EPISTLES

When I first opened Magnifica Humanitas, I immediately understood what Pope Leo XIV was trying to do. This is his first encyclical, written about protecting the human person in the age of artificial intelligence. He presents our time as a major turning point. Humanity can either build a future without God, like Babel, or rebuild society with God, like Jerusalem.

The whole document carries that sense of urgency. It is not only about machines and technology. It is about what kind of people we will become while creating and using these technologies. The Pope even describes our age as the “res novae of our time” and calls humanity to the “pressing duty to remain profoundly human” (§15). These phrases already show the direction of the entire encyclical.

Pope Leo XIV signed the encyclical on the anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, almost as if he is saying: “The Church did not stay silent when factories changed the world, and she cannot stay silent now that AI is changing the world.” This connection is very important. The Pope presents Catholic social teaching as a living body of wisdom that gives principles, guidance, and moral direction while also engaging with science and modern developments. At the same time, because the document relies heavily on recent Church teachings, it often sounds very similar to the style and language of Pope Francis—especially in its focus on dialogue, listening, and discernment. In fact, Pope Francis’ name appears more often in the document than the topic itself, artificial intelligence. Because of this, I often feel that Magnifica Humanitas was written by Pope Leo XIV, but with the mind of Pope Francis.

Because of this, I find myself holding two thoughts at the same time. On one hand, I believe Magnifica Humanitas is a good and timely document. It strongly defends human dignity, the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, truth in public life, and the dignity of work—areas where AI can slowly weaken the human person. On the other hand, from my perspective, the document focuses more on social issues, systems, and human rights than on God, grace, conversion, and the salvation of souls. The encyclical does speak about Christ and says that humanity is understood fully “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh” (§1), but overall the document returns more often to social teaching and human dignity than to eternity and holiness.

One helpful way to understand where the Pope drew inspiration is by looking at the people and sources he quoted. Ranked by frequency, they are: Francis (71), Pope John Paul II (42), Second Vatican Council (26), Leo XIV (23), Pope Benedict XVI (19), Pope Paul VI (15), Augustine of Hippo (4), Pope Pius XII (4), Leo XIII (3), Pope John XXIII (3), Thomas Aquinas (3), Pierre de Bérulle (2), and then with one reference each: Romano Guardini, Viktor Frankl, Hannah Arendt, Plato, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Papal Bulls, United Nations, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Giorgio La Pira. I want to reflect on each of these because together they shape the tone, priorities, and limits of the encyclical.

Pope Francis, the most quoted source, gives much of the document its pastoral tone. When Leo XIV says the Church must be “listening to scientific research” and encouraging “a serious and honest debate among experts” (§23), he sounds very similar to Francis’s emphasis on dialogue and discernment. The encyclical repeatedly insists that technology is never neutral and must be judged morally according to the people who design, finance, regulate, and use it. This influence gives the document its strong focus on shared responsibility, listening, dialogue, and cooperation with all people. This is one of the document’s strengths because it treats AI not as a topic only for experts, but as a moral issue that affects all humanity. The influence is so strong that at times the encyclical feels less like a completely new direction and more like a continuation of Francis’s vision applied to artificial intelligence.

Pope John Paul II, the second most quoted source, gives the encyclical much of its understanding of the human person. Leo XIV speaks about how the Church welcomes “the contributions of the social sciences” that help her understand the human condition (§23). The repeated discussions about work, exploitation, freedom, and the danger of reducing people into data strongly reflect John Paul II’s belief that modern society often struggles with understanding what the human person truly is. His influence helps the Pope present AI first as a human issue, not simply a technological one.

Second Vatican Council, the third most quoted source, gives the encyclical confidence in engaging the modern world. Leo XIV writes that the Church must “listen to and distinguish the many voices of our times” and “interpret them in the light of God’s word” (§22). The document also speaks positively about the “autonomy of earthly realities” (§22). These passages clearly echo the language and spirit of Gaudium et Spes. This explains why the encyclical comfortably speaks about global institutions, science, and non-Catholic thinkers. It reflects the council’s belief that the Church should actively engage the modern world rather than withdraw from it.

Pope Leo XIV’s references to his own previous writings help establish continuity within his pontificate. Through repeated themes such as “remaining human,” “building for the common good,” and the “construction site of our time,” he is slowly developing his own vocabulary and pastoral style. Yet even here, the language and priorities often remain close to the tone established by Pope Francis, especially in the way social concerns are framed.

Pope Benedict XVI contributes a strong focus on truth and morality. Entire sections of the encyclical discuss “Truth as a common good” and the relationship between “truth and democracy.” Benedict often taught that charity without truth becomes empty emotion, while truth without charity becomes cold and harsh. This concern appears clearly in the encyclical’s warnings against misinformation, manipulation, and reducing morality to efficiency or usefulness. Benedict’s influence helps keep the document grounded in objective moral truth rather than pure practicality.

Pope Paul VI contributes the idea of “integral human development,” which appears directly in the encyclical itself. Leo XIV speaks about “the development of every human being” (§2) and repeatedly warns that technological progress must never leave people behind. This is very much the language of Paul VI’s social teaching. It is one reason why the encyclical feels heavily focused on social doctrine, public structures, and human development.

