{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiatlg6tpu4oajpkts6hktwsruydrfrnkhr3lhhnfdabddfskyvknm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:rzxm2r7lop5f2v5ssp345vgu/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmztlv2qviq2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreicogx26uswxwdkqjyt6lg6vf7rnk3aibqytjl567m7lbm7phnqcma"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 1038022
  },
  "path": "/2026/05/pope-leos-missed-opportunity-in-magnifica-humanitas/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-29T22:29:46.000Z",
  "site": "https://providencemag.com",
  "tags": [
    "Catholic Church",
    "Christian Ethics",
    "The Latest",
    "George Weigel",
    "Yuval Levin"
  ],
  "textContent": "If Catholic social thought (CST) is to be an instrument of evangelization, as the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, citing _Centesimus Annus, 54_ says, then surely it must place “the human person and society in relationship with the light of the Gospel.” This cannot be done without reference to man’s sinful nature. Coherent notions of dignity, justice, social concerns, and all the rest of it cannot be articulated rightly and realistically without contending with who we are as humans.\n\nPope Leo XIV’s first encyclical _Magnifica Humanitas_ is billed as the “AI encyclical” but it is much more than that.\n\nCST begins with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical _Rerum Novarum_ (“Of New Things,” 1891). One can think of CST as principles for the application of the Gospel to social concerns in the modern world. The popes since that time have contributed to this corpus, as each era poses new challenges. As the years passed and new technologies appeared, the popes in “continuity and renewal,” (_Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 3_) have added to this teaching by reminding the world of the dignity of the human person and what must be done to advance a world conducive to human flourishing.\n\nFor example, in _Rerum Novarum_ , Pope Leo XIII addressed not only the conflict between labor and capital in the Industrial Revolution, but also refuted socialists who were “working on the poor man’s envy of the rich.” Their solutions, Leo XIII wrote, would be more “unjust” to the workers, they would “distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.” Most importantly, “the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice,” he wrote. And so, taking on the changed societal structure and the dehumanized workers, he gave the Church a way to correct the dysfunctions and harms of that day. He did this in the light of the reality of the human condition:\n\n> Pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must accompany man so long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity; let them strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently—who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment—they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present. Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is, and at the same time to seek elsewhere, as We have said, for the solace to its troubles. (18)\n\nIn his historical review, Pope Leo recounts each of the encyclicals that have contributed to this corpus. Notably absent, however, is Pope Paul VI’s _Humanae Vitae_.\n\nThe second chapter of Pope Leo’s encyclical is a combination of theological anthropology and an explanation of the principles of Catholic social thought: the dignity of the human person, the common good, the common destination of goods, solidarity, subsidiarity, and the preferential option for the poor. _Magnifica Humanitas_ gives a different set, and with this new set, Pope Leo XIV has added the principle of “social justice.” The principles of CST according to _Magnifica Humanitas_ are now: the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity, and social justice. Under this newly-added principle of social justice he subsumes the preferential option for the poor, (defined by Pope John Paul II as “a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity” _Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,_ _42_). He adds technological disadvantages and the treatment of migrants and refugees as elements and “litmus tests” of social justice.\n\nIn a letter dated Saturday 4, December 2004, Pope John Paul II wrote to the _Vatican Foundation Centesimus Annus Pro Pontifice_ , a group he had created in 1993: “It is therefore truly important to have a precise, motivated and complete approach to making the Church’s social teaching known so as to avoid stressing any one aspect more than another, swayed by preconceived emotions or views, thus losing sight of its integral structure and using it _instrumentally_.”\n\nChapter two does a few subtle things: First, it reclassifies what have been known as “principles” into two categories, what the pope now calls _foundations_ and _principles._ He moves the _principle_ of human dignity to what is now called a _foundation_ of CST. In the _foundations_ he also includes “the image of the Triune God,” and “the supreme value of human rights.” There is no mention of the Fall, original sin, or man’s sinful nature, giving us an unrealistically high view of man. Second, it ensconces “social justice” as a _principle_ of Catholic social thought moving forward. This label, and all it entails, historically has been attached to the idea of class struggle.\n\n_Magnifica Humanitas_ then moves to a discussion of the recent technological developments, particularly artificial intelligence. My two favorite analyses from this angle are by my Ethics and Public Policy Center colleague, George Weigel, and AEI’s Yuval Levin.\n\nThroughout the encyclical there are discussions of how corrupting, exploitative, degrading, and unjust modern “systems,” “structures,” “mechanisms,” are, especially to the poor and migrants, which he says are the “cornerstone” of the Gospel. He writes,\n\n> Like Nehemiah, let us pray, plan wisely and work perseveringly, placing God at the forefront of our actions and the human person at the center of our choices. Thus, the “rejected stones” — the poor, the sick, the migrants and the least among us — will become the cornerstone, and a solid, welcoming common home will emerge on the earth, where love and faithfulness will finally meet, and righteousness and peace will embrace. (16)\n\nHuman sin in _Magnifica Humanitas_ seems collective, outside the control of man, and certainly not the responsibility of the poor, the vulnerable, migrants, etc. Even the ever optimistic John XXIII, who thought the nations could join together in a new global order, ushering in peace on earth, pointed out—although still setting the root of the sin outside of man—the racism of minorities in _Pacem in Terris_ (97).