by Serre Verweij,
for Rorate Caeli
Pope Leo Has Finally Released His First Encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas
Pope Leo has finally released his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, to the world. As expected, it deals with AI and technological innovation. Surprisingly, however, it also deals extensively with a variety of other social topics and tips Pope Leo's hand just a bit on multiple divisive issues.
The document differs from the Francis era in that it far more strongly emphasizes Christ as our one and only Lord and Savior, and that any successful social endeavor starts with him. At the same time, it resembles the Francis era in being far more concerned with social topics and matters of this world than with theology, liturgy or penance. Pope Leo very clearly roots human dignity in God, yet speaks at length about how the faith can serve the betterment of men rather than the glory of God.
The short version is that it is rather orthodox, yet not particularly groundbreaking, not anti-AI as such, and better than most documents from the Francis era — but that it also has some questionable parts and ambiguities. The long version is quite a journey through this nearly 250-paragraph text.
Several Cooks in the Kitchen
The encyclical is Leo XIV's first, yet because Leo does not circumvent the Curia the way his predecessor did, Cardinal Fernández had significant involvement in his role as DDF Prefect. Cardinal Czerny also played an important role, as the topic of the encyclical fell partially under his dicastery. Finally, Cardinal Parolin as Secretary of State had a hand in editing as well.
As a result, the encyclical bears both Leo's stamp and that of Francis's curial allies, and this is very noticeable. As with Una Caro, it is not very difficult to say with relative certainty that certain parts are the work of Fernández and others the work of Pope Leo himself. This will become especially important when dealing with the more worrisome parts of the document.
Yes to AI; No to Transhumanism and the Instrumentalization of People
On AI, the encyclical turned out to be surprisingly positive. Christopher Hale's narrative of Pope Leo making war against the pro-Trump technocrats of Silicon Valley has been completely debunked. While the encyclical does call for certain regulations on particular forms of AI, it largely promotes subsidiarity-based means of achieving this rather than statist ones (more on this below). For the most part, it simply provides moral guidelines about how AI should be used and to what end. The document opposes monopolies on private data, non-transparent automated processes determining who gets jobs or credit, and the use of AI to spread disinformation. The document calls for accountability and rejects the notion that AI can be considered an objective and neutral decision-maker.
The biggest challenge to secular technocrats is that the document rejects a worldly focus on pleasure, efficiency and profit and instead promotes traditional Christian ethics rooted in faith. It also positively embraces suffering and limitations as a part of life and an opportunity for growth in a way that is very traditionally Christian — specifically Catholic — and the polar opposite of philosophies like Buddhism. It is also in noticeable contrast to Francis, who once argued that there was no explanation for why God permits certain evils, and in doing so sounded more like an agnostic.
Pope Leo takes aim not at technological development itself, but against the transhumanist and post-humanist ideologies that risk abusing it:
"Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis today. Everything that appears as a 'limit' — incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability — tends to be seen primarily as a defect to be corrected, rather than as a reality through which our humanity matures and opens itself to relationship. And yet we must remember that humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them. The light of faith offers a perspective on reality that helps us recognize what we call the 'contingency' of the things of this world."
Pope Leo's Distinction: Natural Law vs. Catholic Social Teaching
Some criticized Leo for not referencing Church doctrine on sexuality and marriage while referencing previous encyclicals dealing with social issues. But while these matters are also part of ensuring a healthy social order — and the Pope's new encyclical acknowledges this — previous Popes also limited the list of encyclicals dealing with social issues to those dealing specifically with economics and politics.
This is in part because, while absolute and unambiguous ethics regarding marriage, sex and the family are all social issues as well, not all social or economic issues are absolute ethical issues. As we discussed in our previous article, in purely economic matters the Church left more room for prudential judgment, providing basic unchanging principles for social policy while allowing the secular state to make policy on these matters with considerable autonomy. While socialists like to pretend the Church explicitly supports the welfare state, progressive taxation or various social programs, it does no such thing. It does provide basic moral principles, however, and Pope Leo was explicit that the Church preaches unchanging truths.
Pope Leo made clear last year that Catholic Social Teaching is not a detailed blueprint for policy, while at the same time instructing lawmakers to always adhere to natural law. In his new encyclical, the Pope again implicitly referenced natural law-based ethics as unchanging, binding and non-negotiable in political matters.
"The first is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, without which it is impossible to exercise any other right. When this fundamental right is denied — as in the cases of induced abortion, killing of the innocent and euthanasia — we are faced with choices that the Church considers gravely wrong."
This passage is noteworthy not just for explicitly stating that abortion and euthanasia undermine the fundamental right that underlies all other rights, but also for what it does NOT do: it does not mention the death penalty, condemning only the killing of the innocent.
Similarly, the document affirms the family as the basis of society, marriage as the enduring union of one man and one woman as the basis of the family, and does not endorse Francis's support for civil unions for homosexuals. It also acknowledges that parents are the primary educators of their children and defends Catholic schools.
Pope Leo's History of Catholic Social Doctrine
Pope Leo opens the document with a detailed history of Catholic Social Teaching. It is primarily useful for what it reveals about how he understands CST and its history. Pope Leo advances a hermeneutic of continuity within which he situates Francis. At the same time, he acknowledges that there were certain changes in perspective on CST, though he treats these as secondary.
