Transcription
My name is Father Gregory Pine, and welcome to Ascension Presents. Today, we're going to be talking about Magnifica Humanitas, the first encyclical of Pope Leo XIV, which just came out. Woohoo! So, the subtitle of the document is "On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence."
In this video, we're going to talk about: first, what is an encyclical, so we can situate this encyclical? Third, what's the overall vision of the encyclical? Fourth, what is a more detailed account of the encyclical? We'll go through the kind of headings and what's covered under each section, and then what are some hidden gems or what are some of my favorite parts. So, let's get to it.
Okay, first, what is an encyclical? An encyclical is basically a circular letter of the Holy Father. Traditionally, it is addressed to all of the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops of the universal church in communion with the Apostolic See. Lately, it's been addressed to the bishops, priests, deacons, consecrated persons, and lay faithful. Basically, it's addressed to the whole church, and it's the type of way in which the Holy Father, in solemn state, addresses his flock.
Okay. So, for context, John Paul II reigned gloriously from 1978 to 2005, so whatever, 26, 27 years. He published 14 encyclicals. You're probably familiar with some of them. And then Benedict XVI reigned from 2005 to 2013, eight glorious years, and he published three encyclicals. You can probably name all of them. Okay, I'll do it for you: Deus Caritas Est, Spe Salvi, and Caritas in Veritate. And then Pope Francis reigned gloriously from 2013 to 2025, so 12 years there. He published four encyclicals: Lumen Fidei, which a lot of people say that Benedict XVI wrote most of, and then Laudato Si' and Fratelli Tutti.
Now, for further context, Leo XIV is the 14th. What about Leo XIII? The guy who really got after it encyclical-wise. So, man, I'm, I'm cracking myself up. All right, so he ran gloriously from 1878 to 1903, so 25 years. He published 88 encyclicals. Let's go. We're just trying to say here that an encyclical is a big deal. It tends to be like, epical in tone, like in the world, and it's trying to address the whole world on an issue of universal concern.
Okay. So then, what is that concern when it comes to Magnifica Humanitas? What we have here is a kind of Christian humanism in conversation with contemporary developments in technology and other things besides. The Holy Father is applying Catholic social teaching, which we'll define soon, to questions prompted by artificial intelligence. So, it is on his part a conscious contribution to Catholic social teaching, or to Catholic social doctrine.
You might be asking yourself, what is Catholic social doctrine? Great question. Well, we can root Catholic social doctrine in the scriptures, in the church's tradition, in the writings of the fathers and medieval theologians, and more modern and contemporary contributors to the tradition. It's the type of thing that saints and mystics, all Christian persons of all times and places have some share in. But we think about it especially as stemming from the publication of Rerum Novarum on May 15th, 1891. So that was during the reign of Leo XIII, and he was addressing himself specifically to the social question, or the worker question. So, with the rise of like the industrial revolution, capitalism, socialism, by way of response, Marxism, you know, communism, he addressed himself to the plight, especially of the worker.
Since Rerum Novarum, the Holy Father has often commented on this tradition, or he's made his contribution to this tradition. So you have documents which are published on the anniversary of Rerum Novarum, often enough at 10-year intervals. Rerum Novarum is 1891. Quadragesimo Anno is 1931, and then you have Mater et Magistra, 1961. Octogesima Adveniens in 1971, and the Laborum Exercens in 1981, and then Centesimus Annus in 1991. So this document is consciously written on May 15th, the same date on which Rerum Novarum was written, 135 years after the fact. So this is the 135th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, and Pope Leo XIV is marking it by this document, Magnifica Humanitas. And he says explicitly, "I therefore wish to add my own voice to this living tradition," that being the tradition of Catholic social doctrine.
Okay. So, what is he addressing himself to? He says he's addressing himself to the "new things," and that is a conscious call back to Rerum Novarum, which is speaking of the "new things." The new things being digitization, artificial intelligence, robotics.
