Magnifica Humanitas introduction

As I alluded to in my previous post here, Pope Leo XIV published his first encyclical last week. I was curious about it for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Pope Leo is an Augustinian priest. I have read some of his homilies from years past as well as his public pronouncements since he became Pope. Being firmly in the grip of St Augustine of Hippo myself, I was pleased an Augustinian became Pope. I was hoping the new pope would not try to divorce himself from his grounding in the theology of St. Augustine. 

Secondly, to new Pope took Leo as his Papal name. There have been several popes of that name, going back to the first Leo (known as Leo the Great) in AD 440. Popes named Leo have had considerable influence in influencing world affairs and Christendom. Leo the Great bargained with Attila the Hun to not sack Rome. Leo II was a large player in the 6th Council of Constantinople. Sadly, Leo VII was complicit in allowing Jews to be violently expelled from Germany in the early 900s. Leo IX largely saw the Great Schism with the Eastern Church, though the true and permanent effects of that Great Schism would not be felt or understood for over a century. 

Leo XIII was the last previous Pope of that name, and perhaps the most consequential Pope in terms of Catholic teaching of the last 200 years. Leo XIII penned the famous Rerum Novarum encyclical, which largely set the groundwork for all the major Catholic Social Teachings of the 20th century. This encyclical was a masterpiece in both practical theology and political analysis. He dove into the specters of 19th Century politics in the forms of laissez faire capitalism of the Industrial Revolution but also the proletariat abyss of Marxism. Both forms of economics, particularly Communism, were ripe for the abuse of the masses. Leo XIII envisioned another form of economy altogether that was premised on the balance of subsidiarity and solidarity and the beauty and value of labor. 

Leo XIII took a page from St Augustine's notions of the City of God, which posited that every human society is flawed to some degree because of sin. Only the City of God in the new Jerusalem at the end of time will ever be a truly just society because only it will be truly centered on God. Every other human political contrivance, that he called the City of Man, is either a shadowy reflection of the City of God at best and at worst a reflection of hell itself. We should strive to make our political realities in our times as close to the City of God as possible while recognizing that no utopia ever truly exists as long as sin and desire still exist. 

Pope Leo XIV's new encyclical's introduction dives right in to all of that backstory. In fact, the first opening paragraph is a paraphrase of St. Augustine's notions of the City of Man versus the City of God. He uses the analogy of the Tower of Babel as a body politick that goes off the rails because of sin and avoidance of making God the center of our political endeavors. Only when we look to the Incarnate God that the "mystery of humanity truly becomes clear."

The first two paragraphs ground the document in the teachings of Vatican II. The third paragraph cites Rerum Novarum by name. Paragraphs 4 through 6 set out the parameters of discussion for this encyclical in light of Catholic Social Teaching, and that being the rise of Artificial Intelligence. The money quote in terms of how society is dealing with AI, much as countries were trying to come to terms with what to do about the excesses of the Industrial Revolution and Communism in the 19th century, comes in paragraph 6: "most people are watching and waiting, observing from afar and merely hoping for the best." 

In other words, we feel powerless as this constant wave of ever increasing AI seems to be invading every nook and cranny of our existence. We hope for the best, but fear the worst, and yet we feel powerless to do anything about it. Can we use AI? Can it be beneficial to humanity, or does AI take over and we become slaves to a system? 

Leo XIV poses two Biblical images for framing this discussion of AI in paragraphs 7 through 10: the Tower of Babel from Genesis and the rebuilding of the City of Jerusalem in the Book of Nehemiah. As I have sat with the introduction to this encyclical (I have not yet read farther into the document), I think those are two excellent Biblical stories to ponder in the debate about how best to deal with the rise of AI. 

His basic point with those two stories is to ask the basic question: what is the center of this new technology? Is it a new attempt to build a new computerized Tower of Babel, to advance our our greatness and power that is divorced from God, only to watch the enterprise collapse in ruin in the end and take humanity down with it? Or, conversely, do we, like Nehemiah, use it for the common good-to engage families and community to build a better City more akin to the City of God? 

Paragraphs 11 through 14 set out 4 parameters on how best to judge and, in appropriate, embrace AI for the common good and not the common evil. 

1. Firstly, he acknowledges Natural Law. God has placed in our hearts a desire for happiness that embraces all dimensions of life. Augustine argued that things are either to be used or loved, and the only thing we can truly love is God. AI must therefore be used to direct us toward the love of God for the common good. Anything else will ultimately lead us in the wrong direction. 

2. Secondly, building the common good means we recognize human weakness. None of us individually are superman or a lone ranger, nor is any of us of no value with nothing to contribute to society whatsoever. To paraphrase President John F Kennedy: "we all inhabit this great planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future, and we we are all mortal." A just society must always have a solidarity with poor because all people are children of God and have a place in the Kingdom of God. Any invention like AI that denies that makes people slaves to a system. AI must be made to work for us, not a society where we work for AI. 

3. My critique of this third point in the introduction is that Pope Leo XIV seems to muddle the definition of subsidiarity. Perhaps he expands on this later in the document, but Paragraph 13 seems muddled. Giving the benefit of the doubt, I think the point here is that there must be subsidiarity in the sense that the lowest element of society that can adequately deal with a problem must be the one the deals with it when it comes to AI. People cannot feel powerless in the face of AI's onslaught. We cannot simply sit back and hope that someone somewhere in some government will reign in AI because we are hoping for the best. We must take responsibility in dealing with AI on a personal level, but also be given the agency to have some say and power in how AI is being implemented. A simple "Trust us, we are your betters and know better" from big wigs at AI corporations or the top of the Federal government is not a recipe for a just society. That's a recipe for technological dictatorship that does not respect the family or the working man. 

4. Finally, Pope Leo XIV says the "building for the common good requires an evangelical language." When I initially read this opening line in paragraph 14, I cringed a little. On first reading, that seems to be a churchy buzzword, and I usually don't have a lot of use or patience for cop out buzzwords because they often meaningless jingoism, but reading further into this paragraph, I was pleasantly surprised that he gives a fairly concise and specific definition by what he meant by that. In fact, the second sentence says, "We must avoid humiliating or antagonist words, opting rather for a clarity that sheds light and a frankness that unlocks new possibilities." 

He then sums up the whole of Catholic Social Teaching from Rerum Novarum onward by stating, "...Let us establish standards for discernment-the dignity of the human person, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, care for our common home and peace..." That is all pretty much Catholic Social Teaching in a nutshell. Any society that fails to do these things is a City of Man that is not reflective of the City of God. 

The introduction then closes with a few cursory paragraphs about remaining human and needing, like Nehemiah, to get our hands dirty in the work of the " 'construction site' of our time..." I was taken by that phrase because when I was in Jerusalem last year, I got to visit the tomb of the Holy Sepulchre. Because tourism had all but collapsed, my group pretty much had the entire place to ourselves, aside for some construction workers who were doing some remodeling to the actual building. 

My group had a good hour to wander around and meditate after morning Mass, literally at the Tomb of Christ. Some of my fellow pilgrims were quite irritated that construction workers were walking through with wooden boards, and even a forklift literally driving around the tomb. Being the salt of the earth construction workers they were, they were being chatty with each other. One was even walking around right by the Tomb with a lit cigarette. But I found a beauty in that, if not a humor, because, the Kingdom of God is a continual work in progress. Jesus did not die and get resurrected so we could sit around and hope somehow it all works out. 

Instead, as this picture I took illustrates, we are called to continual work in the King's vineyard.

Sometimes we have to remodel. 

Sometimes we have to get our hands dirty. 

Sometimes even literally having to upkeep around the Tomb itself so as future generations will never forget that Jesus Christ opened the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.