ENCYCLICAL LETTER MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE LEO XIV ON SAFEGUARDING THE HUMAN PERSON IN THE TIME OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [
MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS: ON SAFEGUARDING THE HUMAN PERSON IN THE TIME OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Pope Leo XIV has published his first encyclical. As expected, it’s on AI but more than that, it’s on the effects of the technological reality that challenges our society and humanity. With this document the Church offers a moral analysis of our current situation and the unprecedented technological development we are facing,
It now falls to us to face the challenges of our time with clarity of thought and responsibility. It is necessary to establish adequate regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the distorting effects of technological power. Nevertheless, the issue is not limited to regulation. As Pope Francis warned, we must realistically ask ourselves who holds this power today and how they use it… Today 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. #5
In this encyclical the guided scriptural imagery Pope Leo offers is the juxtaposition between the Tower of Babel and reconstructing the walls of Jerusalem. The Hebrew story of Nehemiah sets the tone for the Church’s vision. This is the story of the prophet who pondered how Israel can restore Jerusalem after the trauma of the Babylonian captivity. With that reflection Pope Leo sees the issue as a moral crossroad for the type of technological development we choose to pursue.
The primary choice is not between a “yes” or “no” to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem; between a power that claims to dominate the heavens and a people who work together in the presence of God to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence. #9
This encyclical is centered on promoting the construction of the technological social order based on a vision of solidarity and the common good. This vision will have four foundational principles:
“First and foremost, building on a firm relationship with God. It means recognizing that the truth of his love calls us to life ‘in all its fullness’ ( Jn 10:10) and communion with him.”
“Secondly, building for the common good means accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without considering them an error to be corrected.”
“Thirdly, building a world in which everyone can flourish requires shared responsibility and courage.”
“Finally, building for the common good requires an evangelical language. We must avoid humiliating or antagonistic words, opting rather for a clarity that sheds light and a frankness that unlocks new possibilities. We cannot condone naïve enthusiasms, nor fuel unfounded fears. Instead, 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 — and let us translate these standards into practices such as responsible planning, the assessment of human and social impact, the inclusion of the most vulnerable, the promotion of digital literacy and guiding research and industry toward justice and peace.”
Returning to the example of Nehemiah Pope Leo describes this vision with these four principles in this way:
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 (cf. Ps 85:10). #16
With this introduction the Encyclical goes into the following five chapters:
Chapter 1: A synthesis of the social doctrine of the Church CST and the authentic role of the Church in these and all social matters.
Chapter 2: Going over the Relevant Principles of CST on this reality.
Chapter 3: The social reality of today’s technological situation and how it has and continues to affect our shared humanity.
Chapter 4: A vision for safeguarding humanity during this transformation by pursuing Truth, Work, and Freedom.
Chapter 5: Recognizing a culture of power and responding to this by building a civilization of love.
In many ways the document could have begun with Chapter two but Pope Leo felt there was a political concern that needed to be addressed first, the authentic moral role of the Church on social matters. Having seen this debated since the infamous “Mater si, Magistra no” statement offered by William Buckley and Gary Wills who politically challenged the economic policies of St. John XXIII’s Mater et Magistra encyclical of 1961, Pope Leo may be concerned that by not spending a chapter describing the authentic moral role of the Church he runs the risk of exposing “Social Doctrine to the risk of being perceived as an undue interference in 'worldly' matters or as an external code of ethics imposed from above.” What he wants to affirm instead the moral reality that the “Church that walks alongside humanity, recognizing the autonomy of earthly realities and the distinction between ecclesial and political communities.” This is a concern that we very much continue to see with the political issue facing ongoing teachings on immigration, the economy and war.
Here we see Pope Leo describing the need for this social encyclical in a conference he held in Rome.
Going back to first chapter Pope Leo educates us on the moral history of the Church and the way the Second Vatican council defined its authentic role in order to clarify why it pronounces on social issues even though certain political voices find its teaching difficult or challenging. In the end this is how our Holy Father defines its authentic moral role.