Okay. So, with that basic vision, then, let's get into the details of the document. The document is divided into an introduction and a conclusion, which frame five chapters. So let's just bop through each and key points. Now, mind you, there's a lot of repetition in the document. So I'm going to kind of edit for repetition so that there's less in this here short exposition. But obviously, if you want to know the goods, then you should read the document. I don't know why I stressed those two words. Keep going, Father Gregory.
So, the introduction begins with two biblical images. The first being the Tower of Babel, and the other being the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah. So he writes, "Humanity created by God in all its grandeur, Magnifica Humanitas, 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." So he notes that in Babel, those architects, those builders, attempted to make a name for themselves, to guarantee stability for themselves, but they did so without reference to God. Whereas in the case of Jerusalem, rebuilt by Nehemiah, you have a community who is willing to fast, to pray, to intercede, to do what it takes to get in right relation to God, and to share the work committed to them, such that they can actually build a lasting city, one that leads to righteousness, or one in which righteousness can abide.
So there's a focus in the document on integral human development, which we've heard a lot about since Populorum Progressio, another document of Pope Paul VI published in 1967. And the idea here is that we're not going to make progress as a human community as a mere matter of course, or something that happens automatically or inexorably. So we have to be about the serious business of discernment. And we'll talk about further principles besides.
All right. So, technology itself needs to be judged. It needs to be regulated, and it needs to be used well, lest it dehumanize us. That's the basic concern here. So he talks about the contemporary setting as the kind of construction site of our time, where we seek to build this lasting city unto, yeah, the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
So then, Chapter One is entitled "A Dynamic Approach Faithful to the Gospel." Here you have commentary on how the church interacts with the modern world, or the contemporary world, and there's a sense of, you know, the contemporary world's competence, that the church doesn't want to involve herself in things for which she doesn't have competence. That's a poor formulation. Let me read you something: "A church that walks alongside humanity, recognizing the autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction between ecclesial and political communities." So you can think back traditionally to this two-sword theory, that the church has her authority, and that the state has her authority, and that there's meant to be a mutual enrichment of one and the other. So the church is meant to exercise a certain influence on society, not in that she was founded for that purpose, but in that she has this prophetic mission, and her testimony is addressed to society for its renewal, right? For its salvation. The church doesn't want to end up sounding anti-science, anti-progress, anti-world. So, there's some careful qualifications here in this first chapter.
And then we hear him describe Catholic social teaching, or Catholic social doctrine, not just a bunch of ad hoc pronouncements on this thing or that thing or the other thing, whether social or political or economic. Rather, he's going to direct our attention to the principles that guide the interpretation of events and sustain an evangelical understanding of what's happening now. He describes it as a foundation for collective discernment, a theology of communion in history. And then he'll go through a development of Catholic social teaching, and he'll focus on some of the documents that I already mentioned, and then pepper in further documents like non-anniversary documents, highlighting like Vatican II, so Gaudium et Spes, being big, Dignitatis Humanae, Populorum Progressio, which I made mention of. So there have been a number of documents, and we can think recently of Caritas in Veritate by Benedict XVI, Laudato Si' as conscious contributions to Catholic social doctrine.
Chapter 2 is entitled "Foundations and Principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church." We're going to treat the things which function after the manner of principles in Catholic social teaching, or Catholic social doctrine. A principle is just that from which something else flows in any way whatsoever. So, what we're talking about here is like the headwaters of Catholic social doctrine, which flow into the different currents of our contemporary lives. It refers first to the foundations, namely like the dignity of the human person, and then the value of human rights. And then it'll talk about the principles, there referring to the common good, subsidiarity, with mention of participation, solidarity. And then it picks out another one: social justice. So if you've read the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, you'll recognize this list. Typically, we'll go: dignity of the human person, common good, universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, participation, and solidarity. Those six come in for, uh, considerable commentary. But these other ones, they feature in. So, yeah, a somewhat novel arrangement, but no revolution happening here. Something in continuity with what has gone before.
