EWTN News portal (May 25, 2026) reports on the first encyclical of the usurper Robert Prevost, known as “Pope” Leo XIV, titled *Magnifica Humanitas*, which addresses the impact of artificial intelligence on education and family life. The “pontiff” warns about the dangers of digital technology for youth, calls for restraint in AI use, and advocates for an educational alliance among families, schools, and public institutions. However, this entire document is a masterpiece of modernist naturalism, utterly devoid of the supernatural, reducing the Catholic faith to a vague humanistic framework where the reign of Christ the King is conspicuously absent and the salvific mission of the Church is replaced by secular pedagogy.
The Complete Absence of Christ the King and the Supernatural Order
The most glaring and damning omission in *Magnifica Humanitas* is the total silence regarding the sovereignty of Our Lord Jesus Christ over all creation, nations, and—most pertinently—over education and human formation. When Pius XI instituted the Feast of Christ the King, he declared with apostolic authority: “His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations or to those who, by receiving baptism according to law, belong to the Church… 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 XIII, *Annum sanctum*, quoted in *Quas Primas*). The duty of public obedience to Christ is not optional; it is the foundation of all just authority. Pius XI explicitly stated: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed” (*Ubi arcano*, quoted in *Quas Primas*).
Leo XIV’s encyclical discusses education, the formation of youth, the role of families, and the influence of technology—all matters that fall squarely under the dominion of Christ the King—without once mentioning Him. There is no reference to the necessity of grace, the sacraments, the reality of sin, the existence of Hell, or the ultimate end of man: eternal union with God. The “education” proposed is entirely horizontal, concerned solely with psychological well-being, intellectual development, and social integration. This is not Catholic teaching; it is secular humanism dressed in ecclesiastical vestments. As the *Syllabus of Errors* condemns: “The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools… should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power” (Proposition 47). Leo XIV’s call for an “alliance” among “policymakers, educational institutions, and families” without subordinating this alliance to the Magisterium and the Kingship of Christ is precisely this condemned error.
Reduction of the Church’s Mission to Naturalistic Humanism
The encyclical consistently reduces the Church’s divine mission to a naturalistic, sociological function. Leo XIV speaks of “educating in sobriety and a sense of limits; in recognizing the right of others and of future generations… in freedom and responsibility; and in a sense of transcendence and the common good.” This language is indistinguishable from that of the United Nations or secular human rights organizations. Where is the language of *Syllabus* Proposition 55, which condemns the separation of Church and State? Where is the insistence that the Church is a perfect society endowed with proper and perpetual rights by her Divine Founder (condemned in Proposition 19)?
The “sense of transcendence” mentioned is deliberately vague, capable of meaning anything from vague spirituality to outright pantheism, but certainly not the Catholic doctrine of *supernatural* grace and the Beatific Vision. Pius XI defined the Kingdom of Christ as “primarily spiritual and relates mainly to spiritual matters” (*Quas Primas*). The educational mission of the Church is to lead souls to salvation through faith and the sacraments, not to produce well-adjusted digital citizens. Leo XIV’s silence on the supernatural end of man is not an oversight; it is the hallmark of the modernist apostasy condemned by St. Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici Gregis*, where he described the modernist as one who “puts the natural before the supernatural” and reduces religion to a feeling or a social phenomenon.
The Linguistic Symptom: Bureaucratic Jargon Replaces Theological Precision
The language of *Magnifica Humanitas* is a symptom of the theological bankruptcy of the conciliar sect. Phrases like “integral development of students,” “authentically integral education,” “ongoing formation of teachers,” and “farsighted public policies” are borrowed directly from the bureaucratic jargon of UNESCO and the European Union. This is not the language of the Fathers, the Councils, or the pre-conciliar Popes. Compare this with the clarity and force of Pius XI: “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” (*Quas Primas*).
The use of such language reveals that the author(s) of this encyclical think in categories defined by secular modernity, not by Catholic theology. The term “integral education” is particularly suspect, as it has been used by modernists since the time of John XXIII to smuggle in the idea that the Church must concern itself with “temporal” matters on the same level as spiritual ones, effectively denying the primacy of the supernatural. As the *Syllabus* condemns: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Proposition 55). By adopting the language of secular educational policy, Leo IV implicitly accepts the modernist framework where the Church is merely one actor among many in the “education” of youth, rather than the sole divinely appointed guardian of truth.
The Omission of Sin, Grace, and the Sacraments
Perhaps the most spiritually dangerous aspect of this encyclical is its treatment of moral and psychological harm without any reference to the supernatural causes of such harm. Leo XIV warns of “violent or degrading content,” “pornographic and hypersexualized material,” and “pressures to share intimate images.” He speaks of “fatigue, boredom, and apathy.” But he never identifies these as manifestations of original sin, the work of the devil, or the consequence of a society that has rejected God’s law. The remedies proposed are entirely natural: parental supervision, age limits, “public policies,” and “accountability of service providers.”
There is no mention of the necessity of confession, the grace of the sacraments, prayer, penance, or mortification. There is no call for families to consecrate themselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus or the Immaculate Heart of Mary. There is no warning that without grace, man is incapable of resisting temptation. This is the naturalism condemned in *Lamentabili Sane Exitu*: “The sacraments merely serve to remind man of the presence of the ever-benevolent Creator” (Proposition 41). By omitting the supernatural means of salvation, Leo XIV implicitly teaches that man can be “saved” from the dangers of AI through human effort alone—a direct contradiction of Catholic doctrine.
Plato Instead of Scripture and the Fathers
In a revealing choice, Leo XIV turns to Plato’s Seventh Letter to illustrate the need for patience and effort in learning. While Holy Mother Church has always recognized the value of pagan philosophy when rightly ordered to the service of truth, the exclusive recourse to a pagan philosopher in an encyclical on education—without a single quotation from Scripture, the Fathers, or the Magisterium—is deeply significant. It suggests a fundamental indifference to the supernatural sources of wisdom. Where is St. Augustine’s *De Magistro*? Where is St. Thomas Aquinas on the nature of education? Where is Pius XI’s *Divini Illius Magistri*, which explicitly states that the aim of Christian education is to form the true and perfect Christian?
This preference for secular philosophy over Catholic doctrine is a hallmark of modernism. As St. Pius X warned, the modernist “aims at such a development of dogmas as appears to be their corruption” (*Lamentabili*, Introduction). By grounding his argument in Plato rather than in the unchanging teaching of the Church, Leo XIV reveals that his intellectual formation is rooted in the very modernist tradition that has produced the current apostasy.
The Call for an “Alliance” with Secular Powers
Leo XIV’s call for an “alliance among policymakers, educational institutions, and families” is a modernist trope that effectively subordinates the Church to secular authority. The Church does not need an “alliance” with the State; the State owes obedience to the Church. As Pius XI taught: “The state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations… who are indeed the most valiant helpers of the Pastors of the Church” (*Quas Primas*). The Church’s independence from civil authority is not a concession to be negotiated; it is a divine right.
Furthermore, the encyclical praises legislative initiatives in Australia, France, and Spain—countries notorious for their persecution of the Church and their promotion of anti-Christian ideologies. To hold up these nations as models for the protection of youth is either naive or deliberately deceptive. These are the same countries that have legalized abortion, promoted gender ideology, and restricted the religious freedom of Catholics. The *Syllabus* explicitly condemns the idea that “Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church” (Proposition 48). By praising the educational policies of secular governments, Leo IV effectively endorses this condemned proposition.
Conclusion: A Document of the Apostasy
*Magnifica Humanitas* is not a Catholic encyclical; it is a modernist manifesto disguised as pastoral guidance. It omits Christ the King, the sacraments, grace, sin, and the supernatural end of man. It adopts the language and framework of secular humanism. It calls for submission to secular authority in matters that belong to the Church. It prefers Plato to the Fathers. It praises the policies of anti-Christian governments. In every respect, it is a document of the apostasy that has consumed the structures occupying the Vatican since the death of Pius XII.
The true response to the challenges of artificial intelligence and digital culture is not more “public policies” or “alliances” with secular powers. It is a return to the fullness of Catholic education as defined by the Magisterium: education that forms Christ in the soul, that prepares children for eternity, and that recognizes no authority above that of God and His Church. As Pius XI declared: “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*). Until the conciliar sect repudiates its modernist errors and submits to the reign of Christ the King, its documents will remain monuments to apostasy, not guides to salvation.
Source:
When to say ‘no’ to AI in the classroom and at home: A key warning of Magnifica Humanitas (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 25.05.2026