On May 25, 2026, Pope Leo XIV published his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas. Leo’s magisterial document has been received with incredible enthusiasm in several conservative circles of the Catholic world. I say incredible, because a reading of the Encyclical reveals several general and particular problems that deserve attention and should raise serious doubts — I am sorry to say — about the suitability of Leo XIV for the role he holds.
In extreme synthesis, we could define the Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas as a Pelagian encyclical. Pelagius was a heretical monk who lived between the fourth and fifth centuries, according to whom original sin would not be transmitted from father to son; consequently, all men would be born innocent in the eyes of God, and eternal salvation would depend on the will and works of man, not on the intervention of the grace of God, which would act only as an external help.
The ultimate question raised by Magnifica Humanitas is whether Christ remains the center—or merely the inspiration.
According to Pelagius, Christ was therefore not the Redeemer who offers His own life to the Father in an expiatory sacrifice in order to heal human nature wounded by original sin, but rather a moral teacher and a model of virtue. His function was exemplary, not salvific. Or rather: the function of Christ, for Pelagius, is salvific insofar as it allows us to imitate Him, not in the reception of the grace that He alone communicates.
It follows that redemption becomes a human act, not a divine one, and man can save himself by following Christ as a privileged ethical model. This approach — erroneous and condemned centuries ago by the Church — is the theological background, as we shall see, of the entire encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. Astonishing that this encyclical belongs to a son of Saint Augustine, the great adversary of Pelagius.
Although it was presented as an encyclical on artificial intelligence, the latter is not the only theme addressed in Leo XIV’s magisterial document, which presents itself as very substantial, with a frequently redundant language typical of the post-conciliar magisterium, far removed from the conciseness that left no room for ambiguity in the documents published at least until the 1950s.
The criticism that Leo XIV directs against AI and other emerging technologies is anthropological and theological in nature, but not according to the classical Catholic way of understanding this. As Roberto de Mattei correctly pointed out, the criticism made by the Pope is phenomenological, not ontological. This renders the condemnation of transhumanism — granted, and not conceded, that one can speak of condemnation — very fragile and unfounded from the logical and theoretical point of view.
During the course of this (certainly incomplete) study, I highlight four very problematic points of the encyclical, divided into three areas: Christology, anthropology, and social doctrine.
The Church no longer appears as mother and teacher of nations, but as a spiritual agency of humanitarian mediation.
1. Erroneous Underlying Christology
One of the elements that most enthused certain conservative circles is the Pope’s return to a Christocentric language — after a season of Francis’ documents in which the name of Christ, surprisingly, rarely appeared. However, it is not enough to mention Christ in order to adopt a Catholic Christology. The point of the Encyclical that best expresses the erroneous Christology adopted is in the incipit of the document:
“Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world. Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear. In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.”
Therefore, what saves man is not Christ insofar as He is God, but humanity, which sees itself in Christ at its highest example, at the “magnificent” degree. Christians see Christ as a model to imitate, nothing more.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, on the contrary, teaches that Jesus said: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” in order to make a double reference. He refers to His human nature when He says: “I am the Way,” because His truly human body offered in sacrifice is the matter, that is, the means of Redemption; but when He says: “I am the Truth” and “I am the Life,” He refers to His divine nature, because the goal of the Christian lies in adherence to truth and participation in divine life in grace. Jesus Christ is at once both means and end of the Christian life.
To say that humanity is already “magnificent” and that our task is to bring history to maturity as a “place in which the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice promoted, and fraternity made possible” means reducing the whole of soteriology to what is immanent and horizontal.
If we were to make an analogy, we could say that Christ is necessary insofar as, in order to build a piece of do-it-yourself furniture, it is necessary to consult the instruction leaflet. If you consult it, you do it faster and better. Without it, you can still manage on your own, but with somewhat greater difficulty. What is necessary in order to build the furniture, however, is one’s own capacity to do so, not the instruction leaflet.
Even the concept of grace is reformulated in a pseudo-Pelagian sense. Taking up what Francis wrote, “we become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being.” (Evangelii gaudium, 8). According to Francis and Leo, grace is the help that God provides us in order to transcend ourselves and fully live our humanity, not in truth, but in love toward one’s neighbor, or rather: toward human collectivity. Humanity as a whole becomes my neighbor, no longer the one standing beside me, this particular individual. Charity and grace are reduced to philanthropy: precisely what Pelagius preached.
The concept of truth is reformulated in a synodal, that is, democratic sense. In paragraph 10 one reads: “Within this shared task, Christians discover their unique role of guiding actions toward God so that, in his light, pluralism does not dissipate into disorder, but instead, through the practice of synodality, it becomes the space in which humanity rediscovers its solid foundations and its final end.” Therefore, doctrine and morality arise and deepen by virtue of dialogue and collective consensus, not by virtue of nature and Revelation.
