Magnifica Humanitas,
the exaltation of the human city

THE encyclical Magnifica Humanitas is a monstrously lengthy document. It comprises two hundred and forty-five sections divided into five chapters. It is, first and foremost, a text devoted to the Church’s social doctrine, which invites readers to re-examine and renew their understanding of it in the light of the challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI).

Since John XXIII’s “Pacem in Terris”, popes have, in their encyclicals, addressed not only the Catholic faithful but also all people of good will; consequently, they feel obliged to redefine concepts, retrace the history of their subject and dwell at length on numerous points.

Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate comprised 78 articles. Centesimus Annus, in which John Paul II commemorated the centenary of Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, contained only 62. As for Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio, it totalled 86 articles. Magnifica Humanitas is a verbose, bombastic, redundant and exhausting text, which follows in the tradition of these encyclicals and that of the conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes on the Church in the modern world, with its 93 articles.

POPE LEO’S PROPHETIC VISION

Pope Leo XIV begins his encyclical by setting out the goal that our generation must achieve. “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. 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.” (No. 1)

“Let us flee the Manichean visions typical of violent narratives that divide the world into good and evil,” the Pope had declared at the beginning of his pontificate. The choice facing “humanity in all its grandeur” is not one that pits the city of Satan against the city of God as irreconcilably antagonistic. Rather, it consists of choosing between two projects: the city built without God, from which part of humanity would be excluded; and the city built under God’s gaze, where all people, whether Catholic or not, are called to live together. Therefore, the task is no longer to prioritise the expansion of the Church, regarded as the sole City of God, but to devote oneself to a broader, more ambitious and more inclusive project: that of a New World where the dignity of every person would be respected, justice promoted and fraternity made possible.

Leo XIV’s worldview is the same as that of Paul VI. To quote the words of Father de Nantes in his Liber Accusationis I, this vision “abolishes the difference and the irreconcilable opposition which his Predecessors, such as Leo XIII in Humanum Genus, asserted with authority: “The human race is divided into two hostile camps, which are constantly at war: one fighting for truth and virtue, the other for everything that is contrary to them. One is the true Church of Jesus Christ… the other is the kingdom of Satan.”

One might level at Leo XIV the same criticism levelled at Paul VI: that he wished to ‘recognise only a secular world, defined as a universal social body, legitimately autonomous, external to the Church, fully human, neither Christian nor satanic. He deliberately ignores the opposing forces with which he could not decently preach reconciliation. Therefore, he assumes the problem to be solved, Satan definitively reconciled, excluded or non-existent!’ Indeed, the Devil and Hell are absent from this encyclical. Consequently, there is no reason not to work together.

All the supernatural virtues that Christian society draws from the merits of Christ, the grace of the sacraments and obedience to God’s commandments are accessible as a matter of course to mankind and to the masses as a whole, resulting in a dignified, just and fraternal society. This perspective ignores the Devil's influence, original sin and widespread disorder and crime! As though goodness were inherent in nature and in the heart of the men of today!

“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.” (No. 1) Provided that God is placed at the centre and a modicum of goodwill is shown, this magnificent humanity becomes, as Jesus Christ said of himself, the Way, the Truth and the Life that will lead to happiness. Once again, it is the worship of man that is reaffirmed in this encyclical.

TWO BIBLICAL IMAGES

To illustrate his vision, Leo XIV draws on two biblical images which he develops throughout his encyclical: “the construction of the Tower of Babel (cf. Gn 11:1-9) and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (cf. Ne 2-6).” As the cross-references indicate, the Pope draws inspiration from these images taken from the Bible and takes the liberty of altering their essential meaning.

THE TOWER OF BABEL.

In the early days of humanity, human beings decided to build the Tower of Babel, the summit of which reached into the heavens. “However, the project concealed a profound danger. It was a project conceived without reference to God, supported by a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenisation over communion.” (No. 7)

For the Pope, the Tower of Babel does not manifest the pride or immense impiety of men seeking to equate themselves with God, but represents nothing more than a project that turned out to be “a danger” because no “reference to God” was made and no attempt was made to assign each person his rightful place according to his dignity.

“When a city is built on pride and the claim to self-sufficiency, communication breaks down, languages are confused and people no longer understand each other. The result is not unity, but dispersion. Babel thus reveals the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing.” (No. 7) Communication broke down of its own accord, languages became confused of their own accord and this tower project reached its ‘limit’ because people did not wish to place it under God’s gaze. In other words, building a tower is acceptable, yes, but on condition that it does not defy God and not without his blessing!

THE REBUILDING OF JERUSALEM.

Therefore, follow the example of Nehemiah, a figure whom the Pope reinterprets in a wholly free and ideological manner. After the exile in Babylon, some of the people returned to Jerusalem, only to find the city in ruins. So Nehemiah “fasted, prayed and interceded for the people”, then he, “examined the destroyed areas in silence. He did not impose solutions from above. He convened the families, assigned each of them a section of the wall to rebuild, listened to their concerns, coordinated their efforts and addressed any opposition. 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 centre, 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 recognise that their strength comes from the Lord.” (No. 8)

The sacred text, the true one, shows that Nehemiah was the sole mediator, intercessor and saviour of his people, taking the initiative in everything. He first confessed the sins of the Israelites committed against Yahweh: “I and my father’s house have sinned. We have acted very corruptly against You, and have not kept the commandments, the statutes, and the ordinances which You did command your servant Moses.” (Ne 1:6-7) Then, alone, he went to see the king, invoked the God of Heaven and, out of a duty of piety, asked to rebuild the city of his fathers’ tombs. It was to him that the king gave letters to cross the borders and obtain the materials needed for the reconstruction. On arriving in Jerusalem, Nehemiah did what God inspired him to do, without entrusting it to anyone (Ne 2:11-12), and by explaining how God’s benevolent hand was upon him, he restored the courage of his brothers (Ne 2:18).

