A companion essay to “The School of Wisdom in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” This is a second reading of Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical through the lens of how the Catholic and secular conversation has, in the first days following its release, begun to receive it.
A superb and comprehensive report on the reception of Pope Leo's first encyclical. Very illuminating from the incredibly well read Californian Monsignor and brilliantly communicated in understandable and eloquent prose.
Oh my goodness! Thankyou for this capacious context for Reception of MH. Exhaustingly thorough. How do you do it?
Here is my ongoing question: We are, all of us, being changed minute by minute, consciously or unconsciously, by this radical change. It is not static but alarmingly and amazingly dynamic. As Walter Ong, SJ, said years ago... we construct it and it constructs us, changing our consciousness faster than we can get hold of it.
This encyclical is powerful and necessary but it is a product of " print-age brain" in a world gone digital.
It is important to mine its doctrinal, pastoral and social sign-posts but the real work will be to take its thousands of words into other ways of communicating. All of this within an ongoing, human relationship which is dynamically changing at a pace the institutional church ( Curia and Bishops Conferences) is not accustomed to but which, in the urgency of this moment, must somehow adopt
to even remain in the conversation. Is this even possible? Agonizingly slow" study" and deliberation has been touted, for centuries, as a church virtue; will it be its downfall in the face of this challenge? I hope not.
Thank you, Monsignor, for your great mind and diligent work. I look forward to your posts.
Thank you so much for your engagement with this rather lengthy article and raising significant questions. This is a new epistemological chapter and you are asking the right questions!!!
Excellent work on the way the encyclical is being received. I assume you intentionally did not include the reception and critique of some other people such as Raymond Arroyo and the so-called "papal posse". I found their comments superficial. They failed to consider the content of the document and instead veered away and refused to engage in any substantive discussion of the actual content of the document. Given the reach of the program especially among conservative Catholics, I found it disappointing.
In the essay he published today (entitled A Still Higher Magnificence), Robert Royal describes how he has been rereading the encyclical. He basically admits that his EWTN appearance on the encyclical’s day of release was a rush job. Let’s be charitable, huh?
As a Protestant minister (United Church of Christ) who is faith-serious and pastorally serious about theology, I appreciate your very helpful review of the Roman Catholic and secular response to Magnifica Humanitas. I wonder if any professional-academic Protestant theologians have engaged this important theological work, and whether you, Monsignor Holquin, are interested in this as a less immediate project, or whether you know someone who is better equipped than you or I for a serious Protestant response to this important encyclical. If so, please consider referencing that theologian’s work in your Substack so that your Protestant followers benefit.
Although he has not yet addressed Magnifica Humanitas, Carl Trueman has made many statements that anticipated it. Take a look at his books such as The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (arguably the most important book of the last 20 years) and The Desecration of Man. I attended a religious conference at which all keynote speakers - four Catholics, one Anglican, and one agnostic (now Anglican) - quoted him. “Carl was here in spirit” one said.
BTW, people are drawing comparisons between Magnifica humanitas and Rerum novarum, and while this is true on economics, I see similarities between it and Mit brennender sorge in regards to idolatry.
“Chapp is a Balthasarian by training (his Fordham doctorate was on Hans Urs von Balthasar), runs a Dorothy Day Catholic Worker farm with his wife, and operates a blog literally named Gaudium et Spes 22.”
Unfortunately Dr. Chapp was forced to sell the farm in late 2025 due to advancing age. Pray for him.
So what you're suggesting is that calling the document naive about digital technology and suggesting more engagement with Marxist critics of neoliberalism and fewer cute Tolkien references is the perspective of "the integralist right"?
A superb and comprehensive report on the reception of Pope Leo's first encyclical. Very illuminating from the incredibly well read Californian Monsignor and brilliantly communicated in understandable and eloquent prose.
Oh my goodness! Thankyou for this capacious context for Reception of MH. Exhaustingly thorough. How do you do it?
