What Magnifica Humanitas Means for All of Us
By Dr. J. Luis Dizon
Recently, Pope Leo XIV released Magnifica Humanitas, his first papal encyclical. It focuses on the role of new technologies in our world today, chief of which is Artificial Intelligence (AI), and their impact on human dignity and the common good. This new encyclical builds on a longstanding tradition of Catholic Social Teaching, which encompasses politics, economics, the environment, and their relationship to the broader moral vision of the Church. This tradition begins with Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), to which Magnifica Humanitas pays homage and alludes, and is subsequently developed by such encyclicals as Quadragesimo Anno (1931), Pacem in Terris (1963), Laborem Exercens (1981), Centesimus Annus (1991), Caritas in Veritate (2009) and most recently, Laudato Si (2015) and Fratelli Tutti (2020).
So what does this new encyclical add to this already well-developed tradition? More importantly, what revelance does it have for us? The answer to the first question is that in Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV further refines the insights of his predecessors in light of our present technological developments, especially as they pertain to the relationship between labour and capital, just war theory, and caring for our common home.
As for the second question, it should not be too hard to see why a discussion of AI would be relevant to us, given how deeply it has entrenched itself in every area of our lives in such a short span of time. To drive this point home, I want to share two conversations I had with two of my friends, both of whom use AI very heavily. The first involved a friend who had become so dependent on “optimizing” with AI that he has offloaded even simple everyday tasks, such as finding a parking spot and then navigating from that parking spot to his final destination. Later on, when we needed to backtrack to where he had parked, we spent half an hour trying to find the parking spot because he wasn't able to access that information on his phone.
The second was a conversation with another friend who has fallen on hard times and is trying to get his life back on track. He confessed to me that AI over-dependence has eroded his ability to do things he used to be more proficient at, such as doing research, writing articles on topics pertaining to politics and social policy, expressing his thoughts using his own words. Now, he struggles to answer even simple questions about his own beliefs and values without asking an LLM to come up with the words for him, and finds it increasingly difficult to consume long-form information, such as books and talks that last longer than a few minutes.
Undoubtedly, most of us know someone in a situation not dissimilar from one or both of the two friends mentioned above, which makes it all the more urgent that we discuss how to think about AI usage. In this article, we look at some key insights from the encyclical, and then discuss what bearing these insights have for us, and how we can thoughtfully apply them in our daily lives.
Building the City of God
The encyclical begins with the following statement: “Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, 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” (§1). Pope Leo, in true Augustinian fashion, alludes to The City of God—St. Augustine's grand vision of a society ruled by love, where humanity lives in harmony with God and neighbour. The City of God is explicitly cited later on in paragraph 130, particularly the section where Augustine speaks of human history as the struggle between two cities: The City of God, and the City of Man (XIV.28, XV.1).
This helps to put into perspective the contrast in the first sentence between the City of God and what Pope Leo calls “a new Tower of Babel.” The Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11 is all too often misunderstood. Too many read it as little more than a mythic account of how different nations and languages of the world came into being. It is actually much deeper than that. Babel represents humanity's attempt at self-deification. In Babel, the builders of the tower attempt to rise to God's level without His grace. Orthodox theologian Patrick Henry Reardon explains the significance of Babel:
The construction of Babel, the second city to be founded in the Bible, prompts us to recall the moral ambiguity of the first city, founded by the world’s first fratricide (4:17). Babel, like that first city, represents the development of technology (v. 3; 4:22). The tower of Babel symbolizes man’s arrogance and his rebellion against the authority of God. Not trusting God’s promise never again to destroy the world by flood (9:15), the men of Babel decide to build this tower as a sort of insurance policy against God’s punishment. Its construction, therefore, is of a piece with all the earlier rebellions against God we have seen, starting in chapter 3. (Patrick Henry Reardon, Creation and the Patriarchal Histories [Ancient Faith Publishing, 2008], 65–66.)
The rest of paragraph 1 outlines the implications of this grand conflict between the two cities, the decisions we must make in light of this conflict, and the need to remain Christ-centred in all our decisions:
Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world. Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.” In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness (§1).
The end of the paragraph makes an interesting move: It takes Jesus' statement “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6), and applies the statement to humanity. This is not, as some might wrongly assume, the placing of humanity on the same level as Christ. Rather, it means that when we follow Christ and become more conformed to His image, we become His hands and feet in this world, partake in His ministry of reconciliation, and act as His ambassadors to the world, as St. Paul teaches (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).
Work and Dignity
One of the ongoing concerns accompanying the rise of AI is the loss of jobs to automation. To some extent, this is inevitable, as job losses always take place whenever new inventions dramatically reduce the workload required to produce something. The sewing machine is a great historical example, as it caused thousands of tailors who made clothes by hand to lose their livelihoods, even as it made clothing much more affordable for ordinary people.