When he talked about social justice in particular, he says, "Social justice is therefore characterized by the capacity of a social, economic, and political order to allow everyone, particularly the weakest, to live a truly dignified life without leaving anyone behind." He has in mind here the fact that you'll have structures of sin which crop up throughout our human history, which is to say, like, deeply, deeply unjust or problematic arrangements in society that need to be addressed. But we can't address them apart from personal conversion, working towards institutional change. So social justice in the church's understanding isn't like, you know, burn down society. It's not just a matter of institutional change. It's a matter of conversion, you know, personal conversion and communal conversion. And again, he'll mention here this promise of integral human development as both a duty and a right.
All right. So then, Chapter 3, which is kind of the heart of the matter, talks about "Technology and Dominance." It goes on to describe itself as "The Grandeur of Humanity in Light of the Promises of AI." So again, a largely positive vision in the sense that we're looking to the grandeur of humanity. We have in mind the dignity of the human person, rights and duties attended upon that dignity, the promise of humanity as it concerns, you know, like the glory of God and the salvation of souls. But there's also a somewhat negative vision in that we recognize that with these technological advances, our humanity is at risk, and that we lack the power to navigate these things when left to our own devices because we tend to be selfish, right? We tend to be bent in on ourselves.
So he alerts us to the kind of prevailing technocratic paradigm. When we begin to govern our lives on the logic of efficiency, control, and profit, there are going to be certain human factors which are left out of the equation, and we, as a result, will suffer. When technology becomes the standard, then it begins to dictate to us what matters, rather than having a sense of what matters and then employing the technology to the end of the upbuilding or the edification of the kingdom of God. So when the technology begins to dictate the terms, it's like, oh, we got to keep advancing the technology. We got to keep progressing with the technology, then we just become cogs in the machine, or cogs in the wheel. And then there's a real risk there of like exploitation, just being ground under, chewed up, and spit out.
So he alerts us to the fact that artificial intelligence can lead to the spreading of this technocratic paradigm. And as a result of which, it requires careful discernment on the part of us, the human community, its practitioners. We need to recognize that this tool, designed by us, shaped by us, programmed by us, is not necessarily neutral. All right? So, it can be programmed in one way or another, better ways or worse ways. It may bear the bias of those who program it. It can also kind of reflect back on us things that we need to be cognizant of. Like, if it makes life really easy, then we got to be cognizant of the fact that we're getting addicted to easy life. Or if it would seem to communicate in interpersonal terms, we need to be conscious of the fact that it's not a replacement for genuine interpersonal communion. So there's ways in which the, the tools themselves, uh, can lead to the undermining of our humanity, and we need to be cognizant of that.
So the document calls for responsibility, transparency, which is to say, like, what's actually going on here? You know, we have some sense as to the program, as to the algorithm, as to how, like, stochastic processes of machine learning work by back propagation, but a lot of it is obscure to us. So we need to invest, and we need to inquire, and we need to actually know what it is that we're dealing with. So he says, "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."
One thing that he says, uh, throughout the document is that we need to, quote unquote, "focus on disarmament," which is to say, we need to free this whole process from the appearance of competition, like armed competition. He'll write, "To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and opening it to discussion and debate. Therefore, making it human-friendly and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life."
There's a real drive to progress, or there's a real drive to improve the technology. And often enough, it's profit which is dictating that drive, or it's profit which is in fact driving that impetus. And we need to be conscious of the fact that, like, people are going to suffer as a result of our rapacious greed, or people are going to suffer as a result of the fact that we're not actually thinking about what the technology does to us, provided that we can control it, provided that we can manipulate it, provided that we ourselves can profit from it. So there's a real risk here of losing sight of the human factor to which he is directing our attention. We can't, kind of, in the process, enshrine an anti-human vision as to what constitutes human flourishing, because then we'd just be at cross-purposes with ourselves.
