The National Register portal reports on the first encyclical of the antipope Leo XIV, titled *Magnifica Humanitas*, which was presented on May 25, 2026. The commentary by Father Raymond J. de Souza highlights that the encyclical focuses not primarily on theological but philosophical grounds, aiming to address what Leo perceives as an eroded understanding of the human person in a technological culture. De Souza notes that while a “Christian humanism” is proposed, the emphasis leans more towards humanism than Christian revelation. The article further explains that Leo draws inspiration from *Gaudium et Spes*, particularly its emphasis on understanding humanity in light of Jesus Christ, yet the grammatical structure of the encyclical’s opening sentences places humanity, not Christ, as the subject. The commentary also mentions the presence of Chris Olah, an atheist and founder of AI giant Anthropic, at the presentation, who expressed gratitude for the Church’s collaboration on AI. This encyclical represents a profound departure from the immutable Catholic doctrine, prioritizing a naturalistic “authentic humanism” over the supernatural truths of Revelation, thereby aligning with modernist tendencies condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium.

---

The Primacy of Humanity over Christ: A Modernist Foundation

The very opening of *Magnifica Humanitas* signals a fundamental shift in perspective that is deeply problematic from the standpoint of integral Catholic faith. While the commentary notes that the encyclical begins with a citation from *Gaudium et Spes* stating it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear,” the subsequent grammatical construction reveals a different priority. As Father Raymond J. de Souza observes, “Grammatically, it is now humanity that is the subject of the first sentence, not Jesus Christ; God is present, but in a subordinate clause.” This subtle but critical inversion places man, rather than God, at the center of reflection.

Such an approach directly contradicts the perennial teaching of the Church, which unequivocally states that Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the center of all creation and history. Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical *Quas Primas*, explicitly declared, “The Redeemer of man, Jesus Christ, is the center of the universe and of history.” To relegate God to a subordinate clause while elevating humanity to the subject position is not merely a stylistic choice; it reflects the very essence of modernism, which, as St. Pius X condemned in *Pascendi Dominici Gregis*, seeks to “explain all religion, including Christianity, by the subjective experience of man” and ultimately leads to the “destruction of all religion.” This initial framing sets the tone for an encyclical that, despite its claims of Christian inspiration, fundamentally prioritizes a naturalistic understanding of man over the supernatural reality of God.

The “Pulverization” of Doctrine: From Metaphysical Truth to Digital Degradation

The commentary draws a parallel between John Paul II’s concern over the “pulverization” of the human person by atheistic ideologies and Leo XIV’s focus on the “digitalization” of man. While John Paul II’s analysis was rooted in the metaphysical order, identifying the evil as a degradation of the “fundamental uniqueness of each human person” and a “disintegration planned at times by atheistic ideologies,” Leo’s encyclical addresses a “digital world” that “can degrade man, even dehumanize him, all the while appearing as information, entertainment and connection.” This shift in focus from ideological oppression to technological influence reveals a superficial understanding of the true sources of evil.

True Catholic doctrine identifies sin, both original and actual, as the primary cause of humanity’s degradation. The “pulverization” of the human person is not merely a product of external forces like ideologies or technology, but a consequence of man’s fallen nature and his rejection of God’s law. By focusing on external technological threats, the encyclical conveniently sidesteps the internal spiritual battle and the necessity of grace for true human flourishing. This approach echoes the modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili Sane Exitu*, which rejected the idea that “the progress of sciences requires a reform of the concept of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, Revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption.” Instead of calling for a return to immutable truth, the encyclical suggests “philosophical repair work” is needed first, implying that human reason alone can address the crisis of the human person, a notion thoroughly condemned by Pope Pius IX in *Syllabus of Errors* (Proposition 3: “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”).

Grace Builds on Nature? The Subordination of Theology to Philosophy

A central claim in the commentary is that “Grace builds upon nature, and so it falls to a pastor from time to time to attend to nature (philosophy) first and then grace (theology) later.” While this principle is sound in classical Thomistic philosophy, its application here is deeply flawed. The encyclical, according to the commentary, argues that “the argument today for Christian humanism must first start with an authentic natural humanism” because “if today people have lost their own sense of humanity’s grandeur, how could it possibly make sense to them that God would become incarnate?” This logic inverts the proper order, suggesting that the acceptance of the Incarnation depends on a prior philosophical understanding of human dignity, rather than the Incarnation being the very source and foundation of that dignity.

The Catholic Church has always taught that faith is the foundation, and reason, while valuable, is subordinate to it. As Pope Pius IX declared in *Syllabus of Errors* (Proposition 4), “All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind” is an error. To suggest that philosophical “repair work” is a prerequisite for accepting divine Revelation is to place human reason above God’s self-communication, a clear manifestation of rationalism. The true “grandeur” of humanity is not discovered through a secular “authentic humanism” but through the recognition of man’s creation in the image and likeness of God and his redemption by Jesus Christ. Any attempt to build a “Christian humanism” on a purely naturalistic foundation is, at best, a house built on sand, and at worst, a denial of the supernatural order.