\n\nThis is not to say there are not structures of sin (there are), but those come from people. As Pope John Paul II wrote in _Sollicitudo Rei Socialis_ :\n\n> If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of “structures of sin,” which, as I stated in my Apostolic Exhortation _Reconciliatio et Paenitentia_ , are rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people’s behavior.\n\nOur problem today is not that our view of man is too low, but that it is too high. An encyclical praising humanity while decrying “systems that produce inequality” and “structures of sins” advances a conception of man as essentially good and untarnished by sin. If man sins, it is due to the society and conditions around him—a perspective directly contrary to the biblical view which says man rebelled against God, fell from grace, and from Adam we inherit original sin, and that we participate in acts of sin.\n\nEvery single person on the planet who ever was, is, or will be, is fallen and sinful. The poor, migrants, and refugees are not just objects that passively have things done _to them_ ; they are volitional, accountable human beings just like the rest of us. They are not sinless because they are poor, migrants, or refugees.\n\nSt. Paul wrote in Romans 3:10-12:\n\n> There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.\n\nPsalm 14: 2-3 says:\n\n> The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt There is none who does good, No, not one.\n\nNow, thanks be to God that He does not leave us in this state; He came and saved us. This is why _personal_ conviction of _personal_ sin is essential to declaring the Gospel. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking we are perfected—or would be—if it wasn’t for all those pesky “structures.”\n\n**THE ABSENCE OF**** _HUMANAE_**** _VITAE_****AND TURNING TOWARD “SOCIAL JUSTICE”**\n\nAs previously noted, absent from this document is any reference to _Humanae Vitae._ A missed opportunity, especially in our inverted times where men claim to be women and vice versa and where two men can exploit a woman and buy themselves a baby through surrogacy. The list of such degradations is long and dark; we live in a world where the “slippery slope” is more prophecy than fallacy, and if the Pope believes new technologies are morally fraught, a focus on how our personal decisions and use of technology could be sinful would be a welcome admonition.\n\n_Humanae Vitae,_ as Pope Paul VI wrote, deals with “new questions,” regarding the transmission of human life, and the rise of the new technology of contraceptive methods. Although unlike _Populorum Progressio_ he does not overtly situate it in the line of the “social encyclicals,” he is most definitely responding to the “new things” of that era, which were prompting questions about love; marriage; sexual relations; the dignity of husband and wife; the dignity of women in society; the family; contraception. Even though it is not normally listed as one of the social encyclicals, _Humanae Vitae_ is integral to the Church’s social doctrine, hence it was included in the _Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church._\n\nThe lack of any reference to _Humanae Vitae_ in _Magnifica Humanitas_ is significant—especially if Leo is attempting to further develop CST. This is unsurprisingly in line with the general turn of “social doctrine” being replaced by “social justice,” away from the overt moral theology that has historically been the language of CST. This is a grim development, since so much of our social problems are the effect of moral breakdown. The new technologies the Pope seeks to address have already been shown to be a new mode of sexual moral breakdown, with internet pornography rapidly adopting tools of artificial intelligence to enhance its ability to counterfeit sexual relations. When social questions are not placed within the Christian moral framing, they lose spiritual potency and become no different than a de-Christianized “social justice.” This was a missed opportunity for evangelization and moral clarity.\n\nI believe going forward from this encyclical many in the Catholic Church will set _Humanae Vitae_ outside of Catholic social thought, and therefore it will lose authority over how issues of marriage and family are resolved. It is the only encyclical within the constellation of social encyclicals that deals directly with human sexuality, which has been the object of the greatest spiritual and cultural attacks, and which have only accelerated in the age of the internet and artificial intelligence. There are spiritual and cultural elements in this world that would love nothing more than to see the Catholic Church de-emphasize sexual morality, and it would be tragic if this somehow indicates a readiness to surrender on these matters.\n\nThe majority of the world is outside the Christian framework utilized by _Magnifica Humanitas_. The audience of a papal encyclical obviously includes the Church, but it is also respected by the broader world. Every encyclical is an opportunity to preach the Gospel, to point out sin, and to call every last person on Earth to repent and receive the grace of God in forgiveness and union with Christ. The “new things” of artificial intelligence and associated technologies will undoubtedly present mankind with new temptations to new sins, and couching this hazard as primarily structural, merely a new facet of social justice, rather than personal, may leave believers and nonbelievers alike unprepared to fight these temptations. Man is magnificent, yet he is fallen as well. We will never realize our magnificence unless we are confronted with our fallenness.",
  "title": "Pope Leo’s Missed Opportunity in Magnifica Humanitas"
}