On May 15, 2026, Pope Leo XIV published his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas—On the Safeguarding of the Human Person in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (hereinafter MH).
This lengthy document includes 244 paragraphs, about 42,000 words, and 224 footnotes, nearly all referencing Vatican II and the post-conciliar popes.
Abandoning Thomistic Metaphysics
MH is not just a lengthy document but also confusing and hard to read, a confusion worsened by the neglect of St. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy and metaphysics.
Prof. Roberto de Mattei draws attention to this point:
“The Pope is right to raise the problem [of AI], but his answer does not clarify why equating human and artificial intelligence is impossible. For Thomistic philosophy, the reason does not consist mainly in the fact that AI does not feel emotions, has no relationships, or does not possess embodied memory, but in the fact that it lacks a rational spiritual soul, the intrinsic principle of intellectual operations. The encyclical, on the other hand, formulates the distinction between man and AI in purely phenomenological terms, on the level of experience, affectivity, and relationality, forgetting or ignoring that the decisive distinction is ontological.”1
Prof. Stefano Fontana adds that “[t]he use of existential, experiential, and narrative language rather than metaphysical and definitional language derives from the great influence of existentialist philosophy in Catholic theology.”2
A Church That No Longer Teaches But Dialogues
Although MH is subtitled “On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence,” it addresses many other themes and revisits the concept, if not the definition, of Pope Francis’s vision of what the Church should be: “the synodal Church, the Church that ‘walks together.’” (n. 42) That is a new Church of dialogue and synodality.
The core idea is Leo XIV’s statement, “I too have reaffirmed that the Church ‘does not claim to possess a monopoly on truth,’3 because truth is not a territory to be defended, but a good to be shared.” (n. 25)
Affirming that the Church does not have a “monopoly on truth” is the same as saying that she is not, by the will of Our Lord, the holder of revealed truth as the Apostolic Church, successor of the Apostles:
“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18–20.)
And Jesus also said:
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)
Therefore, the Church is the holder of revealed truth, not by some monopolistic scheme, but by the will of Jesus Christ himself.
That is why St. Paul taught St. Timothy: “[T]he house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15)
This truth, always held by the Church, has been taught countless times, as, for example, in Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical, Satis Cognitum—On the Unity of the Church (1896):
“Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible in the manner in which, in the symbol of our faith, we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.’”4
A Church “Evangelized” by the Poor
Starting from the premise that the Church “does not have a monopoly on the truth,” MH presents the Church not as the Teacher of the truth that instructs the people, but, on the contrary, as one that learns from them, and above all from the “marginalized.” This is how MH—following in the footsteps of Francis—sees the poor:
“Francis’ insistence on a synodal Church, a Church that ‘walks together,’ that seeks to read the signs of the times in the light of the Gospel and allows herself to be evangelized by the poor with whom she shares history, also fits into this perspective.” (n. 42)
In its Social Doctrine, the Church should recognize that the socioeconomic crisis has an ecological dimension and that “the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” cannot be separated:
“In Laudato Si’, Francis provided the first significant systematic treatment of the environmental crisis in a social encyclical, demonstrating that it is not an isolated issue, but rather the ecological aspect of the contemporary socio-economic crisis. His proposal for an integral ecology combined care for our common home with the preferential option for the poor, and strongly affirmed that “the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” … cannot be separated.” (n. 43)
The expression “the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor,” taken from Laudato Si (no. 866), is characteristic of liberation theology. It appears, for example, in the title of a 1995 book by Leonardo Boff, a former Franciscan friar and one of this movement’s leaders: Ecology, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor.5
To speak of “cry of the earth” is either to abuse the metaphor or to express an ecological pantheism that regards the Earth as a living being, in line with the worship of Pachamama, Mother Earth.
“Structural Sin”
In an age that has lost the notion of sin as an offense against God, MH has only three references to sin: two of them (nos. 36, 79) speak of “structures of sin;” another refers to the Declaration on Infinite Dignity (April 2, 2024, n. 7) and states that “[n]o sin, failure, humiliation, or exclusion can diminish the profound value of a human life that God has willed and called into being” (n. 52).