This interpretation differs significantly from the one found in the encyclical. It glosses over the prayer of contrition, lies about who took the initiative for the work – as though it were not the work of a single person – and claims that the solution does not come from on high. All this serves to justify the promotion of an earthly, fraternal, truly human project, respectful of everyone’s dignity (the refrain), under God’s watchful eye.

Leo XIV strips the Kingdom of Christ of all its luminous attributes in order to clothe his chimera of the New World with them, as if it were an earthly paradise rebuilt by the invention and strength of men alone! Yet, progress in the temporal order occurs only to the extent that Christians “seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness”, that is to say, the life of grace and holiness which must lead them to the blissful glory of Heaven!

In the realisation of this vast human project – initiated by Paul VI, continued by the post-conciliar popes and fervently taken up by Leo XIV – the latter notes with concern that a new obstacle threatens to undermine its momentum: technology, and more specifically artificial intelligence.

“Technology has the power to heal, connect, educate and protect our common home; but it can also divide, exclude and generate new forms of injustice.” It is not inherently evil, “in practice, however, technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it” (No. 9). For whom and for what exactly, further details will be provided later. The fact remains that, with AI, they are building Babel “that claims to dominate the heavens”, whilst it is necessary to rebuild Jerusalem, encouraging “a people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence” (No. 9).

“In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanisation, ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human. We must lovingly safeguard the grandeur of humanity bestowed upon us and revealed in its fullness in Christ, the splendour of which no machine can ever replace.” (No. 15)

CHAPTER 1: 
HISTORY OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

In this chapter, which the Pope entitles “A dynamic approach faithful to the Gospel” (Nos. 17-45), the Pope traces the history of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which, in his view, aims to set out a course of action for the Church in her “duty to accompany humanity”, “in a way” that helps to promote “the dignity of every person, the cohesion of communities and the good of all”, standing “alongside the world without overpowering it, so that the promise of justice and peace that the Holy Spirit continues to sustain in the heart of humanity may come to fruition in every human endeavour” (No. 20).

Unsurprisingly, the Pope traces the line back to Leo XIII and his encyclical Rerum novarum, makes no mention of Saint Pius X and his Letter on Le Sillon, and then briefly touches upon each of the main texts devoted to this issue, from Pius XI to Pope Francis. In this way, he seeks to show how each pontiff has been able to draw from the Gospel – without claiming to engage in politics – reliable criteria to guide human action, “as a foundation for collective discernment, helping to recognise and promote whatever serves the dignity of persons, the vitality of communities and the common good.” (No. 24).

Of course, the real reasons – and the only ones that explain the current paralysis – are not mentioned by Leo XIV. Nothing is said of the forces that shattered the entire ancient order under the pretext of liberating the people (cf. Saint Pius X, Letter on Le Sillon, No. 44). No mention is made of the revolutionary spirit that deprived the people of all protection for the benefit of an ever more powerful propertied class that the “system” has allowed to enrich itself without limit.

From this monstrosity emerged, in the 19^th century, the two brothers, sworn enemies, who still enslave our societies.

The elder brother is liberal capitalism, which has given primacy to money under the apparent justification of the necessities of industrialisation. It has established a so-called economic science, which is anything but neutral. It serves the interests of the wealthy by favouring the accumulation of capital through the domination of money and the maximisation of profits.

The younger brother, born in reaction to the elder, is proletarian socialism, which prioritises labour and promotes, in the name of justice and equality, a progressive redistribution of wealth and capital through state intervention in the name of solidarity within a truly democratic society.

Against this backdrop, Leo XIII introduced what would come to be known as the Social Doctrine of the Church. Father de Nantes never ceased to denounce it as “a summary capitalo-socialist reorganisation of the system” – as harmful as it was unrealistic. From being “liberal” under Leo XIII, the Church’s Social Doctrine became “democratic” under Pius XI, “progressive” under Paul VI and finally “communist” under John Paul II, as Father de Nantes demonstrated when he denounced the encyclical Laborem exercens (1981).

Leo XIV aims to be more measured, less ambitious in his demands and less provocative in his criticisms, but the principles remain the same, as shall be seen in Chapter 2.

LEO XIV THE LIBERAL.

In this historical overview, the Pope emphasises a few ideas which he considers truly important and which reveal his liberal outlook.

1. Just like his predecessors, he regards the understanding of truth as “a gift to be shared, not a possession to be monopolised”; thus, this principle “frees the Church from the temptation of seeking forms of presence based on power”. Further on, he adds that “the Church does not claim to possess a monopoly on truth,” because truth is not a territory to be defended, but a good to be shared. (…) In this way, the truth of the Gospel is not imposed from above, but grows over time within the concrete interweaving of lives, communities and cultures. (No. 25) In other words, truth is self-diffusing.

2. The Church’s social doctrine, the Pope points out in No. 27, is not “a handbook of principles and norms to be applied, but a process of shared discernment” which draws on the Gospel, the sciences and history. “Therefore, 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, the Church – together with other Christian denominations and believers of other religions – must make her voice heard, not in order to dominate, but to promote communion. Understood in this way, Social Doctrine becomes a theology of communion in history, a history in which the Word made flesh continues to be present through dialogue, memory and prophecy.”

3. “The Second Vatican Council marked a turning point in the Church’s understanding of herself in the contemporary world.” The Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes stated that “dialogue with the world is not a tactical choice for the Church, but a concrete expression of her mission because the Gospel, like leaven, is capable of transforming the structures of society from within and forging paths toward a greater humanity.” In this light, the Declaration Dignitatis humanæ recognises above all that “religious freedom is a fundamental right grounded in human dignity that must be guaranteed by law so as to prevent people from being forced to act against their conscience or impeded from seeking and professing the truth both privately and publicly.” (No. 34)

From time immemorial, the Church has made use of the divine gifts bestowed upon her by her Lord and for her Lord. Leo XIV now wishes her to use them to bring about the success of the project of Humanity that makes itself God!

