Ingeborg G. Gabriel is a professor emerita at the University of Vienna.
This post is a part of our series on Magnifica Humanitas.
When Pope Leo XIV announced his name, many began speculating what the clear reference to Pope Leo XIII could mean for his pontificate. The former Leo led the Catholic Church for a quarter of a century (1878–1903), steering a course less anti-modern than that of his predecessors but still quite imperial. Why would a US American (born in 1955) want to be associated with him? The current Pope Leo’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas (MH), as a kind of governmental declaration, provides an initial answer to this question. With the subtitle Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence, it constitutes a highly creative relecture of the former Pope’s Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor (1891).
Besides an extensive chapter on ethics in the age of AI, the approximately 100-page text of Magnifica Humanitasincludes a comprehensive review of Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD), the term used by the Pope (MH, paras. 46–89). By including this review, he surmounts the negative connotation of “doctrine” by simply interpreting it as the “shared discernment of the Church” (MH, paras. 6, 27). This is symptomatic of other reinterpretations and the successful attempt to present teachings of the Catholic magisterium on social issues in new garb that takes into account developments and insights of social sciences and social theory of the past 135 years. The first two chapters constitute a sort of summa of this updated CSD. The question of AI then is treated in depth in chapter 3 (MH, paras. 90–130), which carries the subtitle “On Technology and Dominance.” In chapter 4 the Pope concretizes the ethical issues raised by AI in the areas of truth, work, and freedom. Chapter 5 reiterates the opposition of two different ways into the future, presented in the introduction as Babel, a culture of power, and Jerusalem, a civilization of love. He thus takes up the image of the two cities central to the spirituality of St. Augustine, which the Pope shares.
The above shows the encyclical is admirably well structured, with images running throughout and themes being introduced and later reintroduced in other contexts in a nearly playful way. Thus, when Leo recommends the spirituality of “a ‘wise architect’ who, driven by hope for the Kingdom of God, is committed to building the world for the common good (cf. 1 Cor 3:10),” this same descriptor applies equally to the text (MH, para. 236). Invoking the biblical images of Babel and Jerusalem, the Pope uses metaphor to describe options in our age of transition. Babel fails because its builders seek their own power and want to make a name for themselves by creating “a single language, a single technology, a single direction” (MH, para. 7). In contrast, Jerusalem at the time of Nehemia’s return is a difficult place but succeeds in rebuilding through cooperation and the acknowledgement of diversity (MH, para. 8). This leads to the central question: How can what the Pope aptly calls the “Babel Syndrome” that sacrifices the weak for profit and only serves the few be overcome through human interaction (MH, para. 10)?
The history of CSD is then recapitulated in a way that demonstrates it is to be regarded as a dynamic interpretation of the Gospel (and not a static philosophy). Former social encyclicals are judged with regard to their contribution to understanding the present social and political situation. Not without reason the Pope considers it necessary to assert at length (MH, paras. 18–23) the Church’s right to speak up in public affairs when “the dignity of our brothers and sisters is violated, when politics fails to address the tragedies of humanity, when the economy turns against the person or science oversteps the limits of its competence” (MH, para. 27). In these cases and others she “must make her voice heard, not in order to dominate, but to promote communion” (id.).
The second chapter sets the stage with reflections on the human person (MH, paras. 48–53) and human rights (paras. 54–58). This parallelism is exceptional for two reasons: human rights have been recognized and promoted by the Catholic Church, but they have been integrated in CSD only reluctantly. During the past decades human rights even came under attack from various sides, political but also ecclesial. Pope Leo warns of “a purely formal” adherence while letting them be eroded by technological progress and the “inability to recognize the foundation of their universality” that “‘sustain[s] our decisions and our laws.’” (MH, para. 56, quoting Pope Francis). With this the Pope points to a central weakness of the international system that relates to a certain ineffectiveness of human rights–based regimes, nationally and internationally, as well as to double standards.
The passages on CSD principles that follow (MH, paras. 59–81) contain creative reinterpretations of familiar principles, which require closer examination, and add the principle of “the universal destination of goods” and of social justice. The outlined principles are by no means static but action oriented and need permanent transformation according to the needs of the time.
