NCRegister portal (May 14, 2026) reports on a commentary by Dartmouth provost Santiago Schnell, who applies Leo XIII’s encyclical *Rerum Novarum* to the challenges posed by artificial intelligence. The article praises the “Leonine legacy” and explicitly endorses the continuity of this tradition through the post-conciliar magisterium, including the statements of the usurper Leo XIV. It frames the AI revolution as a new industrial crisis requiring a “moral vocabulary” from Catholic social teaching, while simultaneously validating the authority of the conciliar sect to provide that vocabulary. The commentary’s fundamental error lies in its assumption that the post-conciliar “Church” possesses the competence or authority to address the moral dimensions of technological change, when in reality, the structures occupying the Vatican have systematically dismantled the very theological and philosophical foundations necessary for such an analysis.
The Illusion of Continuity: Neo-Church vs. Immutable Tradition
The article begins by invoking the 135th anniversary of *Rerum Novarum*, correctly identifying its historical context: the industrial revolution’s displacement of the worker and the concentration of wealth. However, the author immediately commits a fatal error by asserting that “Pope Leo XIV sees his ministry as a continuation of the tradition Leo XIII inaugurated.” This statement is not merely historically inaccurate; it is theologically catastrophic. The usurper Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) is not a legitimate successor of Peter but a manifest heretic occupying the Vatican. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, “a Pope who is a manifest heretic, by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church” (*De Romano Pontifice*). The continuity Schnell praises is a fiction constructed by the conciliar sect to legitimize its apostasy.
The article quotes Leo XIV’s May 2025 address to the College of Cardinals, where he claimed the Church now faces “new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor.” This rhetoric is hollow. The post-conciliar “Church” has consistently undermined human dignity through its promotion of religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the dismantling of Catholic social order. Pius XI, in *Quas Primas*, declared that “the Kingdom of our Redeemer encompasses all men” and that rulers must publicly honor Christ. The conciliar sect has done the opposite, separating the Church from the State and subordinating divine law to human rights. Schnell’s appeal to Leo XIV’s “Leonine terms” is an appeal to a counterfeit authority.
The Anthropological Reduction: Man as Algorithm
Schnell correctly identifies the core of *Rerum Novarum*’s anthropology: the human person as a rational being endowed with dignity, whose work is an expression of his capacity for reason, foresight, and responsibility. Leo XIII wrote that “the human person, endowed with the capacity for reason, does not live by appetite alone. We plan, we provide, we assume responsibility across time.” This is indeed the foundation of Catholic social teaching. However, the article fails to recognize that the AI revolution, as managed by the structures Schnell implicitly endorses, threatens this anthropology far more profoundly than the industrial revolution.
The author asks whether AI will “amplify or replace human capacities,” framing the question in terms of judgment, labor, concentration of power, and association. Yet, he omits the most critical question: Does AI serve the supernatural end of man, or does it reduce him to a purely naturalistic entity? The industrial revolution, for all its evils, operated within a framework where the soul’s destiny was still acknowledged. The AI revolution, as promoted by the technocratic elite and blessed by the conciliar sect, operates within a framework of radical immanence. Pius X, in *Lamentabili sane exitu*, condemned the proposition that “revelation was merely man’s self-awareness of his relationship to God” (proposition 20). The AI paradigm, which seeks to replicate or replace human intelligence, is a practical manifestation of this heresy. It treats the mind as a machine, ignoring the spiritual soul that is the seat of reason and will.
The Family: Foundation or Obstacle?
The article correctly notes that Leo XIII placed the family at the center of the social order, stating that “a father worked so his children would not suffer want; a mother’s work anchored the household.” However, Schnell fails to confront the reality that the post-conciliar “Church” has actively undermined the family through its embrace of religious indifferentism and its silence on the intrinsic evil of contraception. Pius XI, in *Casti Connubii*, reaffirmed the indissolubility of marriage and the primary end of marriage as the procreation and education of children. The conciliar sect, by contrast, has tolerated divorce, cohabitation, and the contraceptive mentality, all of which destroy the family’s stability.
The article warns that AI’s economic effects may reach the “foundational level” of the family, fragmenting careers and making it difficult for young adults to marry and have children. This is a legitimate concern, but Schnell does not identify the root cause: the conciliar revolution’s destruction of the Catholic social order, which has left families vulnerable to the predations of capitalism and technocracy. Leo XIII wrote in *Rerum Novarum* that “the Church, established by Christ as a perfect society, demands for itself by a right belonging to it, which it cannot renounce, full freedom and independence from secular authority.” The conciliar sect has surrendered this freedom, becoming a tool of the very powers it claims to critique.
The Concentration of Power: Capitalism vs. Christendom
Schnell observes that “a handful of firms control the foundation models, computing power, and data on which contemporary AI depends,” echoing Leo XIII’s condemnation of “a small number of very rich men” who laid a yoke on the laboring masses. However, the article does not draw the logical conclusion: the AI economy is a product of the liberal capitalist system that the Church has always condemned. Pius XI, in *Quadragesimo Anno*, warned against the “international imperialism” of finance capital. The conciliar sect, by embracing religious liberty and the separation of Church and State, has legitimized the very system that concentrates power in the hands of a few.