Also, there are certain assumptions too in this progressive narrative, that is to say, the narrative of progress, which seem to be anti-human, like this idea that you can eliminate weakness, or that you can eliminate uncertainty, or that you can exert total control, or you can bring about a time of bounty in which no one will want for anything. Like, a lot of this is end-times-esque, eschatological in its description. And the fact of the matter is that that's not what Christ did. Like, Christ entered our human condition. He himself had less. He experienced weakness. He suffered. He went through the anguish and agony of a life along the way. And he gave up control. He ceded control. So when the promise of AI advancement begins to sound anti-gospel, that should raise some, at least yellow flags, perhaps some red flags for us. We, as a human species, are not simply to be optimized or maximized. We're to be saved. So we need to be on the lookout for salvation.
So, in the context of this conversation, he'll talk also about transhumanism and posthumanism. This idea of like advanced humans or human-machine hybrids, but he'll say they effectively amount to an anti-humanism. We need to be willing to operate within limitations, to ourselves undergo the suffering which is just part and parcel of the human condition, but to bear it up with love, to transform it with love.
All right. So, Chapter 4, then, we are almost at the end, is about "Safeguarding Humanity at a Time of Transformation," subtitled "Truth, Work, and Freedom." Here we focus on the crisis of truth, the crisis of work, and the crisis of freedom. Basic idea is that truth is a common good, and so we should be good stewards of it. So we need to, like, build up an ecology of communication, be on the lookout for disinformation, especially problematic with non-symbolic AI, which is doing these statistical or probabilistic judgments. Um, so, you know, about hallucination and stuff like that, but also the way in which the data is marshaled isn't, yeah, it's the type of thing for which we need to be on the lookout, disinformation that is. So we need to work towards transparency, safeguard privacy, and then implement a kind of pedagogy or education in the way in which we utilize these tools, because if kids are exposed to them at a young age, they're just going to get eaten alive. So we need to be good stewards of the technology.
Then he'll talk about the value of work. So, obviously, you know, AI is putting a lot of people out of their jobs, or it's transforming the workplace. Whereas formerly you were a computer programmer, now you're a prompt engineer. So we need to recognize the right and the duty to work. Not in the sense that, like, we are all comrades in the communistic system, but in the sense that, like, work is a way in which we build out our human dignity. That is to say, it gives us the wherewithal to actually be about our human dignity. So we need to be conscious of the fact that AI can really deskill us. That is to say, we're going to lose certain human competences if we're not careful. So we should be using it in a way to refine our human agency, not replace our human agency.
The last then is "Protecting Freedom Against Dependencies and Commercialization." It alerts us to the fact of digital addiction, the way in which these technologies can exploit weakness and woundedness, the way in which we ourselves can be manipulated and controlled. So we need to be on the lookout, as a church, as believers, as people called to live and abide in the civilization of love, to break the chains of new forms of slavery which have cropped up as a result of this. He takes the opportunity to make a kind of examination of conscience on the part of the church as to the stances that it has and has not taken with respect to slavery. I encourage you to read that part.
All right. Last chapter, Chapter 5, "The Culture of Power and the Civilization of Love." Civilization of love. We get that language from St. John Paul II, Centesimus Annus. Basically, we have here on the surface of the earth an opportunity for encounter and mutual care. So, here he talks a lot about war, okay? And the way in which weapons can be made more deadly, lethal, potentially destructive by artificial intelligence. He writes, "AI can lower the threshold for the use of force, shield people from responsibility, and foster a culture in which the enemy is reduced to a statistic and the victim to collateral damage." So, we need to be on the lookout again against the normalization of war. He especially notes that there's this troubling revival of war as an instrument of international politics, not as a last resort in a defensive position. So it's like the limitations on war have been eroded. Peace seems more, he says, like a fragile interval between conflicts. So we need to use diplomacy. We need to use forgiveness, and AI can be deployed in the service of that, but it shouldn't be deployed in the service of prosecution of war, which will only incentivize it, especially when, you know, armaments stand to be purchased.