Not content with this, he hopes that religion – all religions – may come to be accepted as the handmaiden of this World, which claims to ignore it, for it is capable of providing it with considerable assistance.

All religions are called upon to unite in the temporal work that constitutes their new and shared raison d’être. Dogmatic quarrels are obsolete, fanaticism is dead and proselytism is extinguished. The focus is no longer on saving souls and inflaming them with a passion for Heaven but on placing them in the service of Humanity and its dignity. The gods appear forcibly reconciled by their priests and harnessed to the task of ensuring the success of the modern world.

Unfortunately, this MASDHU – the Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Human Development – of which Father de Nantes spoke in his commentary on the encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis● has already been condemned by Saint Pius X: “Stranger still, alarming and saddening, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and who dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church ‘the reign of love and justice’, with workers coming from all parts, from any religion or no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions – and so long as they share what unites them – a generous idealism and moral forces drawn from ‘wherever they can”. It is frightening! This is organised apostasy.”

CHAPTER 2 
THE “PRINCIPLES AND FOUNDATIONS” OF LEON XIV

In his second chapter, the Holy Father sets out the “foundations and principles of the Church’s Social Doctrine”, which are in fact the major themes of his teaching. Here, one finds the doctrinal legacy of Paul VI and John Paul II, the new dogmas of the conciliar religion: all men are created by God in His image and likeness. THEREFORE, all men possess infinite and inalienable dignity. THEREFORE, every human person has inviolable rights, respect for which the Church demands.

FROM CIRCUMINCESSANT CHARITY TO THE WORSHIP OF MAN.

Leon XIV, however, makes an admirable start, drawing on circumincessant charity: “the mystery of the living God, revealed in Jesus Christ, who, as a communion of Persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – is love itself in relationship, expressed in the mutual gift of self and in sharing with the world.” (No. 48) And “that men and women are created in the image and likeness (cf. Gn 1:26-27) of the Triune God.’

Admirable truths, so dear to our Father! However, Leo XIV could have, indeed should have, specified that “Adam lost through his sin this image of God imprinted within our soul, and that this image is restored to us only through the grace of Christ,” according to Saint Augustine, his spiritual father.●

He continues: “Created for relationship, every human person is planned and willed by God to enter into communion with Him, with others and with creation.” (No. 50)

Certainly, such was the condition of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and such is the plan of the Triune God for every human being whom God wishes to save. But in the meantime, between our first parents and ourselves, tragedy has irrevocably entered human history! Satan has thwarted this beautiful plan of the Heavenly Father and has drawn Adam and Eve into his rebellion. From that moment on, “our earthly sojourn became a misery and a trap for us,” wrote Father de Nantes to John Paul II. “Immense multitudes of degenerate human beings – why hide the fact? – have rebelled against their Creator, followed the demons, attached themselves to earthly goods and turned their eyes away from the Beatitude that God contemplated giving them in a better and final abode.” (Liber III.)

The condition of man at his birth in this world is pitiable; therefore, Our Lord chose to become incarnate and die on the Cross, inseparably united to the Virgin Mary, His mystical Bride, Co-Redemptrix and universal Mediatrix, to save souls from Hell by incorporating them into Their Church so as to lead them to Heaven. These great truths of the Catholic Faith underpin the conception of a Christian social order, for they form the framework of all human life.

In Magnifica Humanitas, these truths are obscured in favour of John Paul II’s unanimist gnosis, according to which “human dignity (…) is a gift endowed by God as an expression of his unfailing love”, and for this reason “the human person always remains the way for the Church” (No. 50). The other two foundations of the Church’s social doctrine set out by the Holy Father are therefore human dignity and human rights (Nos. 51–58).

MAGNIFICA… INANITAS.

“Every human person possesses an infinite dignity, inalienably grounded in his or her very being, which prevails in and beyond every circumstance, state, or situation the person may ever encounter – in other words, always and without exception.” (No. 53)

“The Church gratefully acknowledges that the movement toward the identification and proclamation of human rights is one of the most significant attempts to respond effectively to the inescapable demands of human dignity.” (No. 54) Human rights therefore have “supreme value”; they are “are inviolable, since they are “inherent in the human person and in human dignity. Consequently, they are universal and inalienable; they have practical consequences and legal effects.” (No. 55)

The encyclical contains one hundred and three references to human dignity. By contrast, the words ‘holiness’ or ‘eternal salvation’ are not found. The Name of Jesus appears only nine times and that of the Virgin Mary seven times.

SELF-LOVE EVEN TO THE POINT OF CONTEMPT FOR GOD.

“Two loves have built two cities. The love of God even to the contempt of self, and the love of self even to the contempt of God.” Leo XIV likes to quote this maxim from his spiritual father, Saint Augustine. Yet, how is he is unable to see that the promotion of human dignity is the exaltation of self-love, and that this claim leads to contempt for God and His will?

A woman seeking an abortion justifies her decision by appealing to her own dignity and freedom. Proponents of euthanasia demand a dignified end to life. Transhumanists are working to design a more dignified humanity, freed from the constraints of illness and death, in control of its own destiny, thanks to artificial intelligence.

In Christendom, in the City of God, the foundations of social life are the sovereignty of Jesus Christ and His redeeming love, so that legislation may promote the eternal salvation of all subjects.

By contrast, human rights and human dignity have, since 1789, been the foundations of the City of Satan, serving to justify all demands and all revolutions against temporal powers, against natural law and against the will of God.