The concept of sin is also reformulated in an almost Lutheran sense, that is, reformulated with the more secular notions of “limit” and “fragility,” and presented as inevitable. In paragraph 12 one reads: “Building for the common good means accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without considering them an error to be corrected.”
The reference is above all to the claim of transhumanists who wish to overcome through technology the limits of human existence (not only illness, slow reasoning, or old age, but even death itself), but it is extended by Leo to the moral sphere.
The Church should teach that true harmony arises from the recognition of the Kingship of Christ. First, on the individual level. Second, on the social level.
“The Church reminds us, with a firm yet humble voice, that true fulfilment is not achieved by eliminating weakness but through harmonious growth. It is found where freedom and responsibility are intertwined with mutual care and true solidarity, and where progress is measured by the dignity of each person and the good of all peoples,” one reads.
This, however, is false. The Church should teach that true harmony arises from the recognition of the Kingship of Christ. First, on the individual level: this entails that Christ is supreme legislator and judge of our consciences, and this implies that sin and vice are precisely errors to be corrected.
Second, on the social level: Christ is supreme legislator and judge of peoples, and peace among nations will be obtained only through conversion to Christ, not through a deceptive respect for the plurality of religions and opinions, simply because good cannot proceed — except accidentally — from falsehood, which is intrinsically evil. Ex vero verum, ex falso quodlibet, verum et bonum convertuntur.
In paragraph 16 one reads: “I address this heartfelt appeal to all the Catholic faithful, to all Christians and to all men and women of goodwill. Let us not be afraid to get our hands dirty on the construction site of our time. Like Nehemiah, let us pray, plan wisely and work perseveringly, placing God at the forefront of our actions and the human person at the center of our choices. Thus, the rejected stones — the poor, the sick, the migrants and the least among us — will become the cornerstone, and a solid, welcoming common home will emerge on the earth, where love and faithfulness will finally meet, and righteousness and peace will embrace.”
Therefore, philanthropy is what will save man, as already said. The ultimate end of the Church, as of all the other human institutions of which it is handmaid and guarantor, is the establishment of a global and egalitarian society. Humanity is for itself the way, the truth, and the life. Not by chance, Pope Leo assigns Christological titles to the segments of the population that ought to be “elevated” in order to realize equality: the poor, the sick, migrants (in reality, as history, philosophy, and economics teach, every attempt at equality is a leveling of the rich downward, not of the poor upward).
Authentic unity is not born from pluralistic inclusion, but from conversion to the one salvific Truth.
2. Erroneous Concept of Human Dignity
This entire Christological framework with its Pelagian flavor has its counterpart in humanistic anthropology, according to which man would be the repository of infinite dignity.
This is clearly one of the central axes of Francis’ magisterium. One must always keep in mind that the Declaration Dignitas infinita, although published only in 2019, is in reality the framework of Bergoglio’s entire magisterium. Not by chance, Bergoglio’s entourage had begun working on it five years earlier, that is, in 2014, one year after his election.
This is why, in my view, the gravest magisterial text produced under Francis is not Amoris Laetitia, which indeed contains objective heresies in sacramental theology, but rather Dignitas infinita. This document is more Masonic than Catholic, insofar as it preaches not simply the infinity, but the equality of ontological dignity in all human beings. This is false.
Not by chance, the Declaration never makes reference to original sin, because this dogma of the Catholic religion demonstrates how such sin not only degraded man morally, but ontologically. Now, according to classical doctrine, dignity is defined as the excellence of being and the source of rights. God is the repository of infinite dignity and therefore of infinite rights. Not so for man, insofar as he is a creature. Moreover, from the nature of man there derives a twofold ontological dignity: a natural dignity, common to all men, and a supernatural dignity. It follows that dignity is not equal for all.
Catholic doctrine teaches that man was created by God in the state of original justice, but even in that state he did not enjoy infinite dignity, but only a very elevated dignity and certainly one superior to the rest of natural creation. Original sin gravely wounded not only the moral, but also the ontological dignity of man, which was restored for us only by the redemptive sacrifice of Christ at a supernatural level.
The Incarnation, namely the hypostatic union of God and Man in Christ, was necessary because God alone is capable of infinite merits insofar as He is the repository of infinite dignity.
The Declaration Dignitas infinita, instead, not only preaches the infinity of human ontological dignity, but the equality of this dignity among all human beings. And yet, the supernatural ontological dignity of the baptized and of one who has not received Baptism is not identical. This obviously does not mean that the Christian has the right to tyrannize over or mistreat the neighbor who is not Christian, but simply that not everyone possesses the same rights.