Okay. He'll also talk about the, uh, laws or autonomous weapon systems. There needs to be a clarification of human agency, because if war just gets quicker and impersonal, then it's going to get muddier and muddier and lethal and lethal. That's not a word. Okay. Here he'll talk a little bit about multilateralism, that we're not looking towards a common future. We're regressing as a global community in this regard. And then he'll alert us to the fact that political realism is not the way forward, in the sense that we can't settle for, like, merely armed equilibrium and deterrence. It's false to say that war is inevitable, because a spirit of resignation is inimical to the gospel. So he says peace is not naive. We need to recognize here an opportunity for personal and collective conversion. And he'll talk about the need to disarm words, build peace through justice, adopt the perspective of victims, cultivate a healthy realism, and revive dialogue and multilateralism.
The conclusion, he talks about the Incarnation. Christ took our flesh, our weak, our wounded human flesh. He lived our human life, and he did so in efficacious solidarity with us. He'll talk about the mystical body, how we're meant to be incorporated in an organic union in which we each play our role. And then he'll talk about the Blessed Virgin Mary as giving us a model of prayer.
So then he had comes back to that original image of the building site, right? So we're to be architects in the construction site of our time, building up walls for Jerusalem, not walls of war, but walls of peace, or which ensure lasting peace in the holy city which is bound ultimately for God Most High.
Let's say a word about how this document might be received. Obviously, people are going to be out there saying all manner of things. Can't see into the future, but these are some things that I anticipate might cause a little chatter. As to the first chapter, I think that some folks might say that it's too deferent to the world's competence, whereas other folks might say that it's too critical of the world's competence. This is a constant tension in the church's description of her relationship to the world, specifically the modern and contemporary world. And I think you see a tone shift in the last hundred years, where it's a little more stormy, and then it's a little more light-hearted. This document in general is pretty stormy, but it starts on a high note, or it starts on a kind of positive note as a way by which to say, "Hey, let's host a dialogue." So, we'll see how it goes.
And then with respect to the second chapter, here in enunciating the principles of Catholic social teaching, this idea of foundations and principles, I haven't encountered that previously in the tradition. Also, I made mention of the fact that when you list four, you typically go: dignity of human person, common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. Here we had that list of six broken up into foundations and then to principles, but instead of participation, which got mentioned apropos of subsidiarity, you had social justice. When people hear social justice, obviously they think lots of things. In the church's tradition, social justice really gets used beginning in the 1960s, and it kind of stands in for, at first, like our care for the common good, general justice, but then that gets taken up by solidarity, and then it comes to mean something like distributive justice. If you don't care about those things, or at least those definitions and concepts, don't worry. The fact of the matter is, I think that this is just a different way of setting forward the perennial teaching. But sometimes, you know, people are like, "Things have changed." So don't worry.
With respect to Chapter 3, here's one of my favorite words. There are going to be some people who say it's obscurantist, which is to say it's against progress or it's against learning. So this insistence throughout the document that we should judge, that we should regulate, that we should use well the technology into which we, whatever, initiate subsequent generations. I think they're going to be people who react strongly to that because they're like, "Bro, there's no way." Which maybe, as far as realpolitik goes, that's an accurate assessment of what's going to unfold. But this document is trying to hold off that type of cynicism at arm's length and inform people with a gospel message. Also, when it says, like, you know, there's got to be checks on the market. There are a lot of people out there who say you just have to let the market ride because it's the best way in which to increase wealth for all. But the church has always insisted, and you see this in St. John Paul II especially, Laborum Exercens, Solicitudo Rei Socialis, Centesimus Annus, that the market doesn't take into account all of the pertinent factors, and so we have to account for that.
With respect to Chapter 4, you know, the mention of deskilling. Some people are going to be probably critical about that because it's like, every time you develop a new technology, there's a kind of necessary deskilling. So when we went from like an oral culture to a written culture, obviously we lost some capacity for memory, but nevertheless, we got all these cool things that you get with a written culture, like civilization. So people just say, you know, deskilling is a necessary feature of progress. But I think here the, the document's insistence on principles for discernment is helpful. Like, what are we losing? What are we gaining? Are we refining human agency, or are we in fact replacing human agency?
