As a loyal son of the Church, I am very deliberately receiving this new encyclical in the positivity of trust, gratitude and docility. Genuine obedience is far from blind, mechanical compliance; the word's etymology is from the Latin audire, "to listen attentively." This is not the suspension of the critical faculties into thoughtlessness. Rather it is eagerness to receive, to penetrate deeply with the presenter, to use all ones faculties (intellect, will, passions, desires) in the urgent search for the True, the Good and the Beautiful.
Several forces motivate my intentional docility:
1. This is an authoritative papal instruction and therefore evocative of trust and receptivity.
2. St. Ignatius of Loyola advised us to always put the best possible interpretation on another's words. This applies doubly to Church authorities.
3. Temperamentally and philosophically, I am strongly disposed to a "catholicity" that embraces all that is good, whatever its circumstances.
4. I have been pleasantly surprised by the encyclical. My expectations were low so I was shielded from disappointment. Leo is many good things; he is not a first rate theologian. Really, we do not know much about AI. Even the brilliant engineers driving it don't really know where it is going. I did not think this topic was a good idea. But reading it, I now see lots of good in it. It is what we are given. Thanks be to God.
Let's consider some of the strengths and then the weaknesses of this teaching. The majesty, the magnificence, the mystery of Catholicism is: that the Divine comes to us infleshed in the finite, fallible, deficient and even sinful Church. The human and divine come to us as one Reality: we receive the first with patience, compassion and generosity; we receive the second in thanksgiving and adoration.
The Best of Magnifica Humanitas
1. The Tone. In accord with Leo's personality, style, and charism the teaching is steady, reassuring, calming, and sensible. He is critical, but not pessimistic. He is positive, but not utopian. Ross Douthat admired that he is critical, aware of dangers, as he "normalizes" it. By this Douthat means that he sees it for what it is: a form of technology. A tool. However sophisticated, it is just a tool. In a world of exponential change, fluidity, and transience, we need a voice of stability, calm, permanence: who better than the Pope to give us this?
2. Human Dignity. This, more than AI itself, is the prime theme of the teaching. The inexpressible worth, preciousness and beauty of the human person is the prime concern. Any technology, ideology or social order that threatens this is rebuked by the Church and this pontiff.
3. Spiritual Teaching. In the introduction and conclusion both, Leo gives solid spiritual principles to guide our path. The initial offering is a comparison between the Tower of Babel and Nehemiah's rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. The first is Godlessness, arrogance, power; the second is humility, adoration, fraternity. The conclusion brings us to Mary, her Magnificat, and the Eucharist. The most important parts of any essay are the beginning and the end: this piece is strong in both.
4. Summary of Catholic Social Teaching. The value of this large section is that it presents Catholic social teaching as an organic, living, developing whole. He summarizes the contributions of popes since Leo XIII as well as the Vatican Council. All the basics principles are presented (solidarity, subsidiarity, common good, natural moral order, etc.) but are woven together into a lively body of wisdom. He sees this a living organism, much like the Church herself as well as our broader dogmatic/moral legacy. Here he manifests his personal propensity for unity and peace. The section exudes a Catholic confidence: we stand upon a deposit of wisdom and are well prepared to face the challenges that present themselves.
5. Modesty. Again, like the person of Leo, this teaching is modest, humble, unpretentious. It presents no master narrative or innovative insight. It reverently receives the tradition given to us. It acknowledges the complexity and enormity of the challenges, but does not yield to despair. It properly challenges all of us in our own domains...engineers, policy makers, politicians, families, educators...to a calmness in cooperation and agency with God's assistance.
The Deficiencies in Magnifica Humanitas
1. Our Progressive, Pelagian, Pacifist Augustinian?
Scattered among the encyclical's "wheat of wisdom" are "weeds" of a toxic, dysfunctional progressivism. The most egregious is: "...just war theory...is outdated." This unfortunate statement will attract more popular attention than the parts of the document that merit such.
"Out of date" is itself a most non-Catholic, progressive, technological phrase. It indicates that something is now obsolete, useless, replaced by newer technologies. The phrase is antithetical to the organic, continuous, reliable nature of Catholic teaching, including on the political order. We might contrast three attitudes to the past/future: the revolutionary despises the past and seeks to destroy and replace it; the progressive looks always to advance, improve and also replace the past; the wholesome (Catholic) conservative, unlike a sclerotic reactionary, looks to conserve, protect, develop and enhance a precious heritage received from the past. "Out of date" is, if not revolutionary, a progressive term, certainly not Catholic. Relentlessly we are harangued:
Capital Punishment, Just War, Patriotism, Justice as Retribution...out of date!