The article calls for “mediating institutions” such as professional societies and faculty governance bodies to contest the power of AI systems. This is a naturalistic solution that ignores the supernatural means of grace. The true mediating institution is the Church, not as a bureaucratic structure, but as the Mystical Body of Christ, endowed with the authority to teach, govern, and sanctify. The conciliar sect, having abandoned this authority, can offer no effective resistance to the concentration of power. Its calls for “dialogue” and “discernment” are merely rhetorical gestures that leave the faithful exposed to the whims of the technocratic elite.
The Suppression of the Supernatural: A Silent Apostasy
The most damning omission in Schnell’s analysis is its silence on the supernatural dimension of work and technology. Leo XIII wrote that “no purely procedural solution can reach the social question; only religion and morality can do that.” Yet, Schnell reduces religion to a “moral vocabulary” and morality to a set of procedural norms. This is precisely the modernism condemned by Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici gregis*: the reduction of religion to a feeling, a sentiment, a practical attitude, rather than an objective truth binding on the mind.
The article quotes Leo XIV’s December 2025 address to labor consultants, where he stated that “work must not revolve around capital, market laws or profit, but ‘the person, the family, and their well-being.'” This statement, while superficially orthodox, is rendered meaningless by the context in which it is spoken. The usurper Leo XIV has no authority to define the nature of work or the dignity of the person, because he has no authority at all. His words are those of a hireling, not a shepherd. The true teaching of the Church is found not in the documents of the conciliar sect, but in the immutable tradition of the Fathers, the Doctors, and the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
Conclusion: The Bankruptcy of Conciliar Social Teaching
Schnell’s commentary is a textbook example of the theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the conciliar sect. It invokes the authority of Leo XIII and Leo XIV while ignoring the apostasy that separates them. It identifies the symptoms of the AI revolution—the displacement of judgment, the concentration of power, the fragility of the family—without diagnosing the disease: the rejection of Christ the King and the dismantling of the Catholic social order.
The solution to the AI crisis is not more “discernment” from the structures occupying the Vatican, but a return to the integral Catholic faith. As Pius XI taught, “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” (*Quas Primas*). The AI revolution, like the industrial revolution, can only be governed by the law of Christ. The conciliar sect, having rejected this law, has nothing to offer but empty rhetoric and false promises. The faithful must reject its authority and seek the true Church, which endures in those who profess the unchanging faith of the Fathers.
[Antichurch] AI and the Worker: Rerum Novarum’s 135-Year-Old Warning
NCRegister portal (May 14, 2026) reports on a commentary by Dartmouth provost Santiago Schnell, who applies Leo XIII’s encyclical *Rerum Novarum* to the challenges posed by artificial intelligence. The article praises the “Leonine legacy” and explicitly endorses the continuity of this tradition through the post-conciliar magisterium, including the statements of the usurper Leo XIV. It frames the AI revolution as a new industrial crisis requiring a “moral vocabulary” from Catholic social teaching, while simultaneously validating the authority of the conciliar sect to provide that vocabulary. The commentary’s fundamental error lies in its assumption that the post-conciliar “Church” possesses the competence or authority to address the moral dimensions of technological change, when in reality, the structures occupying the Vatican have systematically dismantled the very theological and philosophical foundations necessary for such an analysis.
The Illusion of Continuity: Neo-Church vs. Immutable Tradition
The article begins by invoking the 135th anniversary of *Rerum Novarum*, correctly identifying its historical context: the industrial revolution’s displacement of the worker and the concentration of wealth. However, the author immediately commits a fatal error by asserting that “Pope Leo XIV sees his ministry as a continuation of the tradition Leo XIII inaugurated.” This statement is not merely historically inaccurate; it is theologically catastrophic. The usurper Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) is not a legitimate successor of Peter but a manifest heretic occupying the Vatican. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, “a Pope who is a manifest heretic, by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church” (*De Romano Pontifice*). The continuity Schnell praises is a fiction constructed by the conciliar sect to legitimize its apostasy.
The article quotes Leo XIV’s May 2025 address to the College of Cardinals, where he claimed the Church now faces “new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor.” This rhetoric is hollow. The post-conciliar “Church” has consistently undermined human dignity through its promotion of religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the dismantling of Catholic social order. Pius XI, in *Quas Primas*, declared that “the Kingdom of our Redeemer encompasses all men” and that rulers must publicly honor Christ. The conciliar sect has done the opposite, separating the Church from the State and subordinating divine law to human rights. Schnell’s appeal to Leo XIV’s “Leonine terms” is an appeal to a counterfeit authority.
The Anthropological Reduction: Man as Algorithm
Schnell correctly identifies the core of *Rerum Novarum*’s anthropology: the human person as a rational being endowed with dignity, whose work is an expression of his capacity for reason, foresight, and responsibility. Leo XIII wrote that “the human person, endowed with the capacity for reason, does not live by appetite alone. We plan, we provide, we assume responsibility across time.” This is indeed the foundation of Catholic social teaching. However, the article fails to recognize that the AI revolution, as managed by the structures Schnell implicitly endorses, threatens this anthropology far more profoundly than the industrial revolution.
The author asks whether AI will “amplify or replace human capacities,” framing the question in terms of judgment, labor, concentration of power, and association. Yet, he omits the most critical question: Does AI serve the supernatural end of man, or does it reduce him to a purely naturalistic entity? The industrial revolution, for all its evils, operated within a framework where the soul’s destiny was still acknowledged. The AI revolution, as promoted by the technocratic elite and blessed by the conciliar sect, operates within a framework of radical immanence. Pius X, in *Lamentabili sane exitu*, condemned the proposition that “revelation was merely man’s self-awareness of his relationship to God” (proposition 20). The AI paradigm, which seeks to replicate or replace human intelligence, is a practical manifestation of this heresy. It treats the mind as a machine, ignoring the spiritual soul that is the seat of reason and will.
The Family: Foundation or Obstacle?
The article correctly notes that Leo XIII placed the family at the center of the social order, stating that “a father worked so his children would not suffer want; a mother’s work anchored the household.” However, Schnell fails to confront the reality that the post-conciliar “Church” has actively undermined the family through its embrace of religious indifferentism and its silence on the intrinsic evil of contraception. Pius XI, in *Casti Connubii*, reaffirmed the indissolubility of marriage and the primary end of marriage as the procreation and education of children. The conciliar sect, by contrast, has tolerated divorce, cohabitation, and the contraceptive mentality, all of which destroy the family’s stability.
The article warns that AI’s economic effects may reach the “foundational level” of the family, fragmenting careers and making it difficult for young adults to marry and have children. This is a legitimate concern, but Schnell does not identify the root cause: the conciliar revolution’s destruction of the Catholic social order, which has left families vulnerable to the predations of capitalism and technocracy. Leo XIII wrote in *Rerum Novarum* that “the Church, established by Christ as a perfect society, demands for itself by a right belonging to it, which it cannot renounce, full freedom and independence from secular authority.” The conciliar sect has surrendered this freedom, becoming a tool of the very powers it claims to critique.
The Concentration of Power: Capitalism vs. Christendom
Schnell observes that “a handful of firms control the foundation models, computing power, and data on which contemporary AI depends,” echoing Leo XIII’s condemnation of “a small number of very rich men” who laid a yoke on the laboring masses. However, the article does not draw the logical conclusion: the AI economy is a product of the liberal capitalist system that the Church has always condemned. Pius XI, in *Quadragesimo Anno*, warned against the “international imperialism” of finance capital. The conciliar sect, by embracing religious liberty and the separation of Church and State, has legitimized the very system that concentrates power in the hands of a few.
The article calls for “mediating institutions” such as professional societies and faculty governance bodies to contest the power of AI systems. This is a naturalistic solution that ignores the supernatural means of grace. The true mediating institution is the Church, not as a bureaucratic structure, but as the Mystical Body of Christ, endowed with the authority to teach, govern, and sanctify. The conciliar sect, having abandoned this authority, can offer no effective resistance to the concentration of power. Its calls for “dialogue” and “discernment” are merely rhetorical gestures that leave the faithful exposed to the whims of the technocratic elite.
The Suppression of the Supernatural: A Silent Apostasy
The most damning omission in Schnell’s analysis is its silence on the supernatural dimension of work and technology. Leo XIII wrote that “no purely procedural solution can reach the social question; only religion and morality can do that.” Yet, Schnell reduces religion to a “moral vocabulary” and morality to a set of procedural norms. This is precisely the modernism condemned by Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici gregis*: the reduction of religion to a feeling, a sentiment, a practical attitude, rather than an objective truth binding on the mind.
The article quotes Leo XIV’s December 2025 address to labor consultants, where he stated that “work must not revolve around capital, market laws or profit, but ‘the person, the family, and their well-being.'” This statement, while superficially orthodox, is rendered meaningless by the context in which it is spoken. The usurper Leo XIV has no authority to define the nature of work or the dignity of the person, because he has no authority at all. His words are those of a hireling, not a shepherd. The true teaching of the Church is found not in the documents of the conciliar sect, but in the immutable tradition of the Fathers, the Doctors, and the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
Conclusion: The Bankruptcy of Conciliar Social Teaching
Schnell’s commentary is a textbook example of the theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the conciliar sect. It invokes the authority of Leo XIII and Leo XIV while ignoring the apostasy that separates them. It identifies the symptoms of the AI revolution—the displacement of judgment, the concentration of power, the fragility of the family—without diagnosing the disease: the rejection of Christ the King and the dismantling of the Catholic social order.
The solution to the AI crisis is not more “discernment” from the structures occupying the Vatican, but a return to the integral Catholic faith. As Pius XI taught, “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” (*Quas Primas*). The AI revolution, like the industrial revolution, can only be governed by the law of Christ. The conciliar sect, having rejected this law, has nothing to offer but empty rhetoric and false promises. The faithful must reject its authority and seek the true Church, which endures in those who profess the unchanging faith of the Fathers.
Source:
AI and the Worker: Rerum Novarum’s 135-Year-Old Warning (ncregister.com)
Date: 14.05.2026