Since the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI and John Paul II have forcibly aligned the Church with this cult of man, his dignity and his rights, which have gradually supplanted the love of God and submission to His Law. “Thus we have reached the worst disorder that Satan could ever have imagined.” wrote our Father. “Human Rights, carefully cloaked under the false guise of Christian Rights, are carrying out their work of dividing the human community and bringing about the complete secularisation of our civilisation at the hand of the Church!” ●

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.

Leo XIV then sets out what he considers to be the six principles of Social Doctrine, the first of which is that of the common good (Nos. 59-64). Indeed, the common good must surely be the primary end of political power and social order. Yet how can one work towards the common good in a society founded on human rights? How could the State maintain order – which is the common good par excellence – without infringing upon the supposedly infinite dignity of terrorists and murderers?

Does not our Holy Father see a contradiction between these two principles, since he asserts that the common good “is the social expression of the dignity recognised in every person” (No. 59). “It is an age-old ploy, one to which individualists and liberal personalists have been resorting for a hundred years, to derive the common good from the particular good, in order to preserve the supremacy of Man, of his dignity, his freedom and his rights over every other reality, authority and power.”●

Subsidiarity (Nos. 68-72) is another principle, sound in itself, but whose application in our globalist society is distorted. Within the framework of political Augustinianism – that is, in a society which recognises the sovereignty of the God of Jesus Christ and the primacy of the Church – this principle of subsidiarity means that “the Church recognises the natural autonomy of temporal communities, and acknowledges their authority to determine their ends and means, rights and duties, through a science and an art that fall solely within the realm of prudence”●. Christian states, aware that they receive their authority from On High for the administration of the common good, have no need whatsoever to be totalitarian and can therefore grant extensive subsidiary powers to provinces, guilds, municipalities and families.

However, the social model advocated by Leo XIV is not political Augustinianism, since it places Man at the foundation of its structure rather than Jesus Christ and His Church. In his thinking, the main aim of subsidiarity is therefore for “every man and woman to take ownership of his or her own life and to contribute to the formation of society” (No. 68). Furthermore, the Holy Father favours the use of certain globalist institutions: he places his hopes for peace in “ways of cooperating and of more effective international institutions, capable of safeguarding the global common good” (No. 64) and he is counting in particular on the UN to establish the civilisation of love (No. 226). In this context, the subsidiarity he advocates is merely a slight modification of the Masonic project for a world government.

SOCIALIST “PRINCIPLES”.

Leo XIV sets out a further four principles that are distinctly humanist and even socio-Masonic. The last, and most important, is integral human development (Nos. 82-85). This is the aim of the social model advocated by Magnifica Humanitas in the tradition of Paul VI which “fosters the development of each man and of the whole man” (No. 82). It is precisely because he saw that John Paul II wished to devote all the Church’s efforts to this development that our Father adjusted his denunciation of the Pope’s antichrist project, shifting from the MASDU to the MASDHU – the Movement for the Spiritual Animation of Universal Human Development – as mentioned earlier.

This paramount pursuit of human development – of each man’s access to wealth, culture and even technological innovations (No. 67!) – is the Satanic antithesis of the fundamental principle of the City of God, namely the salvation of souls: “For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?” (Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25 and Mt 16:26)

The same applies to social justice (Nos. 77-81) according to the Second Vatican Council. “Every institution is called to serve the human person and his dignity” (No. 77). How is this to be achieved? By respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods (Nos. 65–67), to which “the right to private property must always be subordinate” (No. 66). These are truly the “errors of Russia” – once Communist – which have penetrated even the papal Magisterium. In place of the admirable Christian charity which the Church has always demonstrated through wise institutions in support of the destitute.

Finally, the concept of solidarity as conceived by Leo XIV (Nos. 73–76) lacks the fundamental principle recalled by Saint Pius X: “If, as we desire with all our heart, the highest possible peak of well-being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilisation.” (Letter on the Sillon, No. 24)

CHAPTER 3: 
THE PLAYERS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 
– A THREAT TO THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

After recalling the principles that underpin the Church’s (revolutionary) Social Doctrine, Pope Leo turns his attention to the danger that threatens human greatness and the building of that marvellous earthly, human and fraternal city to which the Church has devoted herself body (and soul) since the Council (Nos. 90–130): major advances in information technology and the CEOs of high-tech companies who exploit them. The Pope does not confront them directly but, adopting an immanentist approach, seeks to bring them back to reason and human sentiments by reminding them of “a few essential elements for a moral and social discernment that safeguards the primacy of the human person” (No. 97).

The major challenge today, he acknowledges, is that posed by technological development, and in particular by the spread of artificial intelligence, cognitive sciences, nanotechnology, robotics and biotechnology. These innovations can “greatly serve integral human development and the care of our common home”, but humanity must not become their victim (Nos. 93-94).

Let us digress for a moment. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a concept introduced in 1955 that refers to all computer systems capable of performing tasks similar to those carried out by human intelligence, such as perceiving, reasoning, learning, predicting or generating content such as text, images and videos. Modern AI systems, particularly generative models, process vast amounts of data and produce results based on probabilities, whilst other systems operate primarily on the basis of predefined rules. Therefore, there is absolutely no thought, no true intelligence nor any consciousness in these systems.

The immense success of AI and the growing dependence it engenders cannot be reduced to a mere technical attraction. It stems from its efficiency, its constant accessibility and its increasing integration into all areas of life. Having become ubiquitous, there is a fear that it will profoundly transform society and the way in which individuals perceive themselves.