It is not a handbook of principles and norms to be applied, but a process of shared discernment. It is born from the encounter between the eternal truth of the Gospel and the questions of history. It allows itself to be challenged by the signs of the times, and draws nourishment from the contributions of science, culture and human experience. Therefore, when the dignity of our brothers and sisters is violated, when politics fails to address the tragedies of humanity, when the economy turns against the person or science oversteps the limits of its competence, the Church — together with other Christian denominations and believers of other religions — must make her voice heard, not in order to dominate, but to promote communion. Understood in this way, Social Doctrine becomes a theology of communion in history, a history in which the Word made flesh continues to be present through dialogue, memory and prophecy. #27
What follows is a thorough examination of the social doctrine of the Church and identifying the historical development of this tradition.
In response to the challenges of their time, each one interpreted historical changes according to the Gospel, bringing to light different aspects of a single heritage: the dignity of the person, the value of work, the universal destination of goods, solidarity and subsidiarity, care for creation and the centrality of peace and fraternity. The result is a harmonious, though not always linear, development that is marked by different emphases, progressive insights, and, at times, changes in perspective that do not break with what came before, but allow its implications to mature. #45
With this Pope Leo moves to the second chapter of the encyclical where he will “focus on some of the foundations and principles of the Church’s Social Doctrine that will help us to interpret the “new things” of our time, particularly in view of the inherent dignity of the human person.”
In order to protect the human person in the age of artificial intelligence, I believe that today we must once again reflect on the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. I am convinced that a harmonious relationship between these principles requires that they be considered collectively, so that it becomes clear how they relate to and complement each other. #46
I will not go over much else from this chapter. It is a beautiful display of these foundational principles that all. Catholics should know by reflecting on the words that Pope Leo uses to teach this.
However I need to highlight that there is one principle that doesn’t normally make the list and yet Pope Leo describes and defines the principle of social justice as an important value that we must consider.
The idea of “social justice” helps us recognize that injustices do not arise solely from the wrong choices of individuals, but also from structures, mechanisms and economic and cultural systems that produce inequality almost automatically. Saint John Paul II spoke in this vein of structures of sin that oppose God’s will and require a commitment to personal and social conversion. In this perspective, justice is not merely about the fairer distribution of resources or the correction of current injustices, but also assumes a restorative dimension. It aims to mend broken bonds and reintegrate those who have been excluded, taking into account the wounds caused by injustices, such as wars, colonialism, racial or gender discrimination, violence against entire peoples and exploitation. This may include restoring dignity and a voice to those who have been ignored, fostering processes of healing for collective memory, opposing discriminatory laws and practices, and providing concrete support to those who still bear the consequences of wrongs suffered in the past. #79
Responsibility and Governance of AI
Pope Leo now goes into a social analysis of AI and our technological society. He describes the great concern the Church has “when such power is concentrated in the hands of a few” and what’s at risk.
Faced with this concentration of power in the digital world, the criteria for judgment and discernment in this new situation are the noble principles of Social Doctrine: the inalienable dignity of the human person, the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. They demand that we assess whether the power of digital infrastructures and algorithms truly fosters participation and responsibility, protects the vulnerable, ensures fair access to opportunities and remains directed toward the good of all. On this basis, we can now examine more closely what artificial intelligence is, the possibilities it opens up and the risks it entails. #96
The Church attempts to offer a definition of artificial intelligence by saying that while it is intelligence we cannot equate “this type of ‘intelligence’ with that of human beings.” After all they “do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships.”
Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. #99
The Catholic Church makes sure to define AI as technological intelligence but never to a capacity to rival human intelligence. Our human dignity cannot transfer to AI. With this understanding Pope Leo affirms that “AI can be a valuable tool and, at the same time, why it calls for a measured and vigilant approach.”
In paragraph 100 the encyclical looks at the dangers of personal usage of AI. In so doing they look at three considerations and in summary the document offers the following warning:
Here, the danger is not so much that a person may believe they are communicating with another person, but rather that they may gradually lose the very desire to form genuine human connections.
The social concerns are considered in paragraph 101. The great concern is the environmental impact because of the infrastructure and resources needed to maintain power and storage capacities. “it is essential to develop more sustainable technological solutions that reduce environmental impact and help protect our common home.”
If private corporate enterprises are solely responsible for the algorithms that govern AI action and knowledge then a grave social concern includes the hierarchy of values and cultural biases that AI may respond with.
