Every Pope has an avatar. Papal avatars are not understood in the usual sense--as a graphical or digital representation of a person, used to represent them in video games, online forums, social media, or virtual environments. They are bound up in the name selected for each reign. The current Bishop of Rome chose Leo as his avatar. The last possessor of that name, Leo XIII (reigned 1878-1903) was best remembered for confronting the challenges of the Industrial revolution, one that produced what has been described as the first social encyclical, Rerum novarum: Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor (1891) which is said to have laid the foundation for modern Catholic social teaching. Rerum novarum was practical and utilitarian in its essence:
The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvellous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.
20. Of these duties, the following bind the proletarian and the worker: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss. The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman. (Rerum novarum: Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor (1891))
Almost a century later the theorization of that social theory was perhaps refined and brought back into theology within the framework of the Church's understanding of the dialectical relationship between faith and reason (Fides et Ratio) in Deus Caritas Est (2005) and Caritas in Veritate (2009).
“Caritas in veritate” is the principle around which the Church's social doctrine turns, a principle that takes on practical form in the criteria that govern moral action. I would like to consider two of these in particular, of special relevance to the commitment to development in an increasingly globalized society: justice and the common good. First of all, justice. Ubi societas, ibi ius: every society draws up its own system of justice. Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is “mine” to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is “his”, what is due to him by reason of his being or his acting. . . Love in truth — caritas in veritate — is a great challenge for the Church in a world that is becoming progressively and pervasively globalized. The risk for our time is that the de facto interdependence of people and nations is not matched by ethical interaction of consciences and minds that would give rise to truly human development. Only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and humanizing value. The sharing of goods and resources, from which authentic development proceeds, is not guaranteed by merely technical progress and relationships of utility, but by the potential of love that overcomes evil with good (cf. Rom 12:21), opening up the path towards reciprocity of consciences and liberties. (Caritas in Veritate (2009). )
The theory, then, binds the utilitarianism of Rerum Novarum with the evolving doctrine of faith as expressed in, through, and perhaps in some ways as good works as an evangelization of faith through rational human structures ("What is distinctive in the biblical text is the conviction that there is
a profound and indissoluble unity between the knowledge of reason and
the knowledge of faith. The world and all that happens within it,
including history and the fate of peoples, are realities to be observed,
analysed and assessed with all the resources of reason, but without
faith ever being foreign to the process. Faith intervenes not to abolish
reason's autonomy nor to reduce its scope for action, but solely to
bring the human being to understand that in these events it is the God
of Israel who acts. Thus the world and the events of history cannot be
understood in depth without professing faith in the God who is at work
in them." Fides et Ratio ¶ 16) ).
Thus Benedict has built up a theology of social justice values on a foundation of resolved binaries: Religion-politics, love of God-love of humanity, faith-reason, spiritual-concrete, theology-economic values. And it also suggests an important caveat that separates Church theology from classical or Marxist economic values theory—the Church does not posit the possibility of constructing systems that produce (eventually) a perfection that makes values regulation irrelevant. Instead, Benedict posits that the striving for a just society on the basis of Church values will not lead to human social perfection. (Id., at ¶ 28(b)). Instead, the obligation to charity—now social justice—reflects an eternal obligation to express the love of God for humanity, and of individuals for their neighbors. “In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live “by bread alone” (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Id.).
Deus Caritas Est suggests a fully developed and sophisticated system of valuation for economic analysis. Economic values are essentially grounded in love, rather than in personal or aggregate wealth maximization. But love here is understood as the expression of a complex series of parallelisms. . . . Aggregate maximization of value, then, is not necessarily measured by wealth maximization in the form of the accumulation of lots of objects with a high market value (the conventional sense of classical economics and Marxist theory), but is measured in the production of good measured in terms of charity, and, in its modern understanding—social justice. Economics, then, is grounded in the study of systems for the maximization of social justice among individuals which itself is to be understood as an application of divine love in human relations. (Values Economics and Theology: The Contribution of Catholic Social Thought and its Implications for Legal Regulatory Systems).
 |
| Pix credit here (episode of Futurama) |
The current Leo now applies at least some of this development to the contemporary challenge of Artificial Intelligence. Leo XIV does in a world very different from that of Rerum Novarum's 1891; but in Magnifica Humanitas: On Safegurading the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence (2026) he appears to seek to adapt its theological pragmatics to the discursive language and principles of this very different age. Where Rerum Novarum spoke of the dignity of labor and capital around conceptions of property, Magnifica Humanitas speaks to something like that dignity within the discursive orbits of social justice and its tropes.
240. Let us love justice and peace! The same technologies that facilitate communication and access to resources can also support models that exploit the most vulnerable, create new forms of slavery and derive profit from conflict. Every technical or economic decision should include spiritual discernment and be an opportunity for assessing whether the advances in AI are promoting justice and participation or concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a select few. I would encourage a careful examination of the supply chains of digital production, the working conditions hidden behind our devices and the mechanisms that profit from manipulation and war. At the same time, practical ways of fostering fairness, participation and care for creation must be found. We proclaim a hope rooted in the One who came down from heaven to “create a new story here below.” . . .