In Nos. 95 and 172 in particular, as well as Nos. 102 and 112-117, the Pope criticises, with restraint and without seeking to identify them explicitly, the “major economic and technological actors” who today wield immense power – at times exceeding that of states – over access to information, the economy and participation in social life. When this power is concentrated in the hands of a few leaders and a few companies, he explains, there is “the risk” that it will escape public control, that it will create new forms of dependency and inequality and that it will impose “an anti-human vision” (No. 112), and that it may embark on transhumanism and posthumanism, which seek to achieve a “threshold where humanity surpasses itself in a new evolutionary stage” (No. 116). He therefore rightly warns that “we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral” (No. 104).

The danger highlighted by the Holy Father is of such moral gravity that it would require an extremely forceful warning. It is surprising that the faithful are not more strongly warned against these atheist and antichrist “major actors” who exert influence over all digital tools and social media platforms and who, driven by a Promethean vision of humanity, are extending their influence over consciences and behaviour by overstepping the boundaries of natural and Christian morality.

Even the newspaper La Croix warned of this in an op-ed published by Catholic entrepreneurs and theologians on July 1, 2025. It was entitled “For many of its proponents, artificial intelligence is a form of God”:

“For over a century, a number of influential scientists, engineers and philosophers have harboured the ambition to acquire divine powers through technology: to become omniscient, omnipotent and immortal, to create thinking machines, to master the forces of the cosmos and even to raise the dead!” This vision of a future in which man, having become all-powerful, would have transcended his own condition and solved all of humanity’s problems through technoscience may seem fanciful and anecdotal to many; yet it is already shaping the political decisions being taken today across the globe and therefore concerns everyone directly.

“Before we delve further into our discussion and to shed light on the debate, here is a selection of quotes from entrepreneurs and thinkers in the field of artificial intelligence. This sample offers just a glimpse of the many examples – books, interviews, company names and logos, industrial projects, emerging tech cults… – of the metaphysical ambitions that Big Tech harbours for our future. For Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, artificial intelligence will change our daily lives so profoundly that we will soon be forced to invent ‘a new religion or a new philosophy’. Ray Kurzweil, Director of Engineering at Google, has for his part been calling for over twenty years for the creation of this ‘new religion’ in which AI would be God.

“Sam Altman, founder and CEO of OpenAI, believes that by developing artificial intelligence, he is ‘on the side of the angels and God’. For Marc Andreessen, a long-standing Silicon Valley investor, ‘technology liberates the human soul, and AI must be seen as a universal solution to all our problems’. Peter Thiel, CEO of Palantir, mentor to J. D. Vance and adviser to Donald Trump, is also convinced of this: thanks to technoscience, ‘God is working through us to build the kingdom of heaven today, here on Earth.’

“Are these views isolated? No, far from it, as Jaron Lanier, a virtual reality pioneer and researcher at Microsoft, points out: ‘The prevailing view [in the tech world] is that super-AI will become a sort of God who will save us and make us immortal. I am constantly talking to people who believe this sort of thing.’ A belief shared by Neil McArthur, a professor of philosophy at the University of Manitoba, who is convinced that ‘in the coming years, we will witness the emergence of cults devoted to the worship of artificial intelligence’. A cult that, in his view, we should celebrate!”

This is a glimpse into the thinking of American tech executives, but the same hubris prevails among Asian executives, particularly those in China. These business leaders harbour the desire and the absolute conviction that they can do without God (and the Church and the sacraments, all the more so!), make human life immortal and create ideal earthly cities without God. This is indeed the Modern World denounced by Saint Augustine himself and by Father de Nantes in his wake, “with which there is so much concern that the Church be united, after, or even without declaring a divorce from Her first spouse”, “with which the Church ‘can, and ought to, reconcile herself, and come to terms’, in the very words of the 80th proposition of the Syllabus, which has been condemned!”●

How can we not do everything in our power to stand in their way! How can we not warn the faithful against this intrusion that threatens our faith! How can we not encourage the establishment of schools, universities, Catholic institutions and Christian states capable of protecting people against these “major actors” and their diabolical designs!

“It is not the machine or the human hive that seem dangerous to powerful men,” wrote our Father, “but the engineer and the technocrat who designed them to indirectly enslave the masses. Beware! This decoy is a trap for the unwary set by predacious men, and Satan is calling the shots!● Technology and progress can, in themselves, be useful and put at the service of legitimate ends. However, when those who devise and direct them place them at the service of error, perversity and impiety, they must be denounced and condemned. This can be achieved only by restoring to the Church and to Christendom all their vigour and influence. Yet the Pope rejects precisely such a prospect.

The remarks and solutions proposed by the Pope in the remainder of this chapter are of a different nature: strictly human and progressivist. They sometimes appeal to common sense, but lack profound and supernatural principles.

Automated systems know nothing of compassion, mercy and “the hope that people are able to change” (does this mean to convert?). They can give rise to forms of exclusion (No. 102). They remain opaque (No. 105). More rigorous controls are necessary to show, “responsible care for the human family” (the entire human family!?). It is necessary to be able “discuss the ethical frameworks involved and subjecting them to shared standards of social justice (No. 107) (the ethical code of human dignity, of course! compatible with the socialist ideal). It must be ensured that “small but highly influential groups” do not “shape information and consumption patterns, influence democratic processes and steer economic dynamics to their own advantage, undermining social justice and solidarity among peoples” (No. 108). (Tech company leaders must not seek to profit selfishly and politically from the trillions of dollars that their shareholders and lobbies have invested in AI). In a word, AI must be disarmed; “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.” (No. 110).