The Tower of Babel Rebuilt: Dignity, Justice, and Fraternity Without God

The encyclical’s description of humanity’s task – “to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together” – and its emphasis on “dignity, justice and fraternity” as goals “not specifically Christian” further expose its modernist underpinnings. These concepts, while seemingly noble, are severed from their supernatural moorings. True justice and fraternity, in the Catholic sense, are fruits of charity, which is a theological virtue infused by God, and are ordered towards the ultimate good of union with God. Without God, “dignity” becomes a subjective human construct, “justice” a matter of social contract or power, and “fraternity” a sentimental aspiration devoid of supernatural obligation.

This approach aligns perfectly with the errors condemned by Pope Leo XIII in *Immortale Dei*, where he warned against the separation of Church and State and the idea that the state is the origin of all rights, independent of God. The “city in which God and humanity dwell together” envisioned by Leo XIV appears to be a secular utopia built on human effort, rather than the City of God, the Church, established by Christ and sustained by His grace. The Tower of Babel is not merely a symbol of technological overreach, but of humanity’s prideful attempt to reach heaven without God, to establish a purely human order. By presenting a choice between a secular “Tower of Babel” and a vaguely defined “city” of “dignity, justice and fraternity,” the encyclical implicitly endorses a naturalistic humanism that, while acknowledging God, does not truly submit to His sovereignty or the necessity of His Church for salvation.

Transhumanism and the Denial of Human Finitude: A Superficial Critique

The commentary highlights the encyclical’s section on “transhumanism” and “posthumanism,” where Leo argues against the enhancement of human beings through technologies and the hybridization of humans with machines. His argument, however, is notably weak from a Catholic perspective. He states that “man’s limits are essential to his identity and experience” and that “humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them,” suggesting that this is known “by all cultures without the benefit of divine Revelation.” This is a purely naturalistic argument, failing to ground human dignity and the meaning of suffering in the redemptive work of Christ.

While the encyclical does mention that “the ‘light of faith offers a perspective on reality that helps us recognize what we call the ‘contingency’ of the things of this world,” this is presented as an afterthought, a supplementary insight rather than the foundational truth. The true Catholic understanding of human finitude and suffering is not merely that they are “essential to identity” or that humanity “flourishes through them,” but that they are consequences of original sin, and that through Christ’s Passion and Death, suffering can be redemptive and lead to eternal life. By failing to articulate this profound theological truth, the encyclical’s critique of transhumanism remains superficial, offering a humanistic alternative rather than a supernatural solution. It addresses the symptoms of the disease (technological dehumanization) without diagnosing the root cause (sin) or prescribing the true remedy (grace and redemption in Christ).

The Presence of an Atheist: A Symbol of False Dialogue

Perhaps the most scandalous detail mentioned in the commentary is the presence of Chris Olah, an atheist and founder of AI giant Anthropic, at the presentation of the encyclical. Olah’s expression of gratitude “to His Holiness and the Church” for collaboration on AI, and his acknowledgment of the need for “earnest, thoughtful critics” outside commercial incentives, is a stark illustration of the post-conciliar Church’s embrace of the world and its values.

This event embodies the spirit of false ecumenism and interreligious dialogue condemned by pre-conciliar popes. St. Pius X, in *Pascendi Dominici Gregis*, warned against the modernist desire for “reconciliation with the world” and the “suppression of the distinction between the Church and the world.” The presence of an atheist at the presentation of a papal encyclical, and his commendation by the “Holy Father,” demonstrates a profound confusion between the sacred and the profane, between the City of God and the City of Man. It signals that the “Church” of Leo XIV is more concerned with engaging with secular powers and gaining their approval than with proclaiming the immutable truths of the Gospel and calling all men to conversion. This is not authentic dialogue, but a capitulation to the spirit of the age, a betrayal of the Church’s prophetic mission.

Conclusion: A Manifestation of Systemic Apostasy

In summary, *Magnifica Humanitas* is not a document of Catholic renewal but a further manifestation of the systemic apostasy that has plagued the conciliar sect since its inception. By prioritizing a naturalistic humanism over divine Revelation, by suggesting that philosophical repair work is a prerequisite for accepting the Incarnation, by severing concepts like dignity, justice, and fraternity from their supernatural foundations, and by engaging in false dialogue with atheists, the antipope Leo XIV continues the modernist project of adapting the Church to the world rather than the world to Christ. This encyclical, far from offering a true remedy for the ills of our times, merely provides a sophisticated veneer for the ongoing destruction of authentic Catholic faith and practice. The “grandeur” it seeks to restore is not the grandeur of man redeemed by Christ, but the grandeur of man left to his own devices, a grandeur that is ultimately an illusion leading to perdition. The faithful must reject this modernist overture and cling to the immutable Tradition of the Church, which alone offers true liberation and authentic human flourishing in Christ Jesus Our Lord.

---

Source:
‘Magnifica Humanitas’: Pope Leo Makes His Case for Authentic Humanism   (ncregister.com)
Date: 27.05.2026