“Magnifica Humanitas” – Chapter 3
This is the fourth article in a series on Pope Leo XIV’s new encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas The first article was a general commentary on the encyclical. The second article discussed the introduction and chapter one in more detail. The third article discussed chapter 2, “Foundations and Principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church.” Today’s article will discuss chapter 3, “Technology and Dominance: The Grandeur of Humanity in Light of the Promises of AI.”
As he begins chapter three of Magnifica Humanitas,, Pope Leo XIV recalls his earlier comparison of building a new Tower of Babel to the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Nehemiah 2-6. The construction of a new tower reflects a collective effort that “follows a plan that dominates and ultimately dehumanizes” while the reconstruction of Jerusalem symbolizes a “project of shared responsibility” (90). As Pope Leo begins to specifically discuss artificial intelligence (AI), he uses this comparison to propose a question concerning AI, “What are we building?” (90). As Christians we can choose which projects we work on and how to do so maintaining the dignity of humanity (Pope Leo, 90).
Pope Leo then expresses his certainty that while the truth of the gospel does not change, the way we live it out changes as the world changes. We must consider the “signs of times” “enlightened by God’s Word (91). It is crucial that we understand that new technology does not change the gospel. It is only how we apply the gospel that changes. The world does not determine our faith. Technology continues to develop and with that development comes new power. Yet, as Pope Leo writes, “More power does not necessarily imply something better” (93). Here, Pope Leo points us to the words of Romane Guardini who writes “Contemporary man has not been trained to use power well” (93). If we do not constantly evaluate technological growth, it takes over us before we have a chance to develop proper ethics for its use. We can become a victim of our own achievements (see Pope Leo, 94). Pope Leo points us back to Pope St. Paul VI who wrote “the most extraordinary scientific progress, the most astounding technical feats and the most amazing economic growth, unless accompanied by moral and social progress, will in the long run go against man” (Pope Leo, 94, quoted form St. Paul VI, Address on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the FAO (November 16, 1970).
In my own words, if we are not careful, technological growth will lead us to lose our humanity. We must ask ourselves who is in control. Pope Leo says that with technological growth, the power no longer rests “with states, but with major economic and technological actors” that “evade public oversight” (95).
It is hard to develop proper safeguards for what we do not wholly understand. Does anyone really completely understand AI? It is constantly changing and we are not all experts in AI (see Pope Leo, 98).
One might suggest we let AI take the place of humans in repetitive work. Here Pope Leo reminds that AI merely imitates human intelligence with regards to data processing but AI does not experience what happens as human beings do. It does not feel joy or pain. It does not love and it does not have a moral conscience. AI can simulate empathy but it does not have empathy (Pope Leo, 99). I think here of the reports of chatbots designed to provide support suggesting a person commit suicide. At best, this is the same misguided mercy ascribed to assisted suicide.
Pope Leo is careful to point out that AI is not neutral or without bias as some people suggest. It carries the assumptions and biases of its creators (100).
AI is not without its negative elements. Pope Leo writes that AI requires “enormous amounts of energy and water, significantly influencing carbon dioxide emissions, and places heavy demands on natural resources” (101). Is it worth it? Is there a better way?
The use of AI can affect people’s lives and their “rights, opportunities, status and freedom” as well as their own “important and sensitive decisions” (102). Unchecked, AI can hurt more than it improves. It can lead us to lose our humanity.
Thus, Pope Leo calls for ethical examination of AI for “what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it” (104).
Pope Leo also puts forth the question of accountability. Who is responsible for decisions made by or through AI, and any harm caused (105)? Do these considerations not warrant a slower pace in the development of AI? It is not just Pope asking this.
As I wrote in my second article on Magnifica Humanitas, “Even Jack Clark, co-founder of Anthropic and Marina Favora, head of the Anthropic Institute, recently wrote calling to slow down the development of AI (see “Anthropic urges ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ of AI development after Leo’s encyclical” by Tyler Arnold. 6/5/26. Catholic News Agency. https://www.ewtnnews.com/world/us/anthropic-ai-warning).”
It is with this in mind that Pope Leo calls for disarming AI. He explains, “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” (110, emphasis added). The time to begin this evaluation has already come for, as Pope Leo writes, “AI is already an environment in which we are immersed” (110).
Pope Leo expresses that AI and the digital revolution, unchecked, threaten “to normalize an anti-human vision” (112) that can lead human beings “to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion” (112, emphasis added).
Here Pope Leo calls us to consider transhumanism and posthumanism (115ff) and the quest by some for “an “enhanced human being” or “human-machine hybrid”” (115). If you are unfamiliar with transhumanism or posthumanism, you are not alone. I only learned of these terms recently and have not found good in them.
Pope Leo describes transhumanism as envisioning “the enhancements of human beings through the technologies – such as biomedicine, body engineering, devices, and algorithms – with the aim of increasing performance and capabilities” (116). Do these things really enhance us and/our humanity or do they lead us away from our humanity?
Is posthumanism any better? Pope Leo writes of posthumanism, “it challenges anthropocentrism and envisions a hybridization of human beings, machines, and the environment, even anticipating a threshold where humanity surpasses itself in a new evolutionary state” (116). The question for us to consider in light of God’s Word is what it means for humanity to surpass itself.
Posthumanism and transhumanism can lead to human beings being measured solely by what they can do. This could lead to some human beings being considered less valuable than others. Our humanity is not defined by what we can do (see Pope Leo, 117). Our humanity is based on the fact that we are created in the image of God and that humanity is redeemed of its sins by the Incarnation of Jesus the Son of God who is crucified to redeem us from our sins. If humanity is not good by its nature, then Jesus would not have become human.
Pope Leo challenges us to realize that what seems to limit us does not actually limit us but rather helps us realize who we are in this world in our finitude in contrast to what we will become in Heaven (118ff) when we shall be like our Lord (see 1 John 3:1-3).
Some people may see the efforts of transhumanism and posthumanism as a step towards eliminating suffering. Here Pope Leo writes, “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…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” (120. For a Catholic understanding of suffering, please see Pope St. John Paul II’s apostolic letter, Salvifici Doloris On the Christian Meaning of Suffering (February 11, 1984. Boston: Pauline Books & Media. 1984.) and my reflection “Finding Value in Suffering”).
Pope Leo reminds us, “Moral progress almost always unfolds through a long and demanding journey, often marked by setbacks” (123). Moral progress takes effort and requires sacrifice, meaning we do not get everything we want. Are we willing to make the effort or do we see AI as the easy way out?
Is Pope Leo against the development of AI? He writes, “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” (126).
When we speak of becoming more than human we must consider what this means. Pope Leo writes, “For centuries, the Christian tradition has maintained that human beings are not confined by the boundaries of their own nature; rather, they are called to self-transcendence, not through an escape from reality or a contempt for their limitations, but through their fulfillment in love” (127). Without love, we are not created in the image of God for God is love (see 1 John 4:16). Self-transcendence does not call us to reject our humanity. Self-transcendence calls us to see ourselves for who we really are as humans creating in the image of God.
I will conclude until my next article with these words from Pope Leo, “Christian humanism does not reject science or technology, but embraces them with gratitude and realism, and grounds them within a higher vocation” (129).
Peace,
Fr. Jeff