Building on these recommendations, the Pope then puts forward the decisive argument, intended to convince the great masters of the digital world with ease, as it appeals to the most divine aspect of their being: “I wish to address a special appeal to those who develop artificial intelligence. In one sense, technological innovation can represent human participation in the divine act of creation. Developers, therefore, bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility, for every design choice reflects a vision of humanity.” (No. 111)

This statement is appealing! Are you unaware, you the people who work in AI, that your work borders on the divine!? Yet it is false. The leaders of the AI industry are driven by a libertarian ideology that renders them alien to such an appeal, even assuming they hear it at all. Above all, it is false due to an error articulated by John Paul II in his encyclical Laborem Exercens. Work does not define man whose purpose is not the domination of the earth; nor does it constitute a human form of participation in the divine act of creation. To do so is to hypostatise work on the basis of a Marxist presupposition that bears no relation to the Christian doctrine according to which, in our present condition, work is the punishment for original sin.

Pope Leo continues, seeking to touch an emotional cord. The magnates of Silicon Valley ought to understand that human beings cannot be “treated as something to be perfected or surpassed” and that “scientific and technological advances, when detached from moral and social progress, end up turning against humanity” (No. 117). However, they should accept that the “limits” of human beings – “incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability” – are beautiful, for it is within this space that “humanity matures and opens itself to relationship”, possibly even to a relationship with God (No. 118). “Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognising the face of God and others. Indeed, precisely because we experience limits – vulnerability, suffering and failure – we can recognise the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of others.” (No. 122)

This is a magnificent demonstration of immanentism in which God appears at the end, and which will no doubt touch the hearts of everyone in the tech industry if he feels the need, recognises the benefit, and is willing to intuit a fraternity greater than himself (cf. No. 122).

The Pope seeks to persuade them that their aspirations are laudable, but that “the authentic ‘more than human’ ” lies neither in AI nor in technology, but in the acceptance of the whole person and of every person, of the whole human being and of the whole of humanity. One must embrace human nature in all its dimensions, its greatness and its limitations. It is at this price, and because man then enters into the designs of God – Who desires that he fulfil his vocation as man – that he will experience the “more than human”: “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 fulfilment in love. Faith recognises an openness toward the “beyond,” which originates as a gift from God. This transformation is a work of the Holy Spirit (No. 127) No. 128 expresses the same idea.

This is how me must understand the well-known phrase of Saint Augustine, which Leo XIV quotes in full and rephrases in his own way: “Two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God even to the contempt of self”. “On the one hand, the love of God and neighbour; on the other, the exclusive love of self” (No. 130) or, to put it another way, on the one hand “a progress that serves individuals and peoples, or a progress that subjects them to the mentality of power” (No. 129).

CHAPTER 4: 
PRESERVING HUMANITY

Having outlined the dangers of AI and sought to dissuade the high-tech oligarchs from opposing God’s plan – which is meant to lead humanity to become truly “more than human” – the Pope then addresses several major areas where AI is likely to bring about very concrete, and at times dramatic, transformations to which we should remain attentive: truth (Nos. 132-147), work (Nos. 148-169) and freedom (Nos. 170-179). The text contains truisms, clichés and misconceptions. Here are a few reflections on truth and freedom.

TRUTH.

With AI, the manipulation of content, images and videos is amplified; narratives are distorted, and the boundaries between truth and falsehood are blurred. This development affects public and political communication, cultural and moral dimensions and trust between people. Those with powerful technical and economic resources “possess significant capabilities for influencing cultural change. Ultimately, they can influence a significant number of people concerning the truth about humanity, the world, the meaning of existence, the family and even God” (No. 133). This topic will not be discussed!

Consequently, several of society’s fundamental values are at risk:

1. Democracy. “The search for truth is an essential element of democracy, which is itself a means of contributing to the common good. When questions about what is true lose their appeal, and a pragmatism takes hold that is content with what appears useful or effective, then democratic life is weakened. After all, democracy does not consist of rules and procedures alone, but above all of a solid concordance with the facts and a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society as a whole.” (No. 134)

2. The collective imagination. Digital platforms have an immense capacity to influence the collective imagination and to present a certain vision of reality as desirable. Therefore, this power “should be constantly guided by the pursuit of truth and respect for human dignity, so that the culture fostered on the internet does not become an instrument of excessive distraction, homogenisation or dominance, but rather a setting in which inner freedom and critical thought can mature.” (No. 136)

“Public norms” must be established (by whom?) “so that the decision-making behind content selection and its development becomes more transparent” (No. 137). In this regard, the Holy Father “thanks” “journalists, driven by a passion for truth” who “have played a crucial role in bringing injustices and abuses to light” within the Church (No. 138).

One’s thoughts naturally turn to the remarkably biased and misleading work of the CIASE and all those so-called independent commissions which, thanks to a few statistical extrapolations amplified by extensive media coverage, have managed to put the number of victims of abuse attributed to a priest or religious between 1950 and 2020 in France at 330,000.

Nor should one forget the priests – and sometimes bishops – who have been wrongly accused by the press, abandoned with notable haste by their peers, removed from their posts, subjected to public disgrace and driven to despair.

Thanks are also extended to all vigilant guardians of republican virtue, driven by a secularism that is both serene and uncompromising, who devote considerable energy to monitoring, controlling and standardising private Catholic institutions so that no deviation may disrupt the meticulous application of Soviet-style standards. Their perseverance, their zeal and their inexhaustible care certainly deserve to be commended.

3. School. This is a serious matter. Our children are at stake. The Pope knows how to be very firm and forceful: “parents have the primary and inalienable right to choose the kind of education and formation for their children, in a manner consistent with their moral, cultural and religious convictions.” (No. 143)

This principle is strongly influenced by liberalism. All parents, whatever their moral and religious convictions, possess the inalienable right to educate their children as they see fit.

It is also true that the Pope commends those countries where the State provides a high-quality education, “whether by adequately supporting the public school system or by assisting private institutions that offer this essential service” (No. 144). This is only fair.