Sex as unitive/procreative, Marriage as irrevocable, Contraception-Homosexuality-Fornication as sin, Masculine Priesthood, Human person as male/female...out of date!
Latin Mass...out of date!
Underlying this quasi-absolute rejection of just war is a Pelagian confidence that war can be replaced by dialogue, compassion, negotiaon/compromise, open-mindedness, "the synodal way," renunciation of power and selfishness. It is the same presumption that would replace police with social workers; that displaces capital punishment with an unwarranted pride in our prison system; and mistakes just retribution with hateful revenge.
We recall that the heresy of Pelagius, decisively renounced by Augustine, was just such a confidence in the ability of the human will to achieve salvation. Augustine, with his understanding of the City of God and the evil City of Man, is rightly applauded for his sense of the depth of evil and his articulation of the just war theory. It is striking that our Augustinian Pontiff has such a Pelagian perspective.
Consider: Putin's gratuitous invasion of the Ukraine, Iranian terrorism and nuclear ambitions, the violence of Jihadism against Christians in Africa, and above all the imperialist ambitions of totalitarian Communist China. What we need today is precisely an improved, updated Just War theory, aware of technological and political realities. We need precisely to deter such bad actors from inflicting their diabolical regimes upon the rest of us. It is astonishing that in the face of these threats Leo should lean into such a soft, Pelagian, progressive pacifism.
The defining diabolic catastrophe of the Church in our time is the priest sex scandal: not only the abuse of the innocent, but the failure of the hierarchy to address it. It was an omission, a tolerance, an avoidance, a passivity in the face of evil, a failure in virility and paternity. Underlying this grave dereliction was an erroneous, illusory credulity; a softness; a confidence in rationality, therapy, and the goodness of human nature; a denial of the reality of sin, evil, the demonic. In the face of Jihadist terrorism, totalitarian-imperialistic Communism, national fascism and aggressive sexual libertinism, we risk a Church going soft, irenic, passive, effete and complaint with if not submissive to Evil.
2. Lack of Metaphysics.
Perhaps even more silly, disturbing and troubling is Leo's repetition of the chant of Francis: "Time is greater than space." This makes no sense at all! The two cannot be compared as there is no value in which they can be measured against each other. It is like saying: "the air we breathe is better than the earth we walk on." What??? "A grand slam in the bottom of the ninth is better than a hole in one." What??? "Ballerinas are better than power forwards!" What???
This can, of course, be given a positive interpretation. Francis resented a negative stability of law, dogma, stagnation, moralism, and control. He valued openness, patience in growth, hope in the future. There is a promise in time and a stability in place. They mutually inform each other: like present/past/future. Reality is always a symphony of stability and change: to elevate one over the other is nonsensical. Time itself is relentless change, death to everything. This is overcome by promise and fidelity: a stability within time, a triumph of the permanent over the evanescent. The "time is superior to place" chant, philosophically, implies the triumph of change over stability, of existence over essence, of death over life.
A more Catholic view: "The Eternal transcends both time and space but visits and dwells in both." They are not the same; they are neither equal nor inequal, they are incomparable. They are distinct. A Catholic sensibility values stability: we have sacred places, pilgrimage sites, and Churches. Above all, we have the Eucharistic presence in a specific "thing" and place. Especially in "fluid modernity" we desperately need a sense of the stable, the reliable, the permanent and even the Eternal. For Leo to continue the crusade of Francis against stability and permanence, exemplified in the "synodal way," is gravely mistaken.
This singular, misguided dabbling into ontology leads us to an important omission in the teaching: a lack of just such metaphysics. What sets AI apart from any previous technology is precisely its simulation of human INTELLIGENCE. Leo is emphatic that a human is not a machine and a machine is not a human. But he is not conceptually clear, deep and precise in his definition of human intelligence. Douthat pointed out that the founder of Anthropic, Chris Olah, who accompanied Leo in the presentation, himself challenged the entire premise of the encyclical in suggesting that "Claude" is approaching human states of "joy, satisfaction, fear, grief and unease." That is, of course, the fundamental challenge of AI. Leo in effect dismisses it, but does not clearly address it.
