Let us recall what the true Church teaches. Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas (1925), established the Feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the “secularism of our times, so-called laicism, its errors and wicked endeavors.” He lamented that “this crime did not mature all at once, but has long been hidden in the soul of society. It began with the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations.” The remedy was clear: the public acknowledgment of Christ’s kingship over all individuals, families, and states. What does Leo XIV offer instead? A “new humanism” — the very disease Pius XI diagnosed, now dressed in Christian vocabulary and presented as a cure.

The Heresy of the “Evolution” of Doctrine

Perhaps the most damning statement in the entire article comes from Anna Rowlands, who describes Catholic social teaching as a “river” that “evolves over time”: “It’s a genuinely dynamic unfolding.” She explicitly states that the principles of Catholic social teaching “don’t arrive just completely packaged in 1891 in a way that we receive them now.” This is nothing less than the condemned Modernist heresy of the evolution of dogmas, which Pope St. Pius X annihilated in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907) and in the Lamentabili Sane Exitu syllabus of condemned propositions.

Proposition 58 of the Lamentabili, condemned by the Holy Office under St. Pius X, states: “Truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him.” This is precisely what Rowlands teaches when she says Catholic social teaching “evolves” and undergoes “a genuinely dynamic unfolding.” Proposition 64 is equally relevant: “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.” The entire premise of the forthcoming encyclical — that the Church must reformulate her teaching in light of artificial intelligence and the digital revolution — is a direct manifestation of this condemned proposition.

St. Pius X, in Pascendi, identified the Modernist principle that “truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolves with him, in him, and through him.” He condemned this as the “synthesis of all errors.” The conciliar sect has embraced this synthesis wholeheartedly. When Rowlands speaks of Catholic social teaching as a “river” changed by “the obstacles that it hits,” she is not describing the immutable deposit of faith applied to new circumstances — which is the Catholic understanding — but rather the evolution of doctrine itself, which is the Modernist heresy. The Catholic position is that the principles of faith and morals are eternal, immutable, and revealed by God; they do not “evolve.” What changes is the application of these unchanging principles to new historical situations, but the principles themselves remain fixed, as immutable as God Who revealed them.

Consider the teaching of Pope Leo XIII himself in Immortale Dei (1885): “The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, each the highest in its own kind, and each fixed within limits which are defined by its own nature and special object.” These limits are not subject to “dynamic unfolding.” They are fixed by God. When the conciliar sect speaks of “evolving” social teaching, it is not applying fixed principles — it is abandoning them.

The Cult of Man: “New Humanism” as Apostasy

The phrase “new humanism” appears repeatedly in the article, presented as something positive and even necessary. Leo XIV calls students to be “pioneers of a new humanism in the context of the digital revolution.” But what is this “new humanism”? Matthew Bunson, quoted in the article, acknowledges that humanism “rejected the Christian project” and that “secular humanism is what we are grappling with today.” Yet the article presents Leo XIV’s “new humanism” as somehow distinct from secular humanism, without ever defining what makes it authentically Christian.

The answer is that it is not distinct. The “new humanism” of the conciliar sect is the same old secular humanism baptized with Christian terminology. It is the religion of man who makes himself God — the very sin that Pius IX condemned in the Syllabus of Errors (1864). Proposition 1 of the Syllabus condemns the pantheistic notion that “God is identical with the nature of things” and that “all things are God.” Proposition 3 condemns the idea that “human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil.” Proposition 58 of the Syllabus condemns the notion that “no other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure.”

The “new humanism” of Leo XIV is precisely this: a vision of humanity that, while paying lip service to God, in practice places man at the center, makes human dignity (detached from its supernatural foundation) the supreme value, and reduces the Church’s mission to addressing social and technological challenges rather than saving souls from eternal damnation. It is the Magnifica Humanitas of the natural man, not the Magna Gloria Dei of the supernatural order.

Pius XI, in Quas Primas, taught with crystalline clarity: “The kingdom of Christ is opposed only to the kingdom of Satan and the powers of darkness.” The Church’s mission is not to promote “humanism” — new or old — but to bring souls to salvation through Jesus Christ. “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). When the conciliar sect speaks of “new humanism,” it has abandoned this missionary purpose in favor of a naturalistic program of social improvement that is indistinguishable from secular liberalism.

The Omission of Transcendence: A Church Silenced About God

The article quotes Rowlands as saying that “the thing that connects every single encyclical is the insistence that social crises have at their root a refusal of transcendence.” Yet the entire thrust of the article — and of the forthcoming encyclical — is concerned with artificial intelligence, digital revolution, and technological development. Where is the insistence on transcendence? Where is the call to repentance? Where is the warning about the eternal destiny of souls? Where is the proclamation of the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell?

The answer is that these are entirely absent. The “transcendence” spoken of by Rowlands and the conciliar sect is a vague, naturalistic transcendence — a “human dignity” detached from the supernatural life of grace, a “spirituality” detached from the sacraments, a “God” detached from His Church and His revealed Law. This is not the transcendence of the Catholic Faith, which teaches that man’s dignity comes from being made in the image and likeness of God, that this image is supernaturally elevated by baptism and the life of grace, and that without sanctifying grace, man is a slave to sin and destined for eternal perdition.

Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned proposition 77: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” Proposition 80 is even more devastating: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” This is precisely what Leo XIV is doing with his “new humanism” — reconciling himself with the “progress” of artificial intelligence and the digital revolution, coming to terms with modern civilization rather than condemning its errors and calling all men to conversion.