We cannot consider AI to be morally neutral. In reality, every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations. If a system is designed or used in a way that treats some lives as less worthy, or excludes them without the possibility of appeal, then it is not merely a tool “to be used well,” since it has already introduced criteria that contradict the inalienable dignity of the human person. For this reason, ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes; it must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it. #104
The solution presented here is the need for a regulatory infrastructure that curbs the private corporate misuse that would take place.
It is not enough to invoke ethics in the abstract; robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility are required. #106
The principles of CST are offered at this point in the encyclical to highlight how they can address these concerns. These principles will guide the formation of a public regulatory system to stand as an ethical stop against private corporate social influences.
To speak of the common good means exposing this new form of epistemic, economic and political asymmetry and naming the new monopolies of AI. To speak of the universal destination of goods means finding ways of ensuring universal access to both technologies and the education needed to use them. To speak of subsidiarity calls for protecting the ability of communities to make choices and corrections, rather than confining their role to mere oversight after the standards have been set elsewhere. To speak of solidarity obliges us to recognize the hidden, often exploited workers, who sustain algorithmic systems. To speak of justice requires questioning the global distribution of power that decides who in fact can train these models and who is merely subjected to them. #109
This section concludes with the notion of “disarming AI.” It is a curious statement suggesting that AI must not be allowed to be tethered to the whims of the few, to serve the geopolitical and commercial interest of a private or elite community. I believe we will hear more about this in the final chapter.
The Holy Father reminds us that we must never loose sight of our relationships and our authentic human ability to care for others. He then looks at the concern with those who push for a transhuman future, the idea of designing “enhanced human being” or “human-machine hybrid.” The belief that we can and should eliminate those who are perceived as limited and that we should usher in a new techno-humanity that would be considered superior to our former humanity. Our Church has seen human weakness as the place where the Divine finds its home. We are told that Jesus himself identifies with the “least of these.” Therefore we cannot accept an anthropological perspective that sees perceived social limitation as something to be eradicated.
Christianity offers a different anthropological narrative. We believe in the transcendence of our humanity but not by eradicating limitations and experiences of pain and suffering through mindless apps and social media usage. Instead it is through our capacity to love others and to have compassion where we respond to the needs of others that allows us to grow in God.
When we embrace the possibility of transcending ourselves through God’s grace, we do not deny our nature, nor do we become less human. On the contrary, as Pope Francis explained, “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.” [137] Herein lies the radical departure from Promethean dreams: what saves humanity is not enhanced self-sufficiency, but a relationship that liberates, a communion that transforms. In this light, a technology that merely classifies and optimizes what already exists can, however unintentionally, become an obstacle to change and growth. For an algorithm, an error is a flaw to be corrected; for a person, however, an error can be a catalyst for profound change. A person’s future is not calculable, but depends on one’s freedom — elevated by the inexhaustible grace of God — and on the relationships cultivated. #128
Safeguarding Humanity: Truth, Work and Freedom
In Chapter Four Pope Leo has us examine how “the digital transformation invites us to rediscover truth as a common good, to protect the dignity of work and to safeguard freedom against all forms of dependence and commercialization.” The way AI has filtered how truth is communicated is very concerning and he start this section by addressing this first.
Pope Leo again looks at the concern of private enterprise that controls the algorithms governing AI and calls for democratic institutions to challenge the monopoly of the few. Democracy promotes the common good and this is needed to build a functioning consensus on what all know is good and true. For this to happen policies, at various levels must be in place as a safeguard for this. Politics, media, education, must review and reflect on how their use of technologies and AI impact society.
Truth is a common good and not the property of those with power or influence. We must therefore promote an ecology of communication. On the level of public policy, this entails establishing norms so that the decision-making behind content selection and its development becomes more transparent and protects personal data. Regarding social and cultural aspects, this requires a strengthening of intermediary organizations, serious journalism and forums for debate, where reasoned argumentation and verification carry greater weight than immediate reaction. For families and schools, there is a growing need for new educational awareness and for formation concerning the proper and critical use of digital tools, AI and online commercial and financial platforms. In universities, the principal challenge lies in the integration of knowledge, cultivating both the capacity to connect and synthesize knowledge in order to grasp complexity, and the skills necessary to verify facts. #137
In the area of truth Pope Leo explores the role of education as well as communication and he draws our attention to the use of AI in schools and “what purpose it ought not to be used.” A number of challenges are mentioned regarding education including the need for governments to invest “the necessary resources for guaranteeing a quality education for all.” This is followed with the pedagogical challenge of promoting an “authentically integral education that addresses every dimension of the person.” The third challenge is epistemological, how one can develop their ability to conduct “research, reflection and discernment” rather than passively receiving data without evaluating it for accuracy or relevance.