The first two references do not address personal sin, which is the offense against God; the other appears to refer to personal sin but clarifies that it cannot “affect the profound value of a human life.” Therefore, personal sin would have no impact on a sinner’s moral and spiritual life. This aligns with the encyclical’s main theme that sin resides in sociopolitical structures, which are described as “structures of sin.”
“Structures of Sin”
According to MH, “structures of sin” consist of “structures, mechanisms, and economic and cultural systems that produce inequality almost automatically” (no. 79), leading to the “marginalization” and “exclusion” of the poor. For MH, the existence of the poor is not due to a wide range of circumstances, including health problems, lack of skills or opportunities, atavism, and many others, but rather because they are “oppressed,” “marginalized,” and “excluded.” This reflects the Marxist perspective embraced by Latin American Liberation Theology.6
Therefore, the “structures of sin” refer to the socioeconomic systems responsible for this situation—that is, according to Liberation Theology, capitalism. Conversely, Liberation Theology considers socialist states a paradise for the poor, despite the misery of countries like Cuba. It should be noted that MH makes no mention of socialism, although its hostility toward capitalism is unmistakable.
A few quotes from MH:
“[W]here people are marginalized, it must allow the Gospel to pass judgment on those economic and political structures which — as John Paul II would later remind us — can become veritable ‘structures of sin.’”(n. 36)
The poor are the excluded: “[I]n wealthy countries new kinds of poverty were emerging as well as unprecedented forms of exclusion (n. 40). Also, poverty is seen as a new form of slavery: “[A] Church capable of listening to the cry of the poor, migrants, and victims of new forms of slavery.” (n. 42)
Some women are “doubly poor” because they suffer violence and “exclusion”:“It is a fact that ‘doubly poor are those women who endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment, and violence, since they are frequently less able to defend their rights.’” (n. 57)
MH Opposes Capitalism
Commentators have noted its aversion to the capitalist system and undisguised sympathy for socialism or social democracy.
Even a liberal like Fr. James Martin, S.J., sympathetically writes:
“Pope Leo XIV’s superb new encyclical, ‘Magnifica Humanitas,’ is the most cogent Catholic critique of capitalism that I have ever read. Pope Leo does this in sure, deft, and lucid strokes.”7
However, canonist Fr. Gerald Murray, who is on the opposite end of the spectrum from Fr. Martin, considers MH not only as anti-capitalist but also explicitly socialist.
“[The] worldview being conveyed here, and overall the impression I get, is what Bob [Robert Royal] called ‘soft socialism.’ There is this unstated underlying theme that a regulated economy with government supremacy is the only means to produce social harmony and peace.”8
Is the Just War Theory “Now Outdated?”
Perhaps one of MH’s statements that caused the most surprise and bewilderment was that classical Just War theory “is now outdated”:
“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.” (no.192)
What does the expression, “the ‘just war’ theory … is now outdated” actually mean? Canonist Father Gerald Murray comments:
“But what does this mean [outdated] in the moral realm? The truth of a moral proposition doesn’t depend on the day of the calendar year it was proposed. You know, it’s a principle derived from natural law and revelation. And you know, this is not an abstract theory.
“This is how people live. To say that it’s outdated, unfortunately, is a roundabout way of saying it’s bad. You know, just war theory is bad. Why? Because people use it to fight wars.