The true Church has always taught that the primary purpose of man is to know, love, and serve God in this life and to be happy with Him forever in the next. The social teaching of the Church, properly understood, flows from this primary purpose. It is not a “river” that “evolves” — it is the application of eternal, immutable principles to changing circumstances. When Leo XIII wrote Rerum Novarum, he did not “evolve” doctrine — he applied the eternal principles of justice and charity to the new conditions of industrial capitalism. The principles themselves — the dignity of the human person (grounded in the image of God), the common good (ordered to the supernatural end), solidarity, subsidiarity — are not subject to “dynamic unfolding.”

Transhumanism and the Worship of the Machine

The article acknowledges the existence of transhumanism and posthumanism — movements that seek to eliminate suffering and death through technological advancement and to merge humans with machines. Father Baggot is quoted as saying that Leo XIV “sees the need to represent in all of its fullness and beauty a Christian humanism that says ‘Yes’ to technological development, but not to a reckless accelerationalism.” But this is a false dichotomy. The Church does not say “yes” to technological development as such — she judges all human activity by the supernatural end of man. Technology that serves the true good of man (ordered to his supernatural destiny) is permissible; technology that serves the rebellion of man against his Creator is diabolical.

The transhumanist project is not merely “reckless accelerationalism” — it is the ultimate expression of the original sin: “You shall be as gods” (Genesis 3:5). It is the refusal to accept the human condition as created by God, the refusal to accept suffering and death as consequences of sin, and the attempt to achieve immortality and divinity through human effort rather than through grace. It is, in its essence, the religion of the Antichrist — the worship of man and his creations in place of the worship of God.

Yet the conciliar sect does not condemn it outright. Instead, it offers a “Christian humanism” that “says ‘Yes’ to technological development.” This is the language of compromise, not of the Church Militant. The true Church does not negotiate with error — she condemns it. St. Pius X did not offer a “Christian modernism” that says “yes” to historical criticism but “no” to the denial of miracles — he condemned Modernism root and branch as the “synthesis of all errors.” The conciliar sect, by contrast, offers a “Christian humanism” that accepts the premises of the digital revolution while adding a veneer of Christian language. This is not the Faith — it is apostasy.

The Silence About the Most Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments

Perhaps the most revealing omission in the entire article is any mention of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the sacraments, or the supernatural life of grace. Father Baggot mentions “in-person worship in community” — but what kind of worship? The conciliar “Mass” is not the Most Holy Sacrifice of Calvary — it is a Protestantized memorial meal that denies the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice. The “Eucharist” of the conciliar sect is not the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ — it is, at best, an undefined “presence” that has been stripped of its sacrificial character.

The article speaks of “deep conversations,” “contemplating nature,” “playing musical instruments,” “writing and reading books,” and “dancing” — but not a word about the sacraments that actually sanctify the soul. Not a word about confession, which is the only means by which mortal sins are forgiven. Not a word about the Real Presence of Christ in the tabernacle. Not a word about the necessity of sanctifying grace for salvation. This silence is not accidental — it is the hallmark of the conciliar sect, which has systematically emptied the Faith of its supernatural content and replaced it with a naturalistic program of “human development.”

Pius XI, in Quas Primas, taught that “Christ possesses the so-called executive power, for all must obey His commands, and this under the threat of announced punishments, which the obstinate cannot escape.” Where is this Christ in the forthcoming encyclical? Where is the Christ who will judge the living and the dead? Where is the Christ whose reign extends over all nations, all families, all individuals? In His place, we find “Magnificent Humanity” — man himself, elevated to the position that belongs to God alone.

The Reign of Christ the King vs. the Reign of Man

The fundamental question posed by this forthcoming encyclical is the same question that has defined the entire post-conciliar revolution: Who reigns? Christ the King, or man? The true Church has always answered with Pius XI: “The royal dignity of our Lord surrounds the earthly authority of princes and rulers with a certain religious reverence.” Christ is King — not metaphorically, not spiritually in some vague sense, but truly, really, and substantially. His kingdom extends over all creation, and every aspect of human life — including technology, artificial intelligence, and the digital revolution — must be subject to His law.

The conciliar sect has replaced the reign of Christ with the reign of man. Its “social teaching” is not the application of Christ’s law to social conditions — it is the replacement of Christ’s law with human autonomy. Its “new humanism” not the elevation of man through grace to participation in the divine nature — it is the worship of man as he is, with all his sins and errors, elevated to the status of god. Its “Magnifica Humanitas” is not the humanity of Christ, the God-Man, Who is the only model of true humanity — it is the humanity of the natural man, cut off from God, worshipping itself and its creations.

Let us return to the words of Pius XI in Quas Primas: “If men were ever to recognize Christ’s royal authority over themselves, both privately and publicly, then unheard-of blessings would flow upon the whole society, such as due freedom, order, and tranquility, and concord and peace.” The remedy for the crises of our time — including the crisis posed by artificial intelligence — is not a “new humanism” but the return to the old Faith: the recognition of Christ the King, the restoration of His reign over all nations and all aspects of life, and the submission of all human activity — including technology — to His divine law.

Until the conciliar sect does this — until it repents of its apostasy, rejects its “new humanism,” and returns to the immutable Tradition of the Catholic Faith — its encyclicals will be nothing more than documents of the Antichrist, promoting the worship of man in place of the worship of God. Magnifica Humanitas is not a title of hope — it is a title of blasphemy. And the forthcoming encyclical, whatever its content, will be yet another stone in the edifice of the abomination of desolation that has occupied the Vatican since 1958.

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam — to the greater glory of God, not of man. This is the only “humanism” worthy of the name: the humanity of Christ, the God-Man, Who alone shows us what it means to be truly human. Everything else is the lie of the serpent: “You shall be as gods.”

Source:
From Rerum Novarum to Today: Pope Leo XIV Prepares to Add His Voice to the Church’s Social Teaching   (ncregister.com)
Date: 12.05.2026