This last concern highlights the need for formation and discernment as well as education.
Many educators already report signs of dehumanization, where people may “know many things” but struggle to find direction in their lives, partly due to an inability to connect information with deeper knowledge or maintain a sense of purpose. A genuinely healthy attitude is needed, requiring rhythms that incorporate silence, in-depth study, reading and judicious analysis, for without these elements inner freedom may be compromised. #146
From education the encyclical then goes to the issue of the dignity of work.
Above all, however, the Magisterium has recognized in work “the essential key” to understanding the entire social question, since it is through their work that individuals develop many dimensions of their existence. #148
Our Holy Father reminds us that work “is a requirement of the human condition.” But then he goes on to recognize that “today, the convergence of automation, robotics and AI is rapidly transforming the very structure of work.”
Quoting St. John Paul II Pope Leo reminds us that “unemployment is a grave evil.” This concern is exacerbated during what Pope Leo calls the “fourth Industrial Revolution” stating that “this concern is even more acute, as innovation is often pursued solely for reducing costs and increasing profits.” Here our Holy Father qualifies this further.
It is certainly desirable for technology to relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks and to provide intelligent support for human activity. Yet, the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule. The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good. #152
In paragraph 155 Pope Leo recalls how Rerum Novarum contributed to the crucial development of “associations, trade unions, cooperatives and welfare organizations” but “these instruments are no longer sufficient by themselves.”
New collaborative efforts are needed among political leaders, labor organizations, the business world and the scientific community in order to develop rapidly adequate shared regulations and protections, including at the international level. Labor unions, which the Church has consistently supported, are called upon to be open to new types of employment and the corresponding needs of workers, in order to represent and defend them. In this context, without bold decisions, the prospect of greater poverty and inequality looms large, which would leave many individuals marginalized, stranded and surrounded by the machines and automated systems that have replaced them. #155
The encyclical offers three solutions here:
One viable path is, first of all, to establish social criteria for innovation. Here, every introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining and participation of workers. In this way, technology will be oriented toward freeing up human time and capabilities, rather than producing exclusion. Second, we need proactive policies that make continuous training and professional transitions accessible to all, ensuring that the cost of adaptation does not fall solely on individuals. Finally, there needs to be a corporate commitment to include quality and dignity of work among its indicators of success. #156
After discussing concerns with cryptocurrency, GDP, and the limitations of market fundamentalism Pope Leo responds to these with the principle of social justice.
Just laws and methods of redistribution are certainly necessary for correcting imbalances, including tax systems that lighten the burden on the weakest and ask for more from those with greater resources. However, the pursuit of social justice should not be considered a separate issue that follows only after the production of wealth, as if the economy existed solely to create wealth, with politicians only intervening afterwards in order to distribute it. Indeed, justice concerns every phase of economic activity, from resource acquisition to financing, and from production to consumption; every choice has moral consequences. #162
Here the encyclical offers three more solutions to respond to the negative influence of private AI and technological industries.
First, transparency and accountability: when data and algorithms influence credit distribution, personnel selection or access to services and opportunities, it is necessary that decisions be understandable, contestable and subject to oversight, so that individuals are not reduced to mere profiles. Second, inclusion and access: the benefits of innovation must be paired with investments in skills, infrastructure and essential services to ensure that technology does not widen the gap between those who have and those who have not. Finally, measures to ensure equity: taxation, social protection and industrial policies must correct the imbalances created by the concentration of wealth and power. #164
The impact on families is also noted at the end of this section and in light of these stresses Pope Leo again offers some general policies to consider including:
Labor policies that “promote continuity and the quality of employment, countering insecurity as a normal condition of life and encouraging realistic paths for entry into the workforce and for professional growth.”