Pope Leo refrains from endorsing a revisionist interpretation of Pope Leo XIII that denies his hostility toward socialism and class struggle or presents him as a third positionist. He also gives due respect to Pope Pius XI rather than largely passing over him as some past popes did. We could already see a glimpse of Pope Leo's affection for Pius XI in Una Caro, where Casti Connubii's support for anti-adultery laws was positively referenced. Pope Leo praised both how Pius XI introduced the concept of subsidiarity and his fight against totalitarianism — including through his anti-communist encyclical Divini Redemptoris and his anti-Nazi encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Pope Leo XIV favors an authentic interpretation of the teachings of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, and that he reads the Second Vatican Council significantly through their lens.
Even more attention is given to Pope Pius XII. He is clearly treated as a bridge between the pre-Vatican II popes and the Vatican II popes — a characterization that is unfortunately historically justified to a degree — but Pius XII is not used to justify a negation of the past. Instead, he serves to support a more harmonious and consistent interpretation of CST, grounding the teachings of Vatican II in Pius XII's deepening focus on peace and international cooperation.
John XXIII, Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council do not receive excessive attention or honor. John XXIII and Paul VI are credited with a greater focus on human rights and integral development respectively, while Vatican II is seen mainly as having strengthened the Church's active engagement in the world rather than as having changed doctrine. Leo speaks of Vatican II encouraging the Church to read the times through the Gospel, not the reverse. While John XXIII, Paul VI and Vatican II are treated as innovative, they are read through what came before them and interpreted strongly through the lens of John Paul II — and also through Benedict XVI.
While Francis is referenced frequently in the document, it is often not on essential or controversial issues. He seems to be treated almost as a footnote to previous popes. John Paul II enjoys a modest primacy instead, with his understanding of economics appearing closest to Leo's. It is very apparent that John Paul II was indeed the pope of Prevost's priestly formation.
Pope Leo's Views on CST: From Private Property to Migration, and Even Synodality
It becomes clear from the document that Pope Leo is no liberation theologian or "Christian Socialist." One is inclined to describe Leo's economic and social views as centrist, while another expert consulted for this piece described him as center-right. Perhaps center to center-right is the most fitting characterization. Other applicable labels — which have been used before — are green conservative, conservative centrist, and Christian democrat without the devotion to democracy. Pope Leo repeatedly centers his thinking on these concepts: solidarity, social justice, subsidiarity and the common good. His approach is more virtue-based than activist in character.
Pope Leo does not rail against capitalism, the market or even inequality as such. He opposes excessive and growing inequality and blind trust in the "invisible hand," but references a regulated market and private initiative positively.
Pope Leo is also skeptical in the document of a universal basic income and an excessive welfare state. He supports a regulatory role for the state and labor law, but also speaks repeatedly of subsidiarity and the important role of local and mediating institutions. There is no blind trust in the state to be found.
On private property, the encyclical still emphasizes its social dimension and limits, but appears overall more supportive than Francis was. The document treats John Paul II as the main authority on the matter. Pope Leo also favors lower taxes for those with fewer resources.
The encyclical does not preach apocalyptically against climate change. It mentions care for the common home, how certain technologies can strain the environment and how ecological problems can force people to migrate, but it is not presented as a justification for radical statist policies or ecological activism. It receives relatively limited attention in the text.
On migration, the document is surprisingly moderate. It confirms that Leo does not preach open borders or diversity as an inherent strength, and that he acknowledges the difference between economic migrants and genuine refugees. The document also refers to the necessity of addressing the problems in people's home countries that cause them to migrate in the first place. Leo shifted the focus in that direction, and the president of the Spanish Bishops' Conference followed his lead earlier this month — which is particularly relevant given that Leo is due to visit Spain soon.
Contrary to a globalist outlook, Pope Leo affirmed the right of different nations and cultures to continue to exist:
"I invite everyone to conceive of ways of cooperating and of more effective international institutions, capable of safeguarding the global common good without compromising the legitimate diversity of peoples and nations. Indeed, the promotion of the common good can never be separated from respect for the right of peoples to exist, to preserve their own identity and to contribute their unique qualities to the family of nations."
Synodality is briefly mentioned in a way that is surprisingly vague and seems almost like a last-minute addition. The laity must be co-responsible for mission, and transparency is important — especially in matters of abuse. A reference to the regular evaluation of ministries seems slightly worrisome, but it is unclear whether this refers to bishops.
The document again showed Pope Leo's very mild integralist leanings through its very conservative interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. The separation between Church and state is closer to the traditional understanding of separate autonomous spheres advocated by Pope Leo XIII. Even the declaration in support of religious freedom is reinterpreted as a right not to be impeded — specifically, "impeded from seeking and professing the truth both privately and publicly." It seems that not even the SSPX could object to that definition.
Finally, the document confirms something that was noticed early on but that very few others picked up on: Pope Leo is supportive of democracy only in a very limited and qualified way. Like Pope Pius XII, he does not treat democracy as intrinsically good but only as a system capable of producing good results for society — and only if it satisfies important conditions, including a societal adherence to the truth. The document greatly relativizes support for democracy overall. Pope Leo values human rights independently of democracy.
