely disappointed when Leo XIV’s first Encyclical (Magnifica Humanitas, 5/15/2026) failed to do the same for our own troubled times:

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

That Leo felt a need to make such a statement near the beginning of his first Encyclical is worrisome. Technology is a charism, just like preaching, teaching, and speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 12). As such, it should be warmly embraced, not conditionally tolerated.

Among terrestrial life forms, only homo sapiens puts technology near the center of its modus operandi. Other species may better adapt to environmental change, but we do a much better job of modifying that environment to meet our needs. Far from being antagonistic to humanity, technology is at 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.” 

Technology by definition is ‘interwoven into the fabric of daily life’; how else could it have evolved?

“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 concept of ‘human dignity’. But, born naked and helpless, we spend 18 years surviving what adults euphemistically call ‘happy childhood’. 40 years of ‘wage slavery’ (aka a career) follow. Then we grow old, get sick, regress, and die, often physically incontinent and mentally incompetent at the bitter end. Some dignity!

Dignity is not inherent in the human condition. Dignity is what we make of that condition, how we transcend it. Jesus of Nazareth was born in a stable and died on a cross yet no one had greater dignity. Mother Theresa had dignity, as did Ghandi, Mandela, and many others; they earned it.

On the other hand, each of us is the image and likeness of God. According to Jean-Paul Sartre, a self-described atheist, God is the being whose essence (qualities) precedes his existence. And according to Aquinas, et al., that essence is the Good, manifest in our world as Beauty, Truth, and Justice.

So all of us do possess the potential for dignity, i.e. the ability to model ourselves after God, embodying his virtues, imitating his avatars and personae (e.g. Jesus of Nazareth). One of the ‘avatars’ of God is Creator. So we create. Our creative function (techne) confers dignity…as do our artistic (ars), intellectual (gnosis), and juridical (mishpat) endeavors.

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

When in history has any State ever really ‘guided and directed innovation’ - though not for lack of trying (USSR, e.g.)? Even the PRC (China) and DRV (Vietnam) rely on the unfettered creativity of their citizens to drive their incredible economic growth.

“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.”

The church correctly values these things…though they have never existed. What contemporary nation can you point to that guarantees the effective participation of its citizens…and prevents power from being monopolized by small elite groups?

“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 State Socialism, there is a vast middle ground. As far back as the late ‘60’s John Rawls proposed ‘a theory of a justice’ based on three principles: (1) universal civil liberties, (2) a safety net guaranteeing cash and benefits equivalent to a living wage, and (3) free enterprise. No homelessness, no food insecurity; material progress and unlimited opportunity – not no-growth socialism.

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

On the contrary, AI, along with PC’s, smart phones, the internet, the web and social media, radically democratizes access to data (information) and communication media and places exponentially enhanced agentic power in the hands of individuals.

Karl Marx thought to shift control of the means of production from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. 21^stcentury technology leap frogs such class distinctions and places the means of production squarely in the hands of the individual.

“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. It by no means guarantees that social policy will be guided by ‘facts’ or that those in power will be genuinely committed to the common good. A cursory familiarity with Euro-American history since 1776 should suffice to debunk any lionization of democratic process. And can anyone say that the search for truth is an essential element of democracy as it is practiced in the United States today.

Just as disturbingly, Leo’s characterization of democracy as ‘itself a means of contributing to the common good’ flies in the face of his namesake who believed that political systems should be judged, not by their form but by their fruits.

“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… 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.” 

Let’s conduct a survey: how many readers feel that their work has helped them ‘develop many dimensions of their existence’ (whatever that may mean)? Some, yes… but for many, ‘work’ is spirit-killing drudgery, performed for modest rewards in pursuit of morally dubious ends, affording little opportunity for creativity, individual expression, or personal growth.

“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.”

Pope 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^stcentury) that promises to free workers from that 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.”

On the contrary, AI boosts workers’ agentic powers and rewards, often handsomely, innovative thinking.

“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.”

There is no more chilling statement anywhere in this Encyclical! Is ‘the protection of employment opportunities’ really more important than relieving ‘humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks’?

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

In fact, 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.”

Not according to Scripture. The Book of Judges (i.e. ‘justice-doers’) 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.)

Midway in this period, Judge Gideon was offered kingship for himself and a hereditary dynasty for his decedents. His response is the stuff of political legend: “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son; the Lord will rule over you.”

“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’ other than the commodification of the person? Labor is value added.

All of these points are disturbing. But most disappointing is Leo’s squandering of opportunity. People are not leaving the Church because they question its dogmas; they are leaving because they question it relevance.

They feel that the Church is out of touch with the realities of life in the modern world…and apparently they are right!

A new day is dawning, with or without Pope Leo’s blessing, and it begs for inspiration and guidance from the Church; sadly, Magnifica Humanitas offers neither. This was a chance for the Church to assume a leadership role, ensuring that newly created wealth works to improve the human condition generally. Pope Leo has squandered an incredible opportunity to assume a leadership role in shaping a new Ethic of Abundance.