With respect to the fifth, my suspicion is that some people are going to be critical of the way in which the document talks about the UN. So it talks about the UN in largely laudatory terms throughout the document. People are going to be like, "Wait, doesn't the UN support like abortion?" Which it definitely does. And there's one point at which the document acknowledges that the UN is not necessarily on the rightest of right paths, but its tone tends to be largely encouraging. I think it's a recognition that here's an effort to come together in a globalized economy, or in a globalized world. And it's, it's an effort. Obviously, it's a very imperfect effort. So, I think we should take it in that spirit.
Okay. So let's bop to my three favorite things now from the document. One thing I think is interesting is that he's got a citation from Pope Francis, which we've seen a few times in Francis's pontificate. Namely, that "time is greater than space." I love this one. So you read in Lumen Fidei, "Time is always much greater than space. Space hardens processes, whereas time propels towards the future and encourages us to go forward in hope." And a lot of people were like, "What does this mean?" So Pope Francis added it into Evangelii Gaudium and to Laudato Si'. There you have more in the way of explanation, but check it out. It's back, baby. It is decidedly back in Magnificas. There we have mentioned, uh, "What matters most is not occupying positions of power, defending cultural strongholds, but initiating good processes, enabling them to mature. In this way, the truth of the gospel is not imposed from above, but grows over time within the concrete interweaving of lives, communities, and cultures." Basic idea there is like, time gives us scope to progress as a community. And so it doesn't entail so much power playing or dialectical back-and-forth. Rather, it's the type of thing for which we, as a human community, need to be patient and persevering. So, party on. Time is greater than space.
Next, you might be asking yourself, how many times was Thomas Aquinas cited? If you read the document about the Blessed Virgin Mary, *Mulieris Dignitatem*, it was a doctrinal note from the DDF. He was cited there like 29 times. So I was asking myself, are all subsequent publications from the Holy See going to be 16th St. St. Thomas Aquinas here? He's only cited twice. I know you're disappointed. I am. But alas, we're going to have to console ourselves with the recognition that the point of a papal encyclical is not citing St. Thomas Aquinas. Darn.
All right. And then here's my favorite line from the whole document, which involves a quotation from J.R.R. Tolkien. It begins with J.R.R. and then it ends with Pope Leo XIV. "It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." Pope Leo XIV continues, "The civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization." For this reason, it is worthwhile pausing to reflect on some aspects of how each of us, in our own way, can cooperate in building the civilization of love. The thing that's beautiful about this passage is that it speaks to Christian hope. And the idea here is that hope is the type of thing which transforms the individual within the setting of the community. So it's not a mere matter of world historical processes over which we have no control. It's a matter of our stance, our disposition towards this modern world and towards our contemporaries. And the question is whether or not we will do what lies within us, as God gives us grace, to build something beautiful, something wonderful, even if small, even if modest. Nevertheless, God has given us a certain competence over our own deeds and sufferings, so that we can bear it up unto him, so that we can be of genuine service to the human community. Not as if we were going to save the world, but so that we can be, within the setting of this present evil age, *levain* in the dough. So your efforts at prayer, at sacramental life, at penance, that is to say, self-denial, mortification, especially when it comes to digital things, at friendship, at building up genuine interpersonal communion, real community in the presence of those whom you love, at service of the material poor, at study of the faith, of plunging yourself in the social doctrine of the church, can actually work towards building up a civilization of love, humanizing the technologies which we have at our disposal, and making key judgments as to whether or not they have a place in this, that, or the other sector of our lives.
So I encourage you to read Magnifica Humanitas so that we together, as a church, can profit from its insights and be about a common project working towards the future in which the grandeur of humanity, as called to the glory of God and the salvation which he has in store, is fully realized. Cheers.