The Pope's Passion for Peace and Just War Theory Under a New Name
One of the topics on which Leo is most outspoken and least moderate is the issue of war. His well-known concern about the recent rise in conflicts and militarization is on full display in the encyclical. It is a key part of the document, receiving almost as much prominence as AI. What attracted the most attention, however, was Pope Leo's suggestion that the traditional just war doctrine has become outdated.
While progressives have long pushed for an overturning of Church doctrine on just war, this document does not do that. It only dispenses with the name by describing how the framework has been used — and how it has come to be invoked to justify virtually any war — has become problematic. Yet it upholds a right to self-defense, and Pope Pius XII had already limited just war to precisely that. In fact, John Paul II had even introduced a presumption against war. As such, support for self-defense is all that Catholic doctrine on just war has amounted to for over 80 years now. As William Shakespeare once wrote: "What's in a name?"
While some might also want to criticize Pope Leo for referencing international institutions and tribunals as important for peace, this is a tradition that unfortunately goes back to Pope Pius XII and his support for the United Nations. Pope Leo did not really say anything new on these issues; he only demonstrated that they are exceptionally important to him and that he wishes to cultivate a peacemaker's mindset rather than promote pacifism — as the left would prefer.
While the Pope is right to reject a complacent and defeatist attitude that treats war as inevitable, one might question whether he does not underplay the fallenness of human nature and the need for Christ to return to ensure lasting peace. His belief in religious dialogue and his assertion that a message of peace underlies other — and false — religions can also be questioned, though it may be diplomatic in nature.
The Brief, Messy Reference to the History of the Catholic Church and Slavery
What is arguably the worst part of the document is the one-sided and simplistic history of the Catholic Church's response to slavery provided in paragraph 176. It focuses exclusively on the weaker responses of the Church and ignores the leading role the Church played in expanding the rights of slaves in the late Roman Empire and in virtually eradicating slavery across most of Europe in the first half of the Middle Ages — which was extraordinary for the time. It also omits the manner in which popes like Paul III opposed the emerging slave trade in the New World during the 16th century in Sublimis Deus.
Instead, the chapter largely faults the Church all the way up to Pope Leo XIII. It lacks nuance and is highly selective. This is especially ironic given that the Joint Statement of the Dicasteries for Culture and Education and for Promoting Integral Human Development on the "Doctrine of Discovery" in 2023 referenced all of those positive elements and offered far greater nuance. Yet that statement was released under Francis and was the product of Czerny's dicastery and that of the notorious Tolentino de Mendonça.
If a Vatican document from just a few years ago could offer a far more detailed, nuanced and fair picture, why was that not done here? Did Pope Leo himself want a more one-sided apology? Until now, he had not seemed particularly focused on self-flagellation. Pope Leo steered clear of the slavery topic when he visited Angola, even though it would have been relevant in an area affected by the Portuguese slave trade. Last year, he described the history of Catholicism in Latin America in nuanced terms, as one of light and shadows. He has never previously adopted a tone like this. This part of the encyclical stands out sharply from the rest.
This is where the role of other prelates becomes relevant. Cardinal Fernández had been working on a document on the history of the Catholic response to slavery, which was almost certain to suggest that the Church had failed on this issue and that doctrine had evolved. He appears to have been trying to have it published under Pope Leo, but seems to have shelved the project instead. Yet now these talking points appear briefly in this encyclical, embedded within a broader condemnation of human trafficking. Did Fernández obtain this paragraph as a compromise? Did he insert it without Leo's full awareness? Or did Leo agree with the basic points but simply did not want an entire document dedicated to the development of doctrine on this matter?
Since the understanding of doctrinal development in the text remains that of Newman and Ratzinger rather than a more progressive framework, it does not carry much weight for future doctrinal ruptures on disputed issues. It is nonetheless unfortunate to see the history of the Church treated in such a fashion in a papal encyclical.
Remaining Questionable Elements
The document appears to positively reference Nelson Mandela, though primarily in connection with his alleged decision not to seek revenge after the end of apartheid.
While it suggests that online platforms and AI should be regulated through a balance between their owners and intermediate institutions, it is rather vague on how this can be achieved without resulting in excessive state interference.
Similarly, the document suggests that the state should perhaps prevent online platforms from excluding young people — but this raises the crucial question of how such a requirement could be implemented. In Europe, there is currently a risk that age verification requirements will lead to the end of online anonymity, with possible consequences for surveillance or censorship.
These are examples of issues on which the encyclical should perhaps have been clearer, and where possible biases of Cardinals Parolin or Czerny may have influenced the text.
Conclusion
The encyclical confirms that Pope Leo is neither a socialist nor a social democrat, and that he has no plans to wage war against Trump. It is in many ways a balanced and complex document grounded in a thorough Christology.
Yet its impact as a social encyclical remains to be seen. It attempts to address multiple topics, yet on some it remains too abstract. One can only hope that future encyclicals dealing more directly with theological topics will carry greater weight and influence.
