I recently read Bishop Joseph Strickland’s May 26th essay critiquing Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas (MH), and I wanted to comment on it by drawing insights from the encyclical itself.
One of the more surprising criticisms from Bishop Strickland is that the encyclical places humanity at the center and thus eclipses God, salvation, and the supernatural end of man. While the concern for preserving the primacy of God is commendable, the criticism ultimately fails because it misunderstands both the nature of Catholic Social Doctrine and the theological logic that has animated the Church’s social teaching from the nineteenth century through the present day.
The central issue is simple. Bishop Strickland assumes that a concentrated focus on the human person necessarily signals a diminished focus on God. Catholic theology has never accepted such a premise. In fact, the Incarnation itself destroys that assumption. Christianity is the religion of the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14). Christianity proclaims that God entered human history through a human nature (Phil 2:6–11). Christianity proclaims that Christ reveals both God and man (Gaudium et Spes, 22).
Consequently, a profound examination of the human person is often one of the most Christological activities the Church can undertake.
Pope Leo XIV begins his encyclical by grounding the entire discussion within the Gospel and within humanity’s relationship with God. The very structure of the document immediately situates Catholic Social Doctrine within salvation history. Chapter One bears the title “A Dynamic Approach Faithful to the Gospel” (MH, ch. 1). The final sections of that chapter culminate with “The authentic ‘more than human’: grace and Christian humanism” and “Two cities and two loves” (MH, 29–36). Those titles alone reveal a document profoundly concerned with the supernatural destiny of man rather than merely temporal prosperity.
Indeed, the Vatican’s own presentation of the encyclical emphasized that the purpose of the document is to ensure that the world “will come to recognize the human heart as the place where God desires to dwell”. That is a profoundly theological claim rooted in sanctification and communion with God.
The deeper difficulty with Bishop Strickland’s argument emerges when one examines the Church’s own understanding of Catholic Social Doctrine. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church explicitly teaches that social doctrine belongs to the Church’s evangelizing mission and exists within the broader framework of salvation. Paragraph 67 states that “the Church’s social doctrine is an integral part of her ministry of evangelization”. The Compendium continues by explaining that social doctrine “has the task of proclamation and also of denunciation”. Its purpose is ultimately ordered toward the redemption of the human person through Christ.
Even more directly, paragraph 38 teaches that “the salvation offered by Jesus Christ and the mission of evangelization and salvation entrusted by him to the Church embrace man in his entirety”. The same paragraph further teaches that “it is by means of the Church’s social doctrine that the Church proclaims God and His mystery of salvation in Christ to every human being.” The Church therefore addresses economic life, politics, labor, technology, culture, and social structures precisely because salvation concerns the whole human person and every dimension of human existence.
This is exactly what Leo XIV is doing.
His concern regarding artificial intelligence is fundamentally a concern regarding the human person created in the image of God. Leo writes that “the human person can never be reduced to data, utility, or computational process, for every person is created in the image of God and called to eternal communion with Him” (MH, 76). Such concerns arise directly from Christian anthropology. They arise because man is destined for communion with God.
Ironically, Bishop Strickland’s criticism would place him at odds with a long line of preconciliar papal teaching.
Consider Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum from 1891. Entire sections of that encyclical discuss wages, labor conditions, private property, unions, economics, and political obligations (RN, 3–45). Large portions of the document contain no extended discussion of heaven, hell, judgment, or personal