Measures that “ensure a healthy way of living, for without a proper balance between work, leisure and rest, families are weakened and young people struggle to develop a sense of responsibility.”
Investments in “accessible education and retraining, so that the professional mobility demanded by the digital economy does not become a harsh selection between those who are able to update their skills and those who cannot.”
“Social ties must be supported, with networks and educational communities that accompany life choices and prevent uncertainty from giving rise to loneliness or addictions.”
Finally Pope Leo ends this chapter by looking at the impact on Freedom, which for him means assessing the social risks that AI present to our mental health and broader social challenges. The mental health concern includes the addictive quality of the digital attention economy. The way many of us are manipulated into spending time watching things that give us nothing meaningful but offer mind numbing wastefulness with videos aptly named “brainrot.” These addictive video and apps exploit vulnerabilities and weaken our “inner freedom.” Along with this is the concern of algorithms that present certain cultural biases and other ways of manipulating the human subject.
The next social issues concerning human freedom include the new forms of slavery in the technological economy. This includes the
Silent work of millions of people engaged in essential yet largely unseen activities, such as data labeling, model training and content moderation, often involving disturbing material… It is not enough to invoke efficiency, nor to celebrate the benefits of innovation, if they are built on a chain of exploitation that remains deliberately hidden. If technology promises emancipation, yet produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity. #173
Pope Leo also recognized the ongoing reality of human trafficking in the global economy and he went ahead and apologized for the complicity of the Church in not challenging the institutions of slavery early on with the force it should have. Now he offers three other solutions to respond to the situation of slavery affecting the current technocratic climate. They include:
First, the supply chains that underpin the technological industry and the digital economy need to become more transparent, so that no competitive advantage is built upon hidden exploitation.
Second, companies and investors need to adopt clear criteria for preventive ethical verification (due diligence), placing among their priorities the protection of workers, the fight against forced labor and the assessment of the social impact of data-driven business models.
Furthermore, digital platforms must cooperate responsibly with authorities and civil society to prevent communication, payment and profiling tools from becoming channels for the recruitment and control of victims. #179
Building a Civilization of Love
Pope Leo XIV now moves to Chapter five and the issue of war.
Here the question is not merely the efficiency of new tools, but also the risk that technology, detached from ethics and responsibility, will render decisions about life and death more rapid and impersonal, and will present the use of force as an immediate and viable option. #182
The issue of war recognizes how AI can arbitrarily be used to destroy without any moral consideration and what Pope Leo proposes is to promote the Christian vision of a civilization based on love to counter our awful power dynamics which present war as a viable and normalized option.
The project for a civilization of love, therefore, must undertake the task of transforming this imposed interdependence into a willed and chosen solidarity. This is the guiding principle for technological processes: it is not enough for artificial intelligence to make us more efficient or connected; it must also serve to build a universal human family, with shared rights and duties, where digital proximity becomes a real opportunity for encounter and mutual care. #187
Pope Leo goes on to propose three concrete ethical criteria that we need to adopt to respond to the growing culture of war and violence made more efficient with AI technology. These are:
First such criterion concerns personal responsibility. When a decision to strike becomes automated or opaque, the risk of abdicating responsibility increases. For this reason, the chain of responsibility must be identifiable and verifiable; those who design, train, authorize and employ technology must be held accountable for their decisions.
The second criterion pertains to the moral timeframe for making judgments. While AI tends to expedite the decision-making processes, speed and efficiency should never be the supreme motivating force for the irreversible decisions made in the context of war.
The third criterion is the identification and protection of civilians. Any technology that facilitates attacks without seeing the face of human beings lowers the moral threshold of conflict. #199
And then Pope Leo follows this up with three “nonnegotiable” policy requirements:
First, all systems used in a war setting must guarantee the possibility of retracing and reconstructing decision-making processes, so that accountability and blame are not collapsed into “the machine.”
Second, the decision to use lethal force cannot be delegated to opaque or automated processes, but must remain under effective, self-aware and responsible human control.
Finally, it is imperative to establish a shared framework — also at the international level — in order to curb the technological arms race and ensure robust protection for civilians and the infrastructures necessary for their survival.