Much of the answer is already available in classical, Thomistic metaphysics of form and essence. Interiorly, a computer is still a thing, an inert object. It lacks a vegetable soul, an animal soul, and of course a human soul. Despite its complexity, it is interiorly nothing, it is like a sand castle on the beach, a compilation of things; any unity is not internal, but exterior, configured by the creators. By contrast, human intelligence is a spiritual capacity, the ability to "know" or interiorize the other, Truth, and reality in all its splendor.
Happily, this was addressed in an astute manner at the recent 2026 Academy of Catholic Theology Conference in Washington DC by Rev. Joseph Laracy S.T.D. in a talk entitled "Persona et Machina: the Ontological Limits of Artificial Intelligence." Laracy, who teaches science and theology at Seton Hall University, drew upon his own engineering/science background and especially the groundbreaking thought of Rev. Stanley Jaki O.S.B., to clarify that human intelligence is a principle of inner unity capable of freedom, self-consciousness, wonder, intentionality, curiosity, and other. He contrasts the contemplative wonder of intellectus with the rational calculus of ratio, seeing that AI has high ability for technical computation but zero capacity for contemplation.
It is just such conceptual, philosophical clarity that would have greatly enhanced Magnifica.
It is understandable that Leo avoided this important resource. He is himself quintessentially American, a pragmatist, a man of action, of the people, a mathematician, a competent administrator and governor, a get-the-work-done type, a "Martha" more than a "Mary." He came of age in the theological fog of the 1970s. The Vatican Council itself avoided the language of Thomistic metaphysics; but Rev. Thomas Guarino has showed us that fundamental principles of Aquinas (like "analogy") were implicit in the theology of that Council. The theologians and bishops who authored the documents were all breaking beyond the boundaries of a narrow scholasticism to engage the modern world as well as the Fathers, but they were all fully grounded in the metaphysics of Thomas which quietly informed their thought.
Unfortunately, the students of Rahner-Lonergan-Kung-and-Company lacked that philosophical grounding and much of the increasingly progressive theology of the post-Council era drew more from social sciences than from philosophy. The result was a default conceptual grounding that was superficial, pragmatic, uncritical, and vulnerable to secular fashion. This philosophical incompetence already predated the Council. It is my view that the impressive post-war (1945-65) American Catholic edifice (vocations, parishes, buildings, schools, hospitals, etc.) collapsed so quickly and catastrophically because the foundations were weak in two ways: spiritually not grounded evangelically in the person/event of Jesus Christ; and intellectually not rooted in solid Catholic philosophy/theology.
Conclusion
To its credit, this is a modest effort. It is best understood as a first salvo, a "draft." Critics see a failure to really engage the unique challenge of a simulated humanity. I do not fault Leo here. We still do not really know where we are going. Yuval Levin pointed out that Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum was written when we were well into the Industrial Revolution so the outlines of that world were clear and a definitive Catholic response possible. We are not there with AI; perhaps in 20 or 30 years we will be.
Going forward, Leo would do well to:
1. Look to Augustine for realism about the hardness of Evil, the City of Man and the necessity of forceful resistance.
2. Look to Thomas for a philosophy that unveils the interiority of things.
3. Realize we are in a now-perpetual war...always and everywhere...with three enemies that intend to destroy our faith and our world: Communism, Jihadism, and Cultural Liberalism. Dialogue, compassion, empathy have their place in this world. But so do combat, courage, decisiveness, and just use of mortal force.
4. Embrace the "Benedict Option" of Rod Dreher which sees the fragmentation, dysfunction and toxicity of mainstream mega-institutions and advocates a relative detachment to concentrate energies on smaller communities: family, local Church, schools, intermediate organizations and movements.
5. Use the "Christian Strategy" of Adrian Vermuelle: detach, in some degree, from ideological and partisan allegiances in a willingness to cooperate, in limited ways, with all actors in the pursuit of goods. Like Joseph of ancient Egypt or Daniel of Babylon, we find a place within an alien empire to protect our own faith community and advance the common good of all. So, we are open to collaboration, in the good, with Muslims, Communists, Fascists, Maga-istas, and even Cultural Liberals.
We are grateful for this encyclical and its author, Pope Leo. We are always grateful for what we are given, even as it is finite and flawed.
Leo is a pope of the poor, prayer, intelligence, sobriety, integrity, unity, reconciliation, dialogue, steadiness, modesty, competence and good governance. His weakness is a softness, a reluctance to decide, a disinclination to engage in combat.
So, as we thank God for him and his evident gifts, we ask that the Holy Spirit compensate for his weakness with gifts of wisdom and counsel, clarity in thought, courage and decisiveness in combat.
Come Holy Spirit!