241. As we look to the future, I would like to recall the image of Nehemiah whom we chose as our companion and guide at the outset. Nehemiah heard the cry of a devastated city, brought that pain to prayer, discerned before God, asked for help, received permission to return, organized the work, confronted internal and external resistance and rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem with the assistance of the people, brick by brick. In this era of digital transformation, I see in him a striking parable of our own vocation, which is not to be passive spectators of social and cultural fractures, nor mere commentators on what is crumbling, but men and women prepared to enter the construction sites of history — research laboratories, technology companies, schools, the media, institutions and local communities — in order to rebuild what has collapsed and protect what is threatened. Like Nehemiah, we too are called to unite listening and courage, prayer and responsibility, so that, even when a technocratic mentality or partisan interests seem to prevail, the human city may become a more fitting place to live. (Magnifica Humanitas)
These are architectures of neural networks--of the processing of the human condition in the face of AI and its patterning shapes by the values and biases of the community of the faithful--and thus applied to judge the value of a thing or process or application. In this way Leo XIV appears to seek to tie the current situation to that of 1891. Where Leo XIII worried about the socialism and its call for the collectivization of humanity and defended the autonomy of capital and labor through notions of property and dignity, Leo XIV worries about AI and its transformation of labor and capital in ways that de-center the human and threaten human autonomy.
170. Having reflected on truth and education, work and families, we must now consider the impact of the digital revolution on human freedom, addressing risks to both the mental health of individuals and broader social challenges. The subtler forms of addiction linked to the “digital attention economy” should not be underestimated, since platforms and services are often designed to capture users’ time and attention, exploiting their vulnerabilities and weakening their inner freedom. When business models thrive on human weakness, the person is treated as a means rather than as an end; those who design or finance such systems bear a moral responsibility that cannot be ignored. There is an urgent need to promote technologies that strengthen interior freedom by fostering education in digital sobriety and the protection of minors, thus countering models that exploit vulnerability.
171. A further risk, less visible but no less serious, is that of social control made possible by the massive collection of data and use of algorithmic systems. When every action—movements, purchases, relationships and preferences—leaves a trace, a new form of power emerges, namely the power to profile, predict and influence behavior, often without individuals being fully aware of it. If such kinds of data are used to make decisions affecting concrete opportunities — such as access to credit, employment or essential services — there is a risk of undermining freedom and discriminating against the most vulnerable. Furthermore, control is exercised not only through explicit prohibitions, but also through the architecture of visibility: what is amplified or rendered invisible, what is rewarded or penalized, ultimately shapes opinions and choices, fostering conformity and self-censorship. For this reason, freedom in the digital age is not merely a matter of interiority but also a public concern. It calls for clear rules, transparency, the possibility of recourse and proportionate limits on the use of intrusive technologies, so that technology will remain at the service of the human person and not become a form of control over consciences.
172. At the root of these problems lies a technocratic and post-humanist mentality that tends to regard the human person as an object to be manipulated or a resource to be optimized, [172] removing all safeguards against the unchecked pursuit of profit. What prevails is efficiency, rather than respect for freedom and human dignity. Some post-humanist currents even go so far as to envision “second-class” human beings, subordinate to the interests of elites who consider themselves superior. This troubling prospect becomes all the more serious when combined with technological tools that exponentially increase the capacity for control and selection. Even certain forms of structural indebtedness, which keep entire peoples in conditions of dependence, reflect the same mentality, in new forms, that tolerates relationships of subordination akin to slavery. * * *
174. The fight against new forms of slavery is a decisive test for the
ethical discernment of AI and digital transformation. In continuity with
the tradition inaugurated by Leo XIII,
the Church renews her firm condemnation of all forms of slavery,
trafficking and the commodification of persons. She likewise highlights
the urgent need for reflection and action that keep the inalienable
dignity of every human being and the common good, as both the focus and
goal of society, as well as the guiding criteria for every personal,
social and political choice. Without this ethical and humanizing
reflection, the growing power of digital systems could lead us toward
new atrocities that are no less shameful than those of the past that we
now deplore, while we continue to present ourselves as “advanced” and
“civilized” societies. (Magnifica Humanitas)
The question, then, is neither form, nor function. It is essentially effects and harm. And, more importantly, it is a question about the relationship between humanity and its tools. "Faced with these transformations, we must recall the principles of Social Doctrine — the dignity of the person, the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and justice — for they are criteria for judging whether technologies truly serve humanity or are subjugating it. We should, therefore, consider these principles as guidelines for our decision-making." (Magnifica Humanitas). AI is good if it is useful; it is useful if it serves humanity; it serves humanity best by advancing the normative structures of its communities of believers in some higher set of values. But it is neither alive, nor are its functions an excuse for drifting from those values.
"In the era of artificial intelligence, when human dignity is threatened by new forms of dehumanization, 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 splendor of which no machine can ever replace. True progress always stems from a heart open to others, an intelligence willing to listen and a will that seeks what unites rather than what separates."(MH, ¶15))
In the end, though, one isn't focusing on theology as much as on tort. And one is focusing on the normative metrics of the signification--of labor, dignity, and development. "It is important to move beyond the current metrics of development — which for more than eighty years have been tied to the concept of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — since these metrics almost systematically neglect aspects essential to the overall wellbeing of people and the environment. The development of parameters and metrics complementary to GDP is crucial for improving the databases used for conducting analyses, political and economic decision-making and establishing regional, national and international priorities." (MH ¶159) But it is effects and harm mediated through the rationalizing order and value systems that now appear to more deeply entangle, as they did in 1891, the conceptual universe of the Church with the theoretical flows beyond its community of the faithful.
The practical implications of some of the discourse in Magnifica Humanitas has not been lost on the faithful. There has been some discussion, for example, on the use of the Encyclical to claim exemption from work that is connected to AI (see, e.g., here, here).
The encyclical follows below.
