CathInfo.com

https://blog.messainlatino.it/2026/05/de-mattei-magnifica-humanitas-il-problema-metafisico-soggiacente.html
AI Translation, unofficial.
Excerpts:

27 May 2026, Roman Correspondence, Roberto de Mattei

  The first encyclical of Leo XIV, Magnifica humanitas, was presented to the world public on May 25 in the new hall of the Synod. The Pope wanted to give the event a solemn tone, participating in the presentation, flanked by three cardinals, two theologians (one English and the other Congolese) and by Christopher Olah the co-founder (atheist) of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic.

  Magnifica humanitas was released on May 25, but it bears the date of May 15, the same day that Leo XIII, published in 1891 the encyclical Rerum Novarum. Pope Gioacchino Pecci, 135 years ago, dedicated his social encyclical to the industrial revolution of his time. Leo XIV wanted to place at the center of the reflection of the Church the digital revolution of our age, with particular regard to artificial intelligence (AI).

  The return of the social doctrine of the Church, set aside in the years following the Second Vatican Council with the exception of John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus (1991), must certainly be greeted with satisfaction. It should be remembered, however, that the social doctrine of the Church is an integral part of Catholic moral theology and this, in turn, has a metaphysical foundation, since morality is rooted in the order of being. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, acting sequitur them: action derives from being; consequently, the moral and social order cannot be understood independently of the nature of man and his ultimate end (Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 94, a. 2). For this reason, Father Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange specifies that “the true rights of man derive from his duties to God” (Doctor Communis, 2-3 (1949), p. 158), emphasizing the metaphysical principle of the social doctrine of the Church.

  The Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII was preceded by the encyclical Aeterni Patris of 4 August 1879, with which, one year after his election, the Pontiff wanted to determine the philosophical line to be followed in Catholic schools, proposing St. Thomas Aquinas as the only intellectual Master of the Church. Leo XIII was convinced, in fact, that the restoration of thought through the philosophy of St. Thomas should precede and (..) reading all the major encyclicals of Leo XIII in this metaphysical horizon. In Aeterni Patris, the Pope condenses his cultural program; in subsequent encyclicals, including the Libertas praestantissimum on human freedom (1888), the Arcanum divinae sapientiae on Christian marriage (1880), the Humanum genus on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (1884), the Immortal Dei on the Christian Constitution of the States (1885), the Sapientiae christianae on the duties of the Christian in life

  Leo XIV is certainly moved by noble intentions and a sincere love for the truth, however his docuмent, unlike those of Leo XIII, reveals the lack of a solid metaphysical foundation that risks preventing the proper understanding of complex problems, such as that of artificial intelligence.

  The Pope, after having rightly stated that "it is necessary to avoid the misunderstanding of equating this "intelligence" (AI) to the human one..." impressed thus the problem: "These systems imitate some functions of human intelligence (...) And yet, this power remains linked exclusively to the processing of data: the so-called artificial intelligences do not live an experience, do not possess a body, do not pass through joy and pain, do not mature in the relationship, do not know from the inside what it means. They do not even have a moral conscience: they do not judge good and evil, they do not grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, they do not take on themselves the weight of consequences. (...) they do not inhabit the affective, relational and spiritual horizon in which the human becomes wise. (...) It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, errors, forgiveness, fidelity; it is rather a statistical adaptation starting from data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply an inner growth (n. 99).”

  The Pope is right to raise the issue, but his answer does not clarify why the equation between human and artificial intelligence is impossible. For Thomist philosophy, the reason does not consist mainly in the fact that AI does not have emotions, relationships nor doesn't possess embodied memory, but in the fact that it lacks a rational spiritual soul, an intrinsic principle of intellectual operations. The encyclical instead 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.

  According to St. Thomas Aquinas, man is not reducible to a sum of material processes, because the very principle of human knowledge is an incorporeal and subsistent principle (Summa Theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 1). The human intellect does not limit itself to processing information or recognizing patterns, but knows the universal (Summa Theologiae, I, q. 79, a. 6) and is capable of abstracting from the sensitive images immaterial concepts such as good, justice, God himself. Similarly, the will is not a mechanism of programmed selection, but it is a rational appetite capable of deliberation and freedom (Summa Theologiae, I, q. 82, a. 1; ST, I, q. 83, a. 1).

  Artificial intelligence, on the other hand, does not have an intrinsic principle of knowledge and will, but acts by virtue of the human intelligence that designed it. Therefore the difference between man and machine is not quantitative but ontological: man knows why he possesses a spiritual intellect and wants because he possesses a free will; the machine instead produces results because it was built to do so. Even the most advanced artificial intelligence, therefore, can never be truly human, because it lacks what, for St. Thomas, constitutes the very principle of authentically human knowledge and will: the spiritual rational soul.

  These observations may seem abstractly philosophical, but they also have important moral and social consequences. The metaphysical foundation of the social doctrine of the Church refers in fact to the Christian conception of the order of being, which includes human history in the light of creation, fall and redemption. In this perspective, the notion of sin, which is essentially absent (...) sociological injustice, but constitutes a violation of the divine law, implies a fault, deserves a penalty and requires repentance and conversion. The Pope, with a beautiful expression, affirms that

    “if the mystery of God-Love is the source of the Social Doctrine, we contemplate its most concrete face in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word” (n. 49). But Jesus Christ was not incarnated to confirm a humanitarian ideal, nor to promote a generic universal fraternity, but to restore the order broken by sin through the redemption of man and his reintegration into the supernatural order (Summa Theologiae,III, q. 1, a. 2). When this metaphysical and supernatural horizon is obscured, Christianity inevitably tends to secularize and reduce itself to a purely horizontal and philanthropic religion, the purpose of which is no longer the salvation of souls and the restoration of the Christian order, but the simple humanitarian management of the problems of the world.

  "Magnifica humanitas" is full of ideas and should be considered as an authoritative expression of the Magisterium of Leo XIV, but some points of the philosophy and social doctrine of the Church that the encyclical faces deserve to be discussed, with due love and respect for the person of the Roman Pontiff and the institution of the Papacy.