The choice: Rebuild the tower of Babel or rebuild the walls of Jerusalem

The first encyclical of Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas (“On Safeguarding The Human Person In The Time Of Artificial Intelligence”) should of course be of interest to everyone. But it is of special interest to certain people like myself because it invokes Pope Leo XIII’s great encyclical Re rum Novarum, which is the basis for Localism, which is the new name we have given to Distributism—the social and economic ideal of G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc.

As you likely know, our current pontiff chose the name Leo specifically in recognition of that 1891 papal letter, which is rightly considered the foundational document of modern Catholic social teaching. Our Holy Father builds on Rerum Novarum to address the present challenge posed by Artificial Intelligence.

There is much to be praised in Magnifica Humanitas, starting from its opening comparison of two biblical events: the building of the Tower of Babel and the rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem after they had been destroyed by the (similar-sounding) Babylonians.

The former was an act of arrogance, a show of power, and a grand exercise in conformity to one idea that turned out to be a bad one, which ended in astounding confusion. The latter was a humble, local effort of families and artisans helping each other protect their homes in an act of solidarity rather than conformity, harmony rather than uniformity.

It is easy to envision AI becoming a Tower of Babel. But it doesn’t have to be. AI can certainly be used for evil. But it can also be used for good. That is the hope. It offers great benefits. But with great dangers. Great achievements. But at great cost (where are we going to get the energy to run all those data centers? And who’s going to pay for it?)

Pope Leo rightly (and refreshingly) cautions us that efficiency and progress are not ends in themselves. “When efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons.” And “certain currents of thought that interpret progress as surpassing the human condition . . . are often grouped under the labels of transhumanism and posthumanism” [emphasis mine].

He goes on to say that trans-humanism and post-humanism are “difficult to define . . .in a single, unambiguous way.” But “If the human being is treated as something to be perfected or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept that some lives are less useful, less desirable or less worthy. In the name of progress, ‘necessary sacrifices’ may begin to be justified.”

Thus, the title of the encyclical, referring to magnifying the dignity of every human being.

In this vale of tears, humans cannot be endlessly improved. They have very human limitations. And in this vale of tears. . . there are tears. There is suffering. Sometimes our dignity is best demonstrated in our suffering. The only thing that makes us “more human” is love.

That much-maligned modern pope, St. Paul VI, called for a “civilization of love.” It can’t be built by technology, only by humans, and only “a piece at a time.” It can only be done locally, from the bottom up. The danger of AI is Centralization, that it would be controlled by a powerful few who are accountable to no one. The safeguard is Localism. It is Nehemiah and his neighbors.

Other good things of note in this new encyclical include concise explanations of subsidiarity and solidarity. And, in his emphasis on human dignity, the Pope points to the central role of the family and of the school. He says, “parents have the primary and inalienable right to choose the kind of education and formation for their children, in a manner consistent with their moral, cultural and religious convictions.”

He says that truth is a common good and warns that “without careful attention, an educational system lacking in a love for truth may emerge.” AI can only supply information, but it is the human task to reflect and discern:

As knowledge becomes increasingly fragmented, it becomes difficult to grasp reality as a whole, to ask profound questions about meaning, or to develop authentic, critical and creative thought. Many educators already report signs of dehumanization, where people may ‘know many things’ but struggle to find direction in their lives, partly due to an inability to connect information with deeper knowledge or maintain a sense of purpose.

And very importantly, he says, “Schools are not called to follow the pace of the digital world, but to offer that which the digital sphere by itself cannot provide, namely a shared time for learning and developing trustworthy relationships.” (At our Chesterton Academies, we have no screens in the classrooms, and our students thrive intellectually and spiritually.)

Pope Leo also affirms that people are responsible for their own decisions and that every choice has moral consequences.

It is good to see a pope say these things.

However, I think there are two main omissions in Magnifica Humanitas.

First, while Pope Leo points out that our great technical advancements have created new forms of slavery, he misses the main form of slavery condemned by his namesake: wage slavery. One could argue that the main point of Rerum Novarum is that “more workers should become owners.” Leo XIV does not mention this at all. He does not acknowledge the importance of widespread ownership, which for Chesterton and Belloc was the key solution to modern social and economic problems. Subsidiarity is the small shop. Solidarity is the seed planted in the earth.

While Pope Leo XIV admits a “right” to private property, he says, “In the Church’s tradition, property has been viewed as a means of protecting and managing goods so that they may better serve the common good.” Then he quotes Pope Francis, who said, “The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable.” But then he quotes that same pope again as saying that solidarity—when lived to its fullest sense—means “to restore to the poor what belongs to them.”

Well, if the poor are entitled to it, doesn’t that mean that property is an absolute and inviolable right?

Leo XIV focuses on the problem of unemployment, but only says that the jobless should be given jobs with fair wages, rather than that workers should become owners. While he affirms the family as fundamental to society, he then talks about “job security”—again reinforcing a wage mentality.

AI could replace human beings. Well, technology has been doing that for two centuries. Big business would rather invest in machines than in people. Only big companies can afford big technology, but only with the cooperation of the state that underwrites them with tax incentives. And why does the State do that? Because it is looking to “bring in more jobs.”

Hudge and Gudge still have Jones as their slave. Their wage slave.

Pope Leo bemoans the great disparity in wealth and urges responsibility for those in “finance,” but he does not mention usury, which is largely responsible for that disparity. No one else ever mentions it either.

The other omission is, well, it’s not just one; it’s all the missed opportunities Leo has to quote G. K. Chesterton! I read the whole encyclical (the irony is that people will use AI to summarize it for them.) There were dozens of times when a brilliant GKC epigram would have bolstered a papal point.

Such as Chesterton’s warning against the danger of information being controlled by only a few and the power they have: “People will line up for information like men in a besieged city will line up for bread.”