The National Catholic Register portal reports on a commentary by Brendan Towell, who presents Leo XIV’s encyclical *Magnifica Humanitas* as a profound Augustinian meditation on artificial intelligence, framing it as a question of “love and communion” rather than mere technology. Towell praises the encyclical for asking “what kinds of persons are being formed beneath the surface,” drawing parallels between Leo XIV and St. Augustine’s concern for the human heart. The article lauds the encyclical’s warnings against the “Babel syndrome” of homogenization and its call to safeguard humanity from seeing persons as “projects to be optimized.” Towell highlights Leo XIV’s alleged continuity with his earlier scholarly work on Augustinian authority and communion, even referencing his doctoral study on “Augustinian authority and communion after the Second Vatican Council.” What Towell and the encyclical utterly suppress is that the entire edifice rests on the Modernist heresy of the evolution of dogmas and the democratization of the Church, rendering their Augustinian language a mere veneer over theological revolution.
The Augustinian Facade: Instrumentalizing the Doctor of Grace
The appropriation of St. Augustine’s authority to legitimize the conciliar agenda is not merely a rhetorical device; it is a calculated act of theological fraud. St. Augustine, the Doctor of Grace, spent his life combating Pelagianism—the heresy that man can achieve salvation through his own natural efforts without the necessity of divine grace. Yet, Towell and the encyclical named *Magnifica Humanitas* invoke Augustine to discuss “formation,” “communion,” and “the flourishing of persons” within a framework that systematically omits the supernatural order, the necessity of the sacraments, the reality of original sin, and the absolute primacy of the Catholic Church as the sole ark of salvation. This is not Augustinianism; it is Pelagianism baptized with Augustinian language.
St. Augustine taught: “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it” (Psalm 126:1). The encyclical’s concern for “what kind of human beings will emerge” ignores the foundational Catholic truth that human beings are fallen creatures whose nature is wounded by original sin and who require supernatural grace, merited by Christ’s Passion and dispensed through the sacraments, to attain their true end—the Beatific Vision. To speak of “human flourishing” without reference to the supernatural order, the state of grace, and the necessity of the true Faith is to preach a naturalistic humanism indistinguishable from secularism, precisely the error condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), which rejects the idea that “the civil government… has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs” (Proposition 41) and that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Proposition 55).
The Suppression of the Supernatural: Silence as Apostasy
The most damning indictment of both Towell’s commentary and the encyclical it praises is what they systematically omit. There is no mention of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the source and summit of Christian life. There is no mention of the necessity of baptism for salvation. There is no mention of the reality of hell, the final judgment, or the eternal consequences of sin. There is no mention of the Church’s divine mission to teach, govern, and sanctify all nations until the end of time. In short, there is no mention of the supernatural order—the very foundation of Catholic theology.
This silence is not accidental; it is the hallmark of Modernism, which Pius X condemned in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907) as “the synthesis of all heresies.” Modernism reduces religion to subjective experience and social action, stripping it of its dogmatic content and supernatural orientation. The encyclical’s focus on “relationships,” “communion,” and “the formation of the human heart” without reference to the sacraments, the Magisterium, and the deposit of faith is precisely the “evolution of dogma” condemned by Lamentabili Sane Exitu (1907), which rejects the proposition that “dogmas, sacraments, and hierarchy… are merely modes of explanation and stages in the evolution of Christian consciousness” (Proposition 54).
The Conciliar Heresy: “After the Second Vatican Council”
Towell explicitly references Leo XIV’s doctoral study on “Augustinian authority and communion after the Second Vatican Council,” presenting this as evidence of intellectual continuity. This is not a mark of continuity with Catholic tradition; it is a confession of allegiance to the conciliar revolution. The so-called “Second Vatican Council” (1962–1965) was the watershed moment when the structures occupying the Vatican formally abandoned the Church’s perennial teaching on religious liberty, ecumenism, and the relationship between Church and State. The documents of Vatican II—particularly Dignitatis Humanae (on religious freedom), Nostra Aetate (on non-Christian religions), and Unitatis Redintegratio (on ecumenism)—contradict the explicit teaching of the Magisterium as expressed in Gregory XVI’s Mirari Vos (1832), Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (1864), and Pius XI’s Quas Primas (1925).
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, unequivocally declared: “The kingdom of Christ encompasses all men… His reign extends not only to Catholic nations… but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” The conciliar documents’ embrace of religious liberty and ecumenism is a direct repudiation of this teaching, reducing the Church from the one true society founded by Christ to merely one among many “communities” seeking “communion.” To invoke Augustine “after the Second Vatican Council” is to invoke him in the service of a system that has betrayed his teaching.
The “Babel Syndrome”: A False Dilemma
The encyclical’s contrast between the “Tower of Babel” and the “city of Jerusalem” is presented as a profound theological insight, but it is in fact a false dilemma designed to evade the real issue. The true “Babel” is not technological homogenization but the confusion of tongues that results from the rejection of the one true Faith. The true “Jerusalem” is not a vaguely defined “communion” of persons but the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).