“Well, you know, every war has a good aspect and a bad aspect. The bad aspect is the man who invades your country. Putin invaded Ukraine. That’s bad. The Ukrainians fought back and are defending their nation. That’s good.”9
To say that the Just War theory is outdated only makes sense if one adopts the historicist, evolutionist view that truth changes with the flow of history and cultural shifts. This is implied in MH and was clearly defended in the Synod’s preliminary document number 9.10
Traditional Doctrine on Just War
The doctrine of Just War originates from St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who based it on the Gospels and Natural Law. It was further developed by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), known as the Angelic Doctor, as well as by St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) and the prominent doctors of the Counter-Reformation (16th–17th centuries), particularly Francisco de Vitoria, O.P. (1485–1546), Francisco Suárez, S.J. (1548–1617), and Saint Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (1542–1621). The Magisterium accepted and promoted it through official documents and practical applications to real-world situations.11
No matter how circumstances have changed, and despite the growing destructive power of weapons, the principles underlying the Just War Theory remain true and cannot be abandoned. They should be applied with proper caution, but realistically, as Pope Pius XII explains in this 1953 message:
“The community of nations must reckon with criminals without a conscience. These are unafraid of unleashing total war to achieve their ambitious plans. Therefore, if other nations wish to protect the lives and property of their citizens and rein in international criminals, they must prepare for the day when they will have to defend themselves. This right to defense cannot be denied, even today, to any State.”12
Besides natural goods—both material and moral—some supernatural goods, like Faith, are worth more than life itself.
Therefore, when man’s ultimate supernatural goal is at stake, the defense of human life cannot be placed above that ultimate good. Judas Maccabeus expressed this truth in his famous phrase: “It is better for us to die in battle than to witness the ruin of our nation and our sanctuary” (1 Macc. 3:59). And the Divine Savior was adamant: “For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:36–37).
MH focuses more on humanism than on man’s eternal and supernatural end. The encyclical is such a hodgepodge of theories, facts, comments, interpretations, and citations that it appears to be the work of a heterogeneous, poorly coordinated group of ghostwriters, lacking careful harmonization and editing.
None of its numerous paragraphs and endless citations show concern for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, the supreme purpose of the Church of Christ, of which the Pope is the Vicar on Earth.
First Published on TFP.org
Footnotes
- Roberto de Mattei, “Magnifica humanitas”: The Underlying Metaphysical Problem, Jun. 1, 2026 (Our translation from the original Italian. Emphasis added).
- Stefano Fontana, “Magnifica humanitas, a Thousand Readings and a Problem of Language.” At https://lanuovabq.it/it/magnifica-humanitas-mille-letture-e-un-problema-di-linguaggio (Our translation from the original Italian. Emphasis added).
- Address to the Members of the “Centesimus Annus Pro Pontifice” Foundation (May 17, 2025): AAS 117 (2025), 696.
- Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum – On the Unity Of The Church (1896). At https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum.html, n. 4.
- Leonardo Boff, Dignitas Terrae – Ecology, the Cry of the Earth, the Cry of the Poor (Editora Atica, São Paulo: 1995).
- Cf. Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, “Liberation Theology: A Tool Of Subversion” Jul. 26, 2012. At https://www.tfp.org/liberation-theology-a-tool-of-subversion/ and Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, “‘Rehabilitation’ of Liberation Theology?” Sept. 10, 2013. At https://www.tfp.org/rehabilitation-of-liberation-theology/
- James Martin, S.J., “A capitalist (priest) reads ‘Magnifica Humanitas,’” in America, May 25, 2026,https://www.americamagazine.org/faith-and-reason/2026/05/25/a-capitalist-priest-reads-magnifica-humanitas/
- Fr. Gerald Murray on Pope Leo’s 1st Encyclical | Prayerful Posse, Transcript, 0:35–52 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxoyCG2tGxE
- Raymond Arroyo, Is Just War Theory Outdated? Pope Leo’s First Encyclical | Prayerful Posse Clip, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7uKRsRkV1o6/10/2026
- Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, “The Synod on Synodality’s Study Group 9 Report Favors Homosexual Sin,” Jun. 6, 2026. https://www.tfp.org/the-synod-on-synodalitys-study-group-9-report-favors-homosexual-sin/
- See: Letter From Augustine to Marcellinus, Chap. III, n. 15.; T. Ortolan, Guerre, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique”, Paris, Letouzé et Ané: 1947, tome sixième, 2ème partie, cols. 1899-1959); Macksey, Charles. “War.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm. Heinrich A. Rommen, LL.D, The State in Catholic Thought – A Treatise in Political Philosophy (Herder, St. Louis, 1945).
- Pope Pius XII, “Per il VI Congresso Internazionale di Diritto Penale,” in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, Vol. XV, 1969, 340 (our translation from the French original and our emphasis).