The Pillar Catholic portal reports on the release of “Magnifica humanitas,” the first encyclical of the antipope Leo XIV (Robert Prevost), dated May 25, 2026. The document, subtitled “On the safeguarding of the human person in the time of artificial intelligence,” purports to apply Catholic social teaching to the challenges posed by artificial intelligence in education, politics, work, and war. It critiques transhumanism and posthumanism while calling for the defense of human dignity and acknowledging the Church’s historical slowness in condemning slavery. However, a thorough examination reveals that this encyclical is not a defense of the integral Catholic faith, but rather a sophisticated articulation of modernist principles, reducing the Church’s mission to naturalistic humanism and further entrenching the conciliar sect’s departure from immutable Tradition.
The Illusion of Christocentricity: A Modernist Facade
While the introduction claims to be “strikingly Christocentric,” mentioning Christ three times, this is a superficial gesture designed to placate the unwary. True Christocentricity, as understood by the Church before 1958, demands the explicit recognition of Our Lord Jesus Christ as King of all nations and the sole Mediator of salvation. Pius XI, in his encyclical *Quas Primas*, unequivocally declared: “His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations or to those who, by receiving baptism according to law, belong to the Church, even though their erroneous opinions have led them astray or discord has separated them from love, but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” Leo XIV’s encyclical, however, remains silent on Christ’s social kingship, instead focusing on a vague “human dignity” divorced from its supernatural foundation. This is a hallmark of modernism: retaining the vocabulary of faith while hollowing out its doctrinal content, reducing Christ to a mere moral exemplar rather than the divine Redeemer and King.
The Church as “Companion” vs. The Church as Mother and Teacher
Leo XIV draws on a “central image of Vatican Council II (1962-65),” presenting the Church as “humanity’s companion on the road of history.” This conciliar notion fundamentally distorts the Church’s self-understanding. The Church is not a mere companion, but the *Mater et Magistra* (Mother and Teacher), divinely instituted to teach, govern, and sanctify. Her authority is not derived from “shared discernment” or “dialogue with the sciences,” but from the divine mandate of Christ: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). Pius IX, in his *Syllabus of Errors*, condemned the idea that “the Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights” (Proposition 19). Leo XIV’s emphasis on “dialogue” and “shared discernment” implicitly subordinates the Church’s infallible teaching authority to the fluctuating opinions of the world, a direct consequence of the modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili Sane Exitu*: “The Church listening cooperates in such a way with the Church teaching in defining truths of faith, that the Church teaching should only approve the common opinions of the Church listening” (Proposition 6).
The Heresy of “Human Rights” and the Negation of Divine Law
The encyclical speaks of the “supreme value of human rights,” appreciating the modern era’s recognition of these rights as codified in the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a direct contradiction of Catholic teaching. The Church has always taught that true rights are derived from God and His natural law, not from human conventions or secular declarations. The UN’s declaration, born of Enlightenment rationalism and often used to promote anti-Catholic agendas (e.g., abortion, religious indifferentism), is a product of the very “absolute rationalism” condemned by Pius IX: “Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations” (Proposition 3). By embracing such secular frameworks, Leo XIV implicitly denies the absolute primacy of God’s law and the Church’s sole authority to define true justice and human dignity.
A Naturalistic View of Man and Grace
Leo XIV’s critique of transhumanism and posthumanism, while superficially appealing, lacks a truly supernatural foundation. He argues that “human potential is fully realized in Christ and His Church,” yet his exposition remains largely within the realm of natural ethics and human flourishing. He speaks of “grace and Christian humanism” but fails to articulate the necessity of sanctifying grace, the sacraments, and the supernatural virtues for true human perfection. The modernist error, as defined by St. Pius X, is that “the faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man” (Proposition 6, *Syllabus of Errors*). Leo XIV’s approach, while acknowledging Christ, ultimately presents a vision of humanity that can be achieved through human effort and “shared discernment,” rather than through the transformative power of divine grace operating through the sacraments. This is a subtle form of Pelagianism, condemned repeatedly by the Church.