Not by chance does classical theology speak of an “indelible character” with regard to Baptism, but also to other sacraments, such as Holy Orders, precisely in order to underline that in them the grace of God operates on the ontological level, not simply the moral one: it follows that the dignity of the baptized is superior to that of one who is not baptized, but also that the dignity of the priest is superior to that of the layman. To affirm an infinite and universal dignity of the human being, therefore, ultimately also means diminishing the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Orders.
Having said this, Magnifica Humanitas reiterates in every respect the Bergoglian framework. As is evident from the title itself, humanity would be “magnificent.” Naturally, even in Leo XIV’s first encyclical, the concept of original sin does not appear. A strange thing, if one wishes to refute transhumanism from an authentically Catholic perspective.
The deepest danger of transhumanism is not technological enhancement but its promise of salvation without God.
3. Transhumanism Condemned for Secondary Reasons
Transhumanism is criticized by Pope Leo XIV with theological and anthropological arguments. However, these arguments are not developed in an ontological sense, but in a phenomenological and sociological sense. Let me explain more clearly.
According to Leo XIV, transhumanism is not wrong because it radically denies the nature of man, but because machines would not be capable of replicating human experiences and because the enhancement resulting from the fusion between machine and man would amplify economic and social discrimination within the population, which would thus be divided between enhanced and non-enhanced individuals.
In other words, transhumanism would prevent equality, which, as we have said, would be the ultimate goal of the Church and of humanity. An objective which, from time to time, is reproposed with analogous concepts, such as “peace” and “unity.”
The concept of “nature” is indeed present in the document, but only in order to justify the infinite and universal ontological dignity of man.
Moreover, as Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia candidly admitted recently, the Church today must no longer speak of essence and nature in its moral and bioethical debates, because they are outdated and “ahistorical” concepts. One can therefore speak only of what appears, of phenomena, which change according to historical and cultural circumstances.
However, Transhumanism is erroneous because it is founded upon mistaken anthropological premises. According to this vision, man would be matter in evolution, like everything inhabiting the universe: he would possess neither an immortal soul nor a rational essence, and his nature would therefore not be stable, but mutable and dynamic.
If therefore human intelligence is reduced to a simple physical phenomenon, produced by biological evolution, then artificial intelligence as well — itself being a physical phenomenon, although artificially produced — can be considered not a simulation of the human intellect, but a true intellect properly speaking.
In this way, the ontological difference between man and machine disappears, and machines are viewed as analogous to human beings, but at an inferior evolutionary stage.
Since, however, artificial evolution is more rapid than biological evolution, transhumanists believe that machines will not only soon reach the evolutionary level of the human being, but surpass it. They speak of singularity. The deepest risk of transhumanism lies precisely here: in its soteriological claim, that is, in the conviction that artificial intelligence can save humanity — and even the cosmos — from its structural limits by consciously accelerating (no longer randomly) the evolution of the cosmos. In other words, transhumanists await singularity as a messianic event.
The ecclesial mission shifts from the conversion of nations to cooperation among cultures; from the struggle against error to the management of pluralism; from the subordination of the temporal order to Christ the King to the search for an ethically shared world governance.
4. Social Doctrine Confused with Socialism
Naturally, if humanity must live as a single whole, without distinctions of class, wealth, and the like, a world government becomes necessary. Hence the entire socialist reinterpretation of social doctrine carried out by Pope Leo XIV within the document, beginning from the very principles of that doctrine, which nominally remain the classical ones, but on the level of content present different notions.
According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, the “common good” is the order of life in community such as to enable each person to live according to virtue and attain the ultimate end, which is union with God. Consequently, politics is subordinated to divine and natural law. Catholic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium of the Popes have referred to the “common good” as the set of social conditions that allow the persons inhabiting the community to attain more easily their own moral and spiritual perfection in the Catholic religion.
According to Leo XIV (and Francis), the “common good” is the condition of society in which all individuals are treated as equals — as “brothers” — by virtue of their dignity. Institutions and technology are therefore oriented toward preserving the cohesion of society. If they do not work toward this end, they are to be considered unjust. Thus, we find here the typically Marxist equation between “justice” and “equality.” The common good according to Leo XIV is a relational and social concept, inclusive and dialogical, linked to human rights and oriented toward equality (so-called “fraternity”), and devoid of metaphysical or supernatural dimension.