While we do not yet know the long-term effects AI will have on labour markets, in the short-term, we will inevitably see disruption of workers’ livelihoods. The resulting job losses are often temporary, as workers are retrained for new jobs. But in the intervening period, their ability to provide for themselves is put in jeopardy, especially in countries that lack adequate social safety nets.
The challenge posed by AI automation goes deeper than merely job losses, however. There is also the dignifying nature of work, which is threatened when automation denies people the right to use their God-given skills and talents, as the encyclical states:
Work is not considered simply as a problem to be dealt with or a means of generating income, but a fundamental good for the person, a principle of economic activity and the key to the entire societal question. Through work, human beings bring their freedom, creativity and capacity for cooperation into play, contributing to the cultural and moral elevation of society. In light of this, the various kinds of job insecurity, fragmented career paths and automation must not be evaluated solely in terms of efficiency, but in relation to the dignity of the worker, the right to sufficient remuneration and the genuine possibility of participating in society. (§37).
Thus, ramifications for AI automation on human labour go deeper than merely earning a paycheque, but go right to the heart of human dignity.
Disarming AI
One paragraph which caught the attention of many was the one where the Pope speaks of the need to “disarm” AI. Unfortunately, many commentators failed to give the full context of this statement, which caused it to be understood in broadly negative terms. What the Pope actually meant was more nuanced, and in order to appreciate it, we must read the paragraph in full:
Finally, I would like to employ the expression “to disarm,” which is close to my heart. Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of “armed” competition, which today is not limited simply to the military context, but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon. This entails a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire to secure geopolitical or commercial dominance. 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. Our task today is not only ethical or technical. It is ecological in the deepest sense, for it concerns a new dimension of our common home. AI is already an environment in which we are immersed, as well as a force with which we must engage. For this reason, merely regulating it is insufficient; it must be disarmed, welcoming and accessible (§110).
In other words, to disarm AI means it must not be used in a way that threatens the lives and dignity of humans. It must contribute to human flourishing, rather than detract from it. This can be done by making sure that the productivity gains from AI are for the common good, rather than simply for the select few.
By far, the greatest threat that AI poses to human flourishing, where the need to disarm it is greatest, has to be in its application to warfare and the military, to which we must turn.
AI and Just War Theory
One of the statements that turn the most heads in the new encyclical is what says about Just War Theory. Catholic teaching on this gained a lot of attention recently during discussions about the Iran War (see my article on this here). One observation many Just War theorists today have made is that the advent of modern warfare, with its tanks, missiles, and weapons of mass destruction, has made it increasingly difficult to achieve jus in bello during times of war, and AI-guided weapons have made this even more difficult. The result is that strict adherence to Just War principles is increasingly turning into a form of technical pacifism. Magnifica Humanitas recognizes this when it states:
Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations (§192).
This statement cites from Pope Francis’ encyclical Fratelli Tutti, which notes that “In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly ‘justified,’” and that despite the rigorous criteria for a just war given in the Catechism, “it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right” (Fratelli Tutti, §258). Pope Leo points to the growth of the military-industrial complex, the development of weapons systems involving AI, and the “crisis of multilateralism” as developments that necessitate this rethinking of Just War Theory (§193-203).
He is not saying that we abandon the concept of “Just War” altogether. Rather, he is suggesting that Just War criteria need to be tightened in order to avoid the loophole abuse that too often happens when these criteria are bent in the service of Realpolitik.
One other area where AI changes the parameters of discussion is its effect on families and the raising of children, which is the focus of the next section.
AI's Effects on Young People
One of the other concerns Magnifica Humanitas highlights is the impact of new technologies on children and youths. It has been increasingly clear in recent years that widespread access to digital technology such as smartphones and tablets are deeply detrimental to young people’s cognitive, emotional and social development. Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation, for example, points out how the adoption of smartphones has coincided with an explosion of mental health problems among teenagers, especially anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. It has also led to a significantly worse outcomes in education, as children are increasingly failing to learn critical life skills previous generation took for granted. Pope Leo also points out the manifold dangers that constant screen use can pose to youths:
In recent years, psychological and psychiatric literature has documented with growing insistence how early and unsupervised exposure to digital devices and social media can negatively impact sleep, attention span, control of emotions and relationships, especially during the most vulnerable stages of life, at times with tragic consequences. This is further aggravated by easy access to violent or degrading content that offends sensibility, to pornographic and hypersexualized material, to messages that trivialize the body and emotions, and to proposals that normalize risky behavior. Online phenomena such as grooming, blackmail and the sexual exploitation of minors are not uncommon, and are made more insidious by the use of fake profiles, algorithms that facilitate dangerous contact, and AI tools capable of manipulating images and videos. Having a personal mobile device at too early an age and using it without adult supervision can exacerbate young people’s vulnerabilities, foster addiction and expose them to isolation, bullying and cyberbullying, as well as to pressures to share intimate images or sensitive information (§141).