The “Examen” of Conscience: A Modernist Sacrament of Self-Absolution
The encyclical urges Catholics to undergo an “examen for the Church” about how well they apply social principles, including “listening to the victims of spiritual, economic, institutional, sexual and power-based abuse.” While acknowledging harm is important, this modernist “examen” often replaces true sacramental confession and contrition with a secularized process of self-affirmation and psychological healing. It focuses on “reparation” and “prevention” in a purely humanistic sense, rather than on the necessity of true repentance, sacramental absolution, and the restoration of the soul to the state of grace. The true “examen” of conscience, as taught by the Church, is oriented towards God’s law and the sacrament of Penance, not towards the shifting sands of social justice or the dictates of victimhood culture.
Silence on the Social Kingship of Christ and the Primacy of the Supernatural
Perhaps the most glaring omission in *Magnifica humanitas* is its complete silence on the Social Kingship of Christ and the primacy of the supernatural order. The encyclical discusses “building for the common good” and “integral human development” without ever mentioning that the common good is only truly achieved when Christ is recognized as King of all nations and when society is ordered according to His law. Pius XI, in *Quas Primas*, explicitly stated: “The state is happy not by one means, and man by another; for the state is nothing else than a harmonious association of men… He is the author of prosperity and true happiness for individual citizens as well as for the state.” Leo XIV’s vision of a “city in which God and humanity dwell together” remains a vague, utopian ideal, detached from the concrete demands of Christ’s social reign and the Church’s mission to bring all things under His dominion.
The Ecumenical and Interfaith Agenda: A False “Dialogue”
The encyclical’s call for “dialogue” and “shared discernment” with “other Christians” and “all people of good will” is a clear manifestation of the false ecumenism condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium. The Church has always taught that she is the one true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation, and that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Pius IX condemned the idea that “man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation” (Proposition 16, *Syllabus of Errors*). Leo XIV’s embrace of inter-religious initiatives, such as Pope John Paul II’s “spirit of Assisi” (a scandalous event where prayers were offered to false gods), and his reference to Pope Francis’ engagement with Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, demonstrates a continued commitment to the very errors that have led to the current crisis in the Church. This is not true dialogue, but a capitulation to religious indifferentism.
The “Civilization of Love” vs. The Kingdom of Christ
Leo XIV’s appeal for a “civilization of love” is another conciliar abstraction that lacks doctrinal substance. While love is a theological virtue, the “civilization of love” as presented in the encyclical is a purely humanistic concept, devoid of the necessary foundation in the Kingship of Christ and the Church’s social doctrine. True peace and justice, as Pius XI taught, can only be found in the “Kingdom of Christ.” The encyclical’s silence on the necessity of converting nations to the Catholic Faith as the only true path to lasting peace and justice is a damning indictment of its modernist character. It substitutes a vague, sentimental “love” for the rigorous demands of divine charity, which includes the proclamation of the Gospel and the establishment of Christ’s social reign.
Conclusion: A Modernist Blueprint for a Humanist Church
*Magnifica humanitas* is not a defense of “human dignity” in the Catholic sense, but a sophisticated articulation of modernist principles, reducing the Church’s mission to naturalistic humanism and further entrenching the conciliar sect’s departure from immutable Tradition. It is a document that, while using some Catholic vocabulary, fundamentally denies the supernatural mission of the Church, the Social Kingship of Christ, the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, and the exclusive truth of the Catholic Faith. It is a blueprint for a “Church” that is merely a humanitarian NGO, engaged in “dialogue” with the world rather than proclaiming the hard truths of the Gospel. The faithful must reject this modernist manifesto and cling to the unchanging teaching of the Church before 1958, which alone offers true hope and salvation to a world lost in the darkness of error. As St. Pius X warned, “the pursuit of novelty in the investigation of the foundations of things leads in our times to deplorable consequences, abandoning all restraint. It causes the heritage of humanity to be rejected, and often leads to the most grievous errors, which become particularly pernicious when they concern sacred sciences, the exposition of Holy Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith” (*Lamentabili Sane Exitu*, Introduction). This encyclical is a prime example of such a “grievous error.”
Source:
‘Magnifica humanitas’: A reader’s guide (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 25.05.2026