Furthermore: according to Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic magisterial tradition, the concept of the “universal destination of goods” concerns an ontological principle, an order given by God at the beginning of creation, not a political objective to be constructed. According to this principle, all the goods of the earth and of the cosmos were created by God for man, insofar as he is custodian and apex of creation, so that he might use, work, and consume such goods through the exercise of private property and free initiative. It is a point of departure, not a point of arrival. The role of the political class is to guarantee the conditions for freedom and justice.
According to Leo XIV (and Francis), instead, the contrary applies. The universal destination of goods is read as a point of arrival, a task still to be realized. Consequently, the State becomes the necessary means to guarantee that these goods belong to no one in particular, presupposing that this so-called “public property” can guarantee everyone access to the same goods.
Leo XIV, on the contrary, seems to attribute to the Church the task of facilitating a collective process of constructing a new world order, in which Christianity represents one ethical and symbolic force among others.
A significant novelty in Leo XIV’s document lies in the fact that public property should concern not only natural resources (water, air, solar energy, soil, etc.), but also extend to immaterial goods such as patents and data in the broad sense. Or at least, the State should implement the regulation of economic and technological systems toward this end.
“Today, we are called to recognize that this universal destination applies not only to material goods, but also to immaterial and cultural goods,” one reads in paragraph 65.
And again in paragraph 67: “Today, among the goods that are universally intended for everyone, we must also include new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data. In a context where the wealth of nations depends increasingly on knowledge and technology, when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without adequate forms of sharing and access, a new imbalance is created that contradicts the universal destination of goods. In turn, it widens the gap between the included and the excluded, between those who can participate in the digital revolution and those who remain on the margins.”
Among the most troubling elements of the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, however, we find the power that Leo XIV intends to recognize to the State. Humanity, according to Magnifica Humanitas, would find itself before an epochal crossroads: choosing whether to build a new Tower of Babel — symbol of technological self-sufficiency — or to build the new Jerusalem, founded upon cooperation and universal brotherhood. In this scenario, Leo XIV attributes to the State a central and almost pedagogical role. In paragraph 5 one reads:
“In the past, it was largely up to the State to guide and direct innovation. Today, however, the main drivers of development are private, often transnational, parties that are endowed with resources and the capacity to intervene that surpass those of many Governments. Technological power thus takes on an unprecedented, predominantly private aspect, which makes it even more challenging to discern, govern and direct such power toward the common good.”
And again, in paragraph 63:
“It is the State’s responsibility to ensure cohesion, unity and the proper organization of civil society, so that the common good can be pursued with everyone’s contribution. In practical terms, this means that public authorities have the delicate duty to harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice, seeking a balance between individual interests and the common good, without leaving behind the most vulnerable. When politics abandons a long-term perspective and reduces itself to short-term calculations or sterile polarizations, then the language of the common good loses credibility, and, at the same time, social inequalities and divisions grow.”
Such a vision of the State as the forger of a shared vision extends, in the language of the encyclical, to the global plane. The figure of Nehemiah, which the Pope uses to refer to that which or the one who should coordinate the reconstruction of society, the one who assigns tasks and repairs fractures, therefore appears inevitably as the symbol of political and supranational institutions, in particular the UN and the multilateral organizations which, according to Leo, should guide humanity toward a world governance capable of rebuilding the “walls” of coexistence and universal justice, since, as one reads in paragraph 62, “working together for the common good means having a shared vision.”
The Church is no longer “mother and teacher of nations,” but spiritual handmaid of the UN.
In the Traditional Catholic vision, the Church does not receive from humanity a “shared vision” of the good to accompany synodally, but already possesses by divine institution the deposit of revealed truth, which she must transmit integrally to peoples for their authentic good, namely the eternal salvation of individual men.
The Traditional Magisterium has always taught that the goal of the Church is the salvation of souls through the preaching of the true faith, the administration of the sacraments, and the submission of peoples to the social Kingship of Christ. Concord among men does not constitute the principle of truth, but its effect. Authentic unity is not born from the pluralistic inclusion of differences, but from common conversion to the one salvific Truth, that of Christ the Lord.
Leo XIV, on the contrary, seems to attribute to the Church the task of facilitating a collective process of constructing a new world order, in which Christianity represents one ethical and symbolic force among others. The Church no longer appears as the societas perfecta (“perfect society”) supernaturally founded by Christ in order to teach with divine authority, but as a spiritual agency of humanitarian mediation oriented toward global cohesion.
The ecclesial mission shifts from the conversion of nations to cooperation among cultures; from the struggle against error to the management of pluralism; from the subordination of the temporal order to Christ the King to the search for an ethically shared world governance. No longer “mother and teacher of nations,” but spiritual handmaid of the UN.