It is also true that the Pope does not mention the need, in schools, to teach catechism, to instruct children in prayer or to strengthen their religious convictions, unless this is implicitly included in his call for an education in “freedom and responsibility”, “a sense of transcendence and the common good” (No. 147).

Nevertheless; given the current situation, avoid making excessive demands!

FREEDOM.

The Pope wishes to draw attention to the various forms of exploitation generated by the digital economy, including among other serious issues the often gruelling extraction of raw materials essential to the production of IT equipment, child labour and the rise of criminal networks.

Leo XIV feels all the more justified in issuing this warning given that the Church recalls “[her] past complicity and [her] blindness in the face of the injustice of slavery”: “If we want to avoid the need to ask for pardon again in the future for having failed to respect the treasure of human dignity that is required by our faith, it falls to us today to denounce, clearly and firmly, trafficking in its many forms.” (No. 177)

Therefore, he said: “I sincerely ask for pardon” for the Church’s attitude, which failed to express an unequivocal condemnation of slavery and did not recognise that this practice was radically incompatible with the dignity of the human person.

“It is true that past events cannot be judged anachronistically, as though the moral criteria that matured over time had always been available. Yet neither can we deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce the scourge of slavery. In antiquity and the Middle Ages many individuals and even ecclesiastical institutions had slaves. Already in the early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to requests from Sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimise forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, the enslavement of “infidels.” [cf. note 174]. It was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated, notably under Pope Leo XIII.

Note 174 refers to several papal bulls from the 15^th century and explains that “evangelisation was frequently compromised or at least misunderstood with regard to the needs of worldly powers, thus relativising the problematic incompatibility of slavery with the Christian conscience.”

In conquered, subjugated and colonised countries, the Church worked to convert the populations and to abolish slavery. Therefore, it is misleading to conflate colonisation and slavery in No. 178.

However, in the context of wars deemed just, the popes authorised the enslavement of certain populations, particularly Muslims, for reasons of security and defence. This practice reflected the then prevailing logic of the right of conquest. Nevertheless, papal documents do not mention any legitimisation of the slave trade or of a widespread system of slavery.

Serious abuses undoubtedly occurred. European merchants organised the mass and lucrative deportation of African slaves to the Americas. However, it would be necessary to examine in detail the identity of these merchants, their motivations and their religion. Nevertheless, at the time, slavery was not generally regarded as intrinsically evil but rather as an actual evil that the Church gradually combated and abolished.

In short, it is widely recognised that the issue of slavery is complex and should not be subject to anachronistic simplifications.

On the other hand, one would be entitled to expect explicit requests for forgiveness for certain more recent and more serious betrayals by ecclesiastical authority in the face of various hostile ideological powers.

Whilst the Church had always fought against doctrines hostile to the Faith, several of the most recent Popes have shown systematic complacency towards the legacy of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, socialism, secularism and even communism, going so far as to welcome Soviet observers to the Second Vatican Council.

Similarly, the gradual abandonment of what remained of Christendom and the acceptance of the dismantling of the colonial empires the disengagement from the regimes of Franco and Salazar as well as the tragedy of the Harkis and the Pieds-Noirs abandoned to their fate upon Algerian independence with the support of Bishop Duval and Progressivist priests were truly criminal. The sacrifice of the underground Church in China to the demands of the Chinese Communist Party also remains an indelible stain. All these acts of betrayal continue to cause outrage, so stark is their contrast with the Church’s supernatural mission to defend the Faith and Christian civilisation.

CHAPTER 5 – WAR OR THE CIVILISATION OF LOVE

Chapter 5 of Magnifica Humanitas largely echoes the introduction. It is dominated by the idea that, faced with the rise of artificial intelligence and new technologies, humanity must choose between a “culture of power” and the “civilisation of love”.

For Léon XIV, the main danger is not technology itself, he reiterates, but its use in the service of domination, war and the unlimited pursuit of power (Nos. 188–209). All war must be condemned. “The just war” theory” must be considered “outdated” (No. 192). Particular emphasis – which is appropriate – is placed on the risks that AI might widen the gap between decision-makers and victims, render violence more impersonal and trivialise the use of force.

Another danger looms. “The institutions established to safeguard the concept of a common future for all peoples and a global common good appear to have been weakened.” “Rather than automatically generating unity and peace, globalisation has provoked fundamentalist, identity-based and nationalistic reactions (this is alarming!) The result is a far cry from genuine multilateralism: instead, what has appeared is a disorderly and conflict-ridden multipolarism with a prevailing sense of mistrust.” (No. 201) “What has also re-emerged is the temptation to forge a collective identity in opposition to an enemy.” “The reduction of complex issues into simplistic categories – ‘me first,’ ‘friend or foe,’ ‘us or them’ – facilitates decisions that are often irresponsible and undermine mutual trust among nations. The force of international law is thus replaced by the claim that ‘might makes right’.” (No. 202)

The solution is a return to the human dimension. The human dimension on every page and in every number of the encyclical! The human dimension at the heart of humanity, at the very foundations of laws and the principles of international organisations! Rebuild Jerusalem “by safeguarding humanity and the common good” (No. 184). “The entire human family” must reflect on its rights and duties (not those from On High, of course). It must choose “solidarity”. Artificial intelligence “must also serve to build a universal human family” (No. 187). Exhausting!

In a word, “the civilisation of love” must be built. This expression inherited from Paul VI and John Paul II – “is no naïve utopia, but a demanding project” which can “bring about a stable international order” (No. 186).

Paragraphs 210-228 set out the in detail how to go about it. It is quite frankly disgusting.