Saint Augustine of Hippo acts as a spiritual balance within the encyclical. Leo XIV quotes Augustine’s famous line that “our heart is restless until it rests in you” (§11). Augustine’s deeper influence comes from the encyclical’s imagery of Babel and Jerusalem, which strongly reflects Augustine’s contrast between the City of God and the city of man. The chapter titled “Two cities and two loves” makes this connection even clearer. Augustine reminds readers that society cannot truly flourish without God.

Pope Pius XII strengthens the document by showing that Catholic social teaching has long been an important part of the Church’s mission. Leo XIV explains that the Church has “progressively developed her Social Doctrine” and describes it as “a wise patrimony” (§24). This matters because many people criticize social encyclicals for being too worldly. Leo XIV answers this criticism by arguing that the Gospel cannot ignore the real struggles and conditions of human life.

Pope Leo XIII is especially important symbolically. Even though he is not quoted as often, he is the reason the encyclical presents itself as a new Rerum Novarum moment. By speaking about the “res novae of our time,” Leo XIV clearly wants to present AI as today’s equivalent of the Industrial Revolution. Just as the Church responded to the social crisis caused by factories and industrial capitalism, she must now respond to the AI revolution.

Pope John XXIII strengthens the encyclical’s focus on peace, diplomacy, and international order. Entire sections discuss “the crisis of multilateralism” and the need for cooperation between nations. This becomes especially important when the encyclical discusses AI’s influence on warfare, surveillance, and global politics. The tone here strongly resembles the international concerns of Pacem in Terris.

Thomas Aquinas contributes the classic Catholic belief that morality is based on objective truth and natural law. Leo XIV reminds readers that humanity “surpasses the capacity of human nature” and that there remains “an infinite distance” between humanity and God (§127). This language reflects Thomistic theology and pushes back against modern tendencies to treat ethics as flexible or negotiable. Aquinas helps ground the document in permanent moral realities.

Pierre de Bérulle contributes a Christ-centered understanding of humanity. The encyclical repeatedly returns to the mystery of the Incarnation and insists that humanity is fully understood only through Christ. The conclusion itself is built around the theme “The Word became flesh.” This reminds readers that human dignity ultimately comes not from politics or technology, but from the Incarnation itself.

Romano Guardini helps the Pope speak about the deeper spiritual crisis of modern society. The encyclical discusses “the technocratic paradigm and digital power” and repeatedly warns that technology can reshape not only what we do, but how we understand ourselves. This concern strongly resembles Guardini’s warnings about technological domination and the spiritual emptiness of modern society.

Viktor Frankl contributes the idea of meaning. Leo XIV warns that true fulfillment is not found by “eliminating weakness” (§12). In a world obsessed with efficiency, optimization, and productivity, the encyclical insists that suffering, truth, and love still matter deeply. This reflects Frankl’s belief that meaning cannot be replaced by comfort or technology.

Hannah Arendt appears mainly through the encyclical’s concern for propaganda, manipulation, and the collapse of truth in society. Sections discussing “communication and the collective imagination” and “truth and democracy” strongly echo Arendt’s warnings about mass manipulation and ideological control. The Pope is clearly concerned that AI could deepen confusion and weaken society’s relationship with truth.

Plato represents the timeless belief that truth matters and that societies collapse when truth becomes negotiable. The encyclical’s repeated concern for truth as a common good reflects this classical philosophical tradition.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops represents the practical application of Church teaching in local situations. Leo XIV speaks about the need to “translate these standards into practices” (§14), reflecting the practical and pastoral application often found in episcopal conference documents.

The references to Papal Bulls show the encyclical’s willingness to acknowledge moments in history when political or economic pressures weakened moral judgment. This serves as a warning that modern society can also justify moral compromise in the name of necessity or progress.

The United Nations citation reflects Leo XIV’s desire to speak within global discussions about peace, human dignity, and human rights. The encyclical repeatedly speaks about “human dignity, justice and fraternity” (§1) while encouraging international cooperation in the face of technological change.

J. R. R. Tolkien contributes moral imagination. The encyclical warns against humanity becoming “lords of towers destined for ruin” (§16), imagery that strongly fits Tolkien’s distrust of power and domination. The Babel symbolism throughout the document reflects the danger of humanity seeking unlimited control without God.

Finally, Giorgio La Pira represents the idea that holiness and public service can exist together. Leo XIV directly addresses “scientists and researchers, entrepreneurs and workers, educators and legislators” (§13), calling them to moral responsibility. In a world where AI governance matters greatly, La Pira becomes an example of a Catholic who took politics seriously without losing his faith.

After looking at all these influences, I understand more clearly why the encyclical feels both strong and incomplete. Its strength comes from the many voices supporting it and helping it address the challenges of modern society. But in my personal view, its weakness is that it often remains focused on dignity, rights, systems, and social teaching rather than lifting the reader more directly toward God, holiness, and the salvation of souls. The Pope does warn against building society without God, and he roots human dignity in Christ, but the document still spends more time discussing structures and ethics than sanctity and conversion. In the end, I come away thinking that Magnifica Humanitas carries the signature of Pope Leo XIV, but the intellectual and pastoral spirit behind much of it still belongs to Pope Francis.