An extended reflection on the common good (MH, paras. 59–64) always pairs that principle with human dignity, to avoid a collectivist or conservative misuse, whereby its international dimension is stressed. The insertion “Moreover, any attempt or plan to eliminate or subjugate a nation is gravely immoral and therefore unacceptable” (MH, para. 64) points to Ukraine. The right to the universal destination of goods (MH, paras. 65–67) frames a right to private property that carries social responsibility. Here and elsewhere an anti-ideological twist appears in Magnifica Humanitas. Thus, in a paragraph on the principle of subsidiarity, the Pope warns against a misuse common in conservative circles: “Subsidiarity does not justify the State’s disengagement, but rather guides its actions” (MH, para. 70). The reflections on the principles of social justice and solidarity contain a passage on restorative justice and on colonialism (MH, para. 79), which up to now are more or less a blind spot in CSD.
Regrettable, however, is that sustainability does not figure as a principle (as it often has in recent Catholic teaching). The central issue of Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ plays a marginal role in Magnifica Humanitas and is mentioned only in connection with ecological problems AI causes. Either ecology is of no particular concern for the Pope or he avoids opening another front in his first encyclical. The same holds true for the question of women and their rights, though individual Catholic women and their importance for the work of the Church are mentioned. Rather new is that CSD principles are called an “examen for the church” (MH, paras. 86–89), implying that they also apply to ecclesial structures, which might be a central topic for the next stage of the synodal process.[1]
The main topic of the encyclical, artificial intelligence, is treated in chapter 3 as a major anthropological theme. AI cannot be morally neutral since it is a creation of human beings, who are imperfect and have their prejudices. Thus, it requires not only regulation but also reflection on relevant power structures and the grave possibilities of its misuse. Moreover, AI threatens to normalize an anti-human vision of the human being, in which persons are considered merely functions, not faces (MH, paras. 112, 114). This trans- and post-humanism threatens to dehumanize humanity (MH, para.115).
In contrast, to safeguard humanity, Christian humanism must ground technology in a much more comprehensive view of the human person and the person’s singular vocation in this world. How does AI affect truth (seen as a common good), jobs, and with them human freedom? When The Economist warns of a “job apocalypse,” these threats are real. AI thus forces us to rethink social and political structures, far beyond simple regulation of its technologies, to avoid a brutal culture of mere power. How to create a civilization of love is thus the following the main question.
The encyclical concludes with reflections on theology and “Eucharistic spirituality,” which are “to nurture the struggle for a more humane world with just institutions, credible witnesses and daily fidelity that sustain hope and provide a direction for technological progress” (MH, para. 126).
It is impossible to review Magnifica Humanitas in a way that does justice to this lengthy and sophisticated document. It is written clearly with a good portion of irony. Is it not even provocative to speak of the magnificence of humanity in these times? At the same time the encyclical manages to strike a fine balance between serious warnings and the encouragement that it is possible to build a global city in which “the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible” (MH, para. 1).
Magnifica Humanitas also stirs the by-no-means-only-theoretical questions: What does it really mean to be human? What makes a human being different from a machine, particularly one that can imitate human intelligence? In constructing a society, how do we establish “standards for discernment” for safeguarding “the dignity of the human person, the universal destination of goods . . . [and] care for our common home and peace?” How do we carry out the requisite “responsible planning, the assessment of human and social impact, the inclusion of the most vulnerable, the promotion of digital literacy and guiding research and industry toward justice and peace” (MH, para. 14)? Summing up: The encyclical constitutes a profound text and an important contribution of the Catholic Church to ongoing debates. It merits careful reading and should lead to public discussions which attempt to concretize the implications AI has in different contexts as well as in different areas of our lives and how we can deal with it in ways that further and not diminish the dignity of humans worldwide.
Reference:
[1] See my reflections in Ingeborg Gabriel, “A Treasure in Earthen Vessels”: How Catholic Social Teaching Can Inspire the Synodal Process, 18(2) ASIAN HORIZONS 221–34 (2024).