With the recognition that we are experiencing a vast crisis where diplomacy and multilateralism are no longer valued Pope Leo XIV takes a dominant stands against the error of what he calls “political realism” and develops this critique in this Chapter.
At the core of these issues is a false realism, based not only on the prevailing mentality of force, but on the cultural and anthropological belief that war is an inevitable part of human nature. It is said that things have always been this way, except for occasional pauses, and that it will always be so! As a result, the concern is no longer the search for peace — which has been lost as a point of reference on the international stage — but rather how and when to take military action. This same argument maintains that it would be irresponsible not to prepare for conflict. I would argue, however, that what is truly irresponsible is Realpolitik, the form of political “realism” that sows in consciences and in society an attitude of resignation to the inevitability of war, and dismisses peace and dialogue as utopian or irrational positions that ignore the risks at stake. In fact, peace is neither a naïve hope nor merely the absence of war; instead, it is always possible as the fruit of justice and charity. #205
To this perspective the Holy Father again promotes the Christian message as a vision the absolutely challenges “political realism.” Christianity and the Gospel message offer “an opportunity for personal and collective conversion.” The Holy Spirit calls on us to be saints in difficult times and to challenge “political realism” through our Christian witness.
Christians see the darkness and acknowledge it for what it is, yet they do not merely gaze upon it passively, for they know the light and understand that the darkness has not overcome it and cannot defeat it (cf. Jn 1:5). For this reason, even when suffering seems to have the last word, Christians serve the good and are sustained by a theological hope that gives reality both meaning and direction. #211
Pope Leo XIV then invites us all to answer the call to be saints in these times. He reminds us that:
The civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization. For this reason, it is worthwhile pausing to reflect on some aspects of how we, each in our own way, can cooperate in building the civilization of love.
And here, in his conclusion to his fifth chapter. He offers five solutions for all of us to adopt.
The need to disarm words: The first contribution we can make toward a more humane civilization is to be mindful of our words. We must all, therefore, examine our conscience regarding the words we use, the prejudices we have and the explicit or implicit aggression that lies within them. We have a real opportunity to contribute to the common good each time we speak the truth, offer wise advice, support those in need of comfort, denounce injustice and give a voice to the voiceless. #214
Building peace through justice: All of us, at every level, can contribute to building the foundation of peace, which is justice. We do not merely seek any kind of peace — such as an absence of conflict at any cost — but instead, the true peace born of justice. “There exists a very close connection between the justice of the individual and the peace of everyone.” #215
Adopting the perspective of victims: Giving space to the perspectives and voices of victims through communication and education helps us to become aware of the abyss of evil inherent in war, and generally in all forms of violence. It helps us to reject the normalization of conflict; not to turn away when human dignity is violated; and to restore to victims the dignity of being recognized and heard. #217
Cultivating a healthy realism: Authentic realism does not give up on changing the world; indeed, it starts by clearly identifying interests, fears, constraints and power dynamics, precisely in order to determine what can be achieved, and the measures needed to achieve it. #218
Reviving dialogue: It involves acquiring an attitude that seeks to forge bonds of fraternity built on listening, an open demeanor, making time for each other and even wasting time together. For if we experience authentic encounters with others, with those who are different, strangers and migrants, it becomes much more difficult even to imagine war. #220
With this Pope Leo XIV concludes his first social Encyclical. With prayers and a guided reflection that goes back to Nehemiah’s ability to organize the community in rebuilding Jerusalem our Holy Father commends us with the following spirituality.
The spirituality I wish to commend is that of the “wise architect” who, driven by hope for the Kingdom of God, is committed to building the world for the common good (cf. 1 Cor 3:10). As I mentioned at the beginning of this reflection, the task of building in our time must place our relationship with God at its center. Our rule must be the acceptance of human limitations as a natural and positive reality, and should be characterized by shared responsibility and a language characterized by the Gospel. At the end of this reflection, the plan for a civilization of love can be seen more clearly, and the construction site appears to be already up and running, thanks especially to the many living stones solidly united to Christ the cornerstone (cf. 1 Pet 2:4-6). In this task, we are called to assume an active role, without taking refuge in spiritual sentimentality or retreating into our own little worlds. We must be faithful to the truth, invest in education, cultivate relationships and love justice and peace. #236