Firstly, let us not forget that we need the presence of the “crucified and risen Lord, to Whom the Father has given ‘all authority in Heaven and on earth’ (Mt 28:18)” (No. 210), and on earth! That is important. Thus, the tiny mustard seed will sprout and grow: “While the tumult of confusion is all around us, goodness grows silently from the earth.” (No. 210)

“Men and women who refuse to give up, who persevere in doing good” are required, just as in times past “saints, righteous people and the oft-forgotten peacemakers”, who know how to resist ‘evil’, but still never the Devil (No. 211). No one is unnecessary in this endeavour. Everyone is important. A quotation from J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings supports this point (No. 213).

Add a little personal self-examination, cast aside hesitations, dare to take a stand in debates, cultivate authentic realism which does not, however, mean to give up on “changing the world” (what realism indeed!), revive dialogue, forge bonds of brotherhood, adopt “the method of peace”, be inspired by “the spirit of Assisi” and practise interreligious dialogue “because at the heart of the great spiritual paths lies a message of peace” (No. 223). In international relations, return to diplomacy and, above all, place trust in “international organisations, particularly the United Nations, [which] are essential instruments for promoting a civilisation of love” (No. 226).

Conclude with prayer and hope (short paragraph 228): “God loves us all, unconditionally.”

Do all these things and you will have the civilisation of love.

THE POPE’S CONCLUSION

The solace offered by religion comes in the conclusion (Nos. 229–245), religion comes to the rescue. One might be surprised to see this issue addressed so late in the text; however, within the immanentist logic adopted by the Pope, this order of presentation is consistent.

The Pope explains that in this hyperactive world, which he has described throughout his encyclical, “our hearts yearn” to discover a different purpose, that of God’s mercy (No. 230). This “sober yet demanding program of Christian life” involves four aspects.

1. The mystery of the Incarnation is that of the Son made flesh, poor and vulnerable. The Pope takes up a theme characteristic of Progressivist ideology, and affirms that this flesh of the Son recalls that “of so many brothers and sisters stripped of their dignity and reduced to silence”. Without mentioning baptism or membership of the Church, he adds that we have “the power to become children of God” by embracing the fragility of the most vulnerable and through the compassion that it stirs within us.

“In the promises of transhumanism and some posthumanist currents of thought, which seek an enhanced and almost disembodied humanity, we recognise a yearning that is of concern to us, namely the need for a fuller life, less exposed to limitations and suffering.” (No. 232)

“Nothing will be lost that is authentically human. Indeed, everything will be purified and reunited in the One, who gathers every fragment of life, every tear and every authentically human achievement, rescuing them from nothingness and delivering them, redeemed, to the Father.” (No. 233)

2. “Eucharistic spirituality” is another force called to lead the faithful towards ecclesial unity in love and, beyond that, to forge bonds with all people, especially the most disadvantaged. Indeed, in the Eucharist, the Lord gives his Body and Blood, gathers the Church together and becomes the principle of unity. From this communion must flow “Christian solidarity”, openness to justice and sharing and a focus on “processes aimed at respecting people’s dignity”.

3. A Gnostic sentence follows that should resonate with every Masonic brother: “The spirituality I wish to commend is that of the ‘wise architect’ who, driven by hope for the Kingdom of God, is committed to building the world for the common good (cf. 1 Co 3:10).” (No. 236)

This task of building can therefore only take place if “our relationship with God [is] at its centre, our rule must be the acceptance of human limitations as a natural and positive reality, and should be characterised by shared responsibility and a language characterised by the Gospel” (No. 236).

The Holy Father explains that our vocation is indeed to be “men and women prepared to enter the construction sites of history – research laboratories, technology companies, schools, the media, institutions and local communities” – and that by combining “listening and courage, prayer and responsibility”, “the human city may become a more fitting place to live” (No. 241).

4. The Magnificat, Mary’s song, is a song of hope that must accompany our commitment. “With the same faith as Mary, let us become ‘weavers of hope’ in our world.” (No. 245)

MARIAN CONCLUSION

To the revolutionary principles of the Church’s current Social Doctrine, to the humanist vision of the earthly city to be built and to the cult of humanity proclaimed throughout this encyclical, we set the cult of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the supernatural teaching of Fatima in opposition.

Lucy recounts that on June 13, 1917, Our Lady opened Her hands and for the second time, communicated to the seers the rays of that same divine light. In Her, they saw themselves, as it were, immersed in God. In front of the palm of Our Lady’s right hand was a heart encircled by thorns seemed to be piercing it. “We understood that this was the Immaculate Heart of Mary, outraged by the sins of humanity, and seeking reparation.”

May the Name of the Immaculata be magnified and sanctified! May the Holy Father cease to glorify, praise and exalt humanity – this humanity which sets itself up as God – in all the creations born of its pride, which are but nothing before Him! Let us think of the billions of human beings who lie in darkness and the shadow of death, waiting for reparatory devotion to the Immaculate Heart to be encouraged, proclaimed and preached throughout the world. Rejoice in God’s plan to lead all these people into the knowledge and love of our divine Mother! May the reign of the Immaculate Heart of Mary come to pass, served by the tireless zeal of the Holy Father!

What is this chimera of the “civilisation of love” compared to the Roman Catholic Church and its extension, Christendom, which is the only Jerusalem to be rebuilt and the only institution capable, through the Holy Spirit Who dwells within it, of saving the souls of men of good will and of poor sinners!

May the Holy Father preach the “blessed vision of Peace” of a humanity united from East and West, according to the prophecies of Isaiah, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the one Church! May Our Lady finally grant him the courage to take the heroic decisions necessary to lead the faithful towards a much-needed conversion, towards a fervent reparatory devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and towards an indispensable Counter-Reformation! Let us abandon the dreams of a purely human universal city, in which Jesus and Mary will never dwell, so that we may devote ourselves entirely to the reign of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the Church and throughout the whole world!

Brother Michael of the Triumphant Immaculata and the Divine Heart.