The encyclical warns against “the temptation to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion” (§112). But the Catholic answer to this is not more “communion” or “formation” within communities; it is the submission of the intellect and will to the truths revealed by God and taught by His Church. The “optimization” that the Church seeks is not technological but spiritual—the sanctification of souls through grace, the sacraments, and the practice of virtue. To frame the question in terms of “optimization” versus “communion” is to accept the Modernist premise that the fundamental problem is sociological rather than theological.
The Myth of “Formation” Without Dogma
Towell and the encyclical speak extensively of “formation”—of persons being “formed” within communities, schools, and families. But formation toward what end? The Catholic understanding of formation is ordered toward the supernatural end of man: union with God in the Beatific Vision. This requires the infusion of sanctifying grace, which is obtained through baptism and preserved and increased through the sacraments, particularly Confession and the Holy Eucharist. It requires the assent of faith to the truths revealed by God and proposed by the Magisterium. It requires the practice of virtue under the guidance of grace.
The encyclical’s vision of formation is entirely naturalistic. It speaks of “learning how to become human together,” of “friendship, conversation and shared life,” of “schools” that offer “a shared time for learning and developing trustworthy relationships” (§174). This is not Catholic formation; it is secular humanism with religious overtones. It is the “cult of man” condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium, which insists that man’s dignity derives not from his natural capacities but from his supernatural vocation.
St. Augustine himself would have rejected this reductionism. For Augustine, the “two cities” are defined not by their social structures or technologies but by their loves: “Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self” (De Civitate Dei, XIV, 28). The earthly city is characterized by pride, rebellion against God, and the worship of the creature rather than the Creator. The heavenly city is characterized by humility, obedience to God, and the worship of the one true God through Jesus Christ and His Church. The encyclical’s failure to make this distinction—its reduction of the “two cities” to a contrast between “uniformity” and “communion”—is a betrayal of Augustine’s thought.
The Heresy of Personalism
The encyclical’s emphasis on “the dignity of the person” and “personalism” is not Catholic teaching but the Modernist heresy condemned by Pius X. Catholic personalism, as taught by the pre-conciliar Magisterium, insists that the dignity of the person derives from his creation in the image and likeness of God and his supernatural vocation. It insists that the person is ordered toward God and that his fulfillment consists in the knowledge and love of God. Modernist personalism, by contrast, places the person at the center, making human experience and subjective fulfillment the criterion of truth.
The encyclical’s warning that “human beings are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion” (§112) is a perfect expression of this Modernist personalism. It reduces the spiritual life to a matter of “relationship” and “communion,” ignoring the objective content of faith, the necessity of dogma, and the reality of sin and grace. It is the “evolution of dogma” in action—the transformation of Catholic theology from a system of objective truths to a subjective experience of “communion.”
The Irrelevance of “Technology” as a Theological Category
The entire framing of the encyclical—as a response to “artificial intelligence” and “technological systems”—is itself a symptom of the conciliar Church’s capitulation to the world. The Church’s mission is not to respond to every passing cultural phenomenon with a new document; it is to preach the unchanging Gospel of Jesus Christ, to administer the sacraments, and to lead souls to salvation. The encyclical’s engagement with “AI” and “digital culture” is not a sign of pastoral relevance but of worldliness—the desire to be “relevant” to the world rather than to convert it.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, warned against precisely this temptation: “The plague that poisons human society is the secularism of our times, so-called laicism, its errors and wicked endeavors… It began with the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations; the Church’s authority to teach men, to issue laws, to govern nations… was denied.” The encyclical’s failure to proclaim the social Kingship of Christ—its silence on the duty of nations to submit to the authority of Christ and His Church—is a capitulation to the very laicism that Pius XI condemned.
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation Speaks Augustinian
The encyclical *Magnifica Humanitas*, as presented by Towell, is not a Catholic document. It is a Modernist manifesto dressed in Augustinian language. It invokes the authority of St. Augustine while betraying his teaching. It speaks of “formation,” “communion,” and “the dignity of the person” while ignoring the supernatural order, the necessity of the sacraments, and the reality of sin and grace. It claims to address the “deeper question” beneath technology while refusing to ask the deepest question of all: Are you in the state of grace? Are you a member of the Catholic Church? Are you living according to the commandments of God?
The true heir of St. Augustine is not the conciliar sect with its encyclicals on AI and its “new age of personalism.” The true heir of St. Augustine is the remnant that holds fast to the Faith once delivered to the saints—the Faith that proclaims the social Kingship of Christ, the necessity of the sacraments, the reality of hell, and the absolute primacy of the supernatural order over all human systems, whether technological or otherwise. “The truth is not changed by the fact that many persons are found to embrace it” (St. Augustine, Epistulae, 166). Nor is it changed by the fact that the structures occupying the Vatican have abandoned it.
Source:
‘Magnifica Humanitas’ Through the Lens of St. Augustine (ncregister.com)
Date: 28.05.2026