Here is my ongoing question: We are, all of us, being changed minute by minute, consciously or unconsciously, by this radical change. It is not static but alarmingly and amazingly dynamic. As Walter Ong, SJ, said years ago... we construct it and it constructs us, changing our consciousness faster than we can get hold of it.
This encyclical is powerful and necessary but it is a product of " print-age brain" in a world gone digital.
It is important to mine its doctrinal, pastoral and social sign-posts but the real work will be to take its thousands of words into other ways of communicating. All of this within an ongoing, human relationship which is dynamically changing at a pace the institutional church ( Curia and Bishops Conferences) is not accustomed to but which, in the urgency of this moment, must somehow adopt
to even remain in the conversation. Is this even possible? Agonizingly slow" study" and deliberation has been touted, for centuries, as a church virtue; will it be its downfall in the face of this challenge? I hope not.
Thank you, Monsignor, for your great mind and diligent work. I look forward to your posts.
Thank you so much for your engagement with this rather lengthy article and raising significant questions. This is a new epistemological chapter and you are asking the right questions!!!
Excellent work on the way the encyclical is being received. I assume you intentionally did not include the reception and critique of some other people such as Raymond Arroyo and the so-called "papal posse". I found their comments superficial. They failed to consider the content of the document and instead veered away and refused to engage in any substantive discussion of the actual content of the document. Given the reach of the program especially among conservative Catholics, I found it disappointing.
Honestly, I doubt they even read it.
What a snide thing to write.
In the essay he published today (entitled A Still Higher Magnificence), Robert Royal describes how he has been rereading the encyclical. He basically admits that his EWTN appearance on the encyclical’s day of release was a rush job. Let’s be charitable, huh?
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2026/06/05/a-still-higher-magnificence/
I love the term "papal posse". It is very fitting.
They changed it to “prayerful posse” last year sometime.
Okay, didn't know that. Not sure they changed anything else.
Amen.
Thank you Monsignor Holquin, brilliant , educational and generously helpful reading "Magnifica Humanitas", lots to consider and ponder about.
The link to Jill Lepore’s article is broken. Here is one that works
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/what-pope-leo-xiv-said-about-ai
As a Protestant minister (United Church of Christ) who is faith-serious and pastorally serious about theology, I appreciate your very helpful review of the Roman Catholic and secular response to Magnifica Humanitas. I wonder if any professional-academic Protestant theologians have engaged this important theological work, and whether you, Monsignor Holquin, are interested in this as a less immediate project, or whether you know someone who is better equipped than you or I for a serious Protestant response to this important encyclical. If so, please consider referencing that theologian’s work in your Substack so that your Protestant followers benefit.
Thank you for this important suggestion. If you can direct me to some Protestant theological responses, I would be most grateful.
Although he has not yet addressed Magnifica Humanitas, Carl Trueman has made many statements that anticipated it. Take a look at his books such as The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (arguably the most important book of the last 20 years) and The Desecration of Man. I attended a religious conference at which all keynote speakers - four Catholics, one Anglican, and one agnostic (now Anglican) - quoted him. “Carl was here in spirit” one said.
I have been asked to do a parish presentation on Magnifica humanitas, and I have found this essay to be most helpful. Thank you.
BTW, people are drawing comparisons between Magnifica humanitas and Rerum novarum, and while this is true on economics, I see similarities between it and Mit brennender sorge in regards to idolatry.
As someone who hasn't read the encyclical yet, this was very helpful in learning how to think about it. Thanks for sharing!
“Chapp is a Balthasarian by training (his Fordham doctorate was on Hans Urs von Balthasar), runs a Dorothy Day Catholic Worker farm with his wife, and operates a blog literally named Gaudium et Spes 22.”
Unfortunately Dr. Chapp was forced to sell the farm in late 2025 due to advancing age. Pray for him.
Excellent. Thanks.
So what you're suggesting is that calling the document naive about digital technology and suggesting more engagement with Marxist critics of neoliberalism and fewer cute Tolkien references is the perspective of "the integralist right"?