It is clear that overexposure and overreliance upon these digital technologies poses a great danger to future generations, and serious reflection on responsible consumption of digital media is necessary, including access to screens by children. The encyclical highlights the responsibility of adults towards children in this regard:
In a particular way, we need adults to rediscover their vocation as artisans of education, prepared to work patiently each day, with the support of extensive and shared educational partnerships. Today, accompanying children and young people in using technology for developing responsible relationships, helping them to recognize the risks and choose what fosters inner freedom, is a concrete form of charity and will safeguard their dignity. Teaching new generations that technological evolution does not follow a predetermined path, but can be guided by personal and collective responsibility, constitutes one of the most valuable services to the common good (§238).
So what can we do about all of this? There are a few practical steps we can take, which we will discuss next.
Why this Matters (And What We Can Do)
I want to return to the two anecdotes I mentioned at the beginning involving my two friends. These two colleagues of mine, although coming from two very different life situations, experienced something very similar: An over-reliance on AI to do things that used to be done either manually or with less advanced tools. The result is a weakening of one’s natural abilities, and an overall cognitive atrophy.
Of course, there are ways to use AI without sacrificing one’s originality or mental abilities. For example, rather than asking it to write an essay for you, you can write that essay yourself, and then ask AI to fact-check it or make stylistic improvements. Occasionally, I also ask it to suggest me sources for research on a particular topic, but I always go to the sources themselves, and refrain from citing anything if I don’t have direct access to it. In this way, I avoid plagiarism, while also making full use of my skills and mental faculties in seeking to express myself and present arguments for my positions, rather than outsourcing that task to a machine.
But academic integrity and avoiding cognitive atrophy are not the only places where this concern for AI ethics leads us. There is also the issue of protecting workers’ livelihoods. As the encyclical states, “every introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining and participation of workers” (§156). Churches and charitable aid organizations play an especially important role in making sure that these unemployed workers do not fall between the cracks by providing for their material needs as they get back on their feet. For businesses that introduce AI into the workplace, they must treat AI not as a substitute for human labour, but as a means of making life easier for human labourers, while also compensating them fairly for any increase in productivity that may result.
On the topic of war, we must be more vocal proponents of peace. Living in a democratic society means that elected officials must listen to our concerns in order to win our vote. If enough of us declare that we want nothing to do with the culture of death that results in endless wars, then we can shape our culture into one of peace, that eschews war in favour of dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness.
Finally, parents and teachers must ensure that future generations do not lose the art of thinking for and expressing themselves. At an early age, children are already learning to use LLMs to write essays and answer questions that previously tested—and thus expanded—their creative and critical abilities. The result is a dumbed down generation that cannot think critically, are easily fooled by misinformation, and struggle to understand ideas and concepts that would have been more intuitive to previous generations. We must also ensure that they are not irreperably harmed by the corrosive effects of early exposure to social media and the darker corners of the internet. Limiting their exposure to advanced technologies (especially smartphones) and cultivating traditional ways of learning (i.e. those that involve books, papers, pens, and good ol’ imagination) would go a long way towards preventing the creation of a future Idiocracy.
Conclusion: Building the City of God
Let us end with an image that Pope Leo uses at the beginning of the encyclical. He invokes the Biblical story of Nehemiah rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 1-6). To do this, he gives everyone a task to fulfill which contributes towards the building of the wall.
The narrative shows how the city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people all play a part. It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones. Thus, ancient Jerusalem rediscovers a common language — not one of uniformity, but one of communion, namely the harmony that arises when all persons assume their own role and recognize that their strength comes from the Lord (§8).
We all have our role to play in building the City of God. The question we need to ask is: What is the stone that God is asking us to lay in order to complete this grand edifice? Is there a specific gap in the proverbial wall that we are being asked to fill in? In answering this, we do not need to eschew the emerging new technologies, but we do need to be mindful about how we use them, lest we copy the ways and values of Babel. If we allow the values of the Gospel to guide our decisions, then we can be assured that the Kingdom of God is already in our midst.
Image : Vatican Media
by: Dr. Luis Dizon -
About: J. Luis Dizon has a Master of Theological Studies from the Toronto School of Theology and a Ph.D in Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations from the University of Toronto. He does research and writing on topics relating to apologetics, Biblical studies, and comparative religions. He also works as a lay pastoral associate and sacramental preparation instructor for a Catholic parish in the Archdiocese of Toronto. He has also been a regular guest on the Youtube program "Reason and Theology" You can follow his posts on Facebook: Fisher219 X: LuisDizon
Comments