Are you of two minds about social encyclicals? I am.

By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | May 28, 2026

Let me say at the outset that I am impressed with Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas (On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence). The Pope shows clearly that he has taken the trouble to understand the nature, promise and pitfalls of AI, and he keeps his focus squarely on the good of human persons with respect to both the use of artificial intelligence and the aggressive appetite AI has for the consumption of resources. In the course of the encyclical he also completely rejects all forms of transhumanism and posthumanism.

Indeed, more than anything else and as is true of all social encyclicals, Leo’s discussion of AI is rooted in the good of the human person, and the impossibility of protecting and enhancing that good through what we might call an indiscriminate use of machinery, a use which denies or denigrates the deep values of personal interaction, genuine intelligence and human care. He foresees the manifold situations in which AI may eliminate the interaction of human persons even though this dehumanizing is very bad not only for those who may be put out of work, but for those who will increasingly live and work only with an absolute minimum of genuine personal contact, interaction, and creativity. To take one primitive example already in evidence, we now know through our own experience how frustrating AI chatbots are whenever a discussion with a real person is needed to get to the heart of the question at hand.

Basically, this occurs whenever more than a mere “look up” of information is needed to resolve any issue. This is why any chat-based help system that doesn’t relatively quickly turn us over to a real person proves to be an exercise in frustration. Deliberately settling for pre-programmed personal chat bots as substitutes for genuine human interaction can only lead to either insanity or despair. Worse still, the idea that an AI doll or any other form of AI can substitute for genuine human interaction is both ludicrous and depressingly perverted. One huge problem we face in today’s technological universe is that, in an increasing number of cases, we no longer know what it means to be genuinely human, and to live in hope rather than in a technological trivialization of despair.

This is why my title refers to being of “two minds” about social encyclicals. On the one hand, social encyclicals always address dehumanizing issues, and so defend the unique dignity of man. But on the other, they inescapably provide primarily an oblique approach to the deeper issue that ought to be facing us all, namely our conversion to Jesus Christ within His Church. The emphasis on the nature and dignity of the human person, which characterizes all social encyclicals, is very welcome, and it should certainly occupy one part of our minds (and hearts). But for my part, at least, I have given up more or less completely on the myth that this nature and dignity can be widely understood and embraced apart from our recognition of Jesus Christ.

To the contrary, I believe that human history demonstrates that no society can consistently adhere even to the social teachings of the Catholic Church without a firm faith in Jesus Christ as well as a firm trust in the Church He founded, despite all of her human weaknesses. If this was extraordinarily difficult even in those places and ages in which the Catholic Church was a dominant presence, it is no wonder that it has slowly spiraled into a sheer impossibility in the centuries since that time. In the final analysis, how much hope is there in the presumption of good will among men apart from Jesus Christ?

Reading the encyclical

I have read the the new encyclical very carefully, which is probably what every theory-oriented person with a stake in our brave new world should do, and I can assure you that, as I approach the age of 80, I have (in a worldly sense) far less stake in it than most potential readers. Printed out from our website with narrow margins on standard paper, it runs about 82 pages (excluding the footnotes) and, being well-organized, it is fairly easy to skim (as, in fact, are all social encyclicals, which inescapably deal so largely in what we might call, in any less rigorous and detailed form, common sense).

The first chapter, A Dynamic Approach Faithful to the Gospel, discusses the nature and purpose of Catholic social teaching. The second, Foundations and Principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church, provides an overview of the past development and fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching, of which many readers will know very little. The third chapter’s title indicates the heart of the issue: Technology and Dominance, the Grandeur of Humanity in Light of the Promises of AI. The fourth focuses on the central issue: Safeguarding Humanity at a Time of Transformation. Truth, Work, Freedom. And the fifth chapter contrasts The Culture of Power and the Civilization of Love. The Conclusion, as one would expect, brings things back to Christ and His body the Church, identifying Mary’s Magnificat as our true “song of hope”.

Fortunately, this sort of a text, devoted as it is to the application of key principles to our contemporary situation, especially with respect to the development and use of artificial intelligence, is relatively easy to skim. Since far more people chatter about AI than actually know anything about it, skimming actually provides a good overview of the issue, its risks and the need to develop and deploy AI in a manner controlled by and permeated with true human intelligence and genuine human values. In other words, like every other significant problem, this too must be addressed with a moral will arising from the irreplaceable dignity and Divine destiny of each human person).

The logic of Christ

So there the encyclical lies: It is a deft treatment of both humanity and technology which denies the wisdom of attempting to use technology to transcend our humanity, or even to use technology once again to aggrandize some and marginalize others. For all technologisms, transhumanisms, and posthumanisms—not to mention all selfishness, whether personal or corporate—are in reality deceits of the Evil One, who lures us to destroy ourselves in the name of what is really an inhuman progress. The greatest danger of artificial intelligence is that it may be used to diminish what is actually central to us, that is, to diminish what is human. This is certainly what Satan wishes. But as Pope Leo explains in Magnifica Humanitas, it is not what any of us should wish.

What the Pope has written in certainly worth reading. But is the Magnificat, which of course refers totally to Jesus Christ, really enough of a tail to wag this dog? Here the old quip once again comes to mind: Don’t let them immanentize the eschaton. We should not sacrifice human dignity to a machine; rather, we must use machines wisely to help real persons. Otherwise, as the Devil always knows, there is no point to the exercise. It would be like throwing oneself down from a height and expecting to be caught. Christ, for his part, chose not to throw Himself down to please Satan, but He did choose to die on a cross to save us. And so the question that remains is the question with which I began: Are we humans really capable of avoiding utter failure, even with the best of Catholic social encyclicals, without actually turning to Christ and His Church? In most cases, after all, it isn’t the logic of the argument that matters, but the conversion of the heart.