Vatican Media portal reports (May 30, 2026) on Professor Léocadie Wabo Lushombo’s commentary on the encyclical *Magnifica Humanitas* by the antipope Leo XIV, in which she advocates for “civilization of love” through dialogue, local participation, and ethical AI governance in Africa. Her analysis, while superficially critical of neo-colonial exploitation, remains entirely within the framework of post-conciliar modernism, reducing structural sin to technological dependency and proposing synodal “community gatherings” as the remedy—all while ignoring the supernatural order, the Kingship of Christ, and the only true solution to injustice: the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the integral Catholic faith.
The “Civilization of Love” as a Substitute for the Social Kingship of Christ
The central thesis of Professor Lushombo’s intervention, echoing the encyclical of the antipope Leo XIV, is the promotion of what is termed the “civilization of love.” This phrase, though sounding pious, is a hallmark of post-conciliar rhetoric that systematically displaces the concrete, juridical, and doctrinal demands of Christ’s social kingship with a vague, sentimental humanitarianism. Pius XI, in the encyclical *Quas Primas* (1925), established with magisterial precision that the reign of Christ the King extends over all nations, all societies, and all aspects of public life—not merely over individual hearts. He wrote: “His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations or to those who, by receiving baptism according to law, belong to the Church, even though their erroneous opinions have led them astray or discord has separated them from love, 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 Sanum*, cited in *Quas Primas*). The duty of states and rulers is not to facilitate “dialogue” or “community participation” but to publicly recognize, venerate, and obey Christ the King in the ordering of laws, education, and governance.
Professor Lushombo’s invocation of “civilization of love” without any reference to this dogmatic framework is not merely an omission—it is a doctrinal evacuation. It transforms the Church’s mission from the proclamation of Christ’s sovereign rights over nations into a program of sentimental social activism indistinguishable from secular humanitarianism. Pius XI explicitly warned against this in *Quas Primas*: the peace of Christ comes not through human negotiation but through the recognition of His divine authority. The “civilization of love” rhetoric, as employed by the conciliar sect, is the antithesis of the Social Kingship of Christ: it is a horizontal, naturalistic project that leaves the supernatural order—and with it, the only true foundation for justice—entirely unaddressed.
Structural Sin Without the Supernatural: A Theological Emptiness
Professor Lushombo speaks of “structural sin – a propagation of injustice and harm” in the context of AI exploitation, environmental destruction, and labor abuses in Africa. While these are real evils, her analysis remains trapped within a purely naturalistic and sociological framework. She identifies the symptoms—dependency, exploitation, environmental degradation—but prescribes remedies that are entirely horizontal: dialogue, local participation, community effort, and ethical corporate accountability.
The Catholic understanding of structural sin, rooted in the teaching of the pre-conciliar Magisterium, is inseparable from the supernatural order. Sin is, first and foremost, an offense against God, and social injustice flows from the rejection of God’s law and the refusal to submit to the authority of Christ the King. Pius XI stated in *Quas Primas*: “When God and Jesus Christ—as we lamented—were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed” (*Ubi Arcano*, cited in *Quas Primas*). The remedy for structural sin is not “community gatherings” or “media education” but the restoration of Christ’s social reign, the application of Catholic moral principles to civil law, and the conversion of nations to the true Faith.
Furthermore, the *Syllabus of Errors* of Pius IX (1864) condemned the proposition that “the teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well-being and interests of society” (Proposition 40) and that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Proposition 55). The modernist approach, as exemplified by Lushombo and the encyclical she comments upon, effectively reduces the Church’s role to that of a facilitator of dialogue within a secular framework—precisely the error condemned by Pius IX. The Church does not “facilitate community gatherings” to discuss AI; she teaches with authority the moral principles that must govern all human activity, including technology, and demands that civil society conform to those principles.
Synodality as the Neo-Church’s Substitute for Authority
Professor Lushombo proposes that the Church in Africa can address AI-related injustices by “putting into practice ongoing discussions about synodality” and creating spaces such as “Small Christian Communities (SCCs), Justice and Peace groups” where people can “speak and be heard.” This is a quintessentially post-conciliar remedy: the replacement of hierarchical, doctrinal authority with democratic consultation. The Church is thereby reduced from a perfect society endowed with divine authority to teach, govern, and sanctify (as defined by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*) to a mere forum for discussion.
The *Syllabus of Errors* condemned the proposition that “the Church listening cooperates in such a way with the Church teaching in defining truths of faith, that the Church teaching should only approve the common opinions of the Church listening” (Proposition 6, *Lamentabili Sane Exitu*, 1907). Synodality, as practiced by the conciliar sect, is precisely this error institutionalized: the Magisterium is reduced to ratifying the consensus of the “listening” faithful, rather than authoritatively pronouncing on faith and morals. The problems of AI exploitation in Africa will not be solved by Small Christian Communities discussing their experiences; they require the authoritative application of Catholic social teaching, the recognition of the Church’s right to intervene in temporal matters insofar as they concern the salvation of souls, and the public acknowledgment of Christ’s Kingship over all nations—including the tech corporations that Lushombo criticizes but whose authority she implicitly accepts by proposing “dialogue” rather than moral condemnation.
The Omission of True Conversion and the Sacramental Order
Perhaps the most glaring deficiency in Professor Lushombo’s analysis is the complete absence of any reference to the supernatural means of grace as the foundation for social justice. There is no mention of the necessity of conversion to the Catholic Faith, no reference to the sacraments as the source of sanctifying grace, no acknowledgment of the Church’s missionary mandate to baptize all nations (Mt 28:19), and no recognition that lasting peace and justice are impossible without the state of grace in individuals and the conformity of civil society to the law of God.
Pius XI was explicit: “The state is happy not by one means, and man by another; for the state is nothing else than a harmonious association of men” (*Quas Primas*, citing St. Augustine). The happiness of society—which includes justice, peace, and the elimination of exploitation—is inseparable from the happiness of individuals, which is found only in God through the sacramental life of the Church. The conciliar sect’s reduction of the Church’s mission to social activism, dialogue, and community participation is a betrayal of the Church’s divine commission. It offers Africa “ethical AI” and “community participation” while withholding the only thing that can truly liberate: the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the sacraments of the true Church, and the Social Kingship of Our Lord.
AI as a Distraction from the Real Crisis: Apostasy Within the Church
While Professor Lushombo focuses on the impact of AI and new technologies on African societies, she remains entirely silent about the gravest crisis facing the Church in Africa and worldwide: the apostasy of the conciliar sect itself. The destruction of community life, the erosion of faith, and the exploitation of peoples are not primarily the result of technological dependency but of the systematic destruction of true Catholic faith, worship, and morality by the post-conciliar revolution.
The *Syllabus of Errors* condemned the proposition that “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 77) and that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80). The conciliar sect, through documents like *Magnifica Humanitas* and the interventions of figures like Lushombo, does precisely this: it reconciles itself with modern civilization, adopts its categories (AI, social justice, dialogue), and reduces the Church’s prophetic voice to a echo of secular discourse.
The true liberation of Africa—and of all nations—requires not “ethical AI” but the restoration of the true Mass, the true sacraments, and the true social teaching of the Church, including the uncompromising demand that Christ the King reign over all aspects of public life. Until the conciliar sect is rejected and the integral Catholic faith is restored, no amount of “community participation” or “civilization of love” will address the root cause of injustice: the rejection of God’s sovereignty by individuals and nations alike.
Conclusion: The Neo-Church Offers Stones Instead of Bread
Professor Lushombo’s commentary on *Magnifica Humanitas* is a faithful reflection of the conciliar sect’s theological bankruptcy. It identifies real problems—exploitation, dependency, environmental destruction—but offers remedies that are entirely naturalistic, horizontal, and devoid of supernatural content. It speaks of “structural sin” without reference to the supernatural order, proposes “synodality” as a substitute for authoritative teaching, and invokes a “civilization of love” that has no connection to the Social Kingship of Christ as defined by the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
The Church does not need another encyclical on social justice; she needs the restoration of her own integrity, the repudiation of the modernist errors condemned by St. Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici Gregis* and *Lamentabili Sane Exitu*, and the courageous proclamation of Christ’s Kingship over all nations. Africa—and all humanity—deserves not the neo-church’s algorithmic sentimentalism but the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary, the sacraments of grace, and the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, “the King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev 19:16).
Source:
Magnifica Humanitas: Professor Lushombo shares insights on AI and social justice in Africa (vaticannews.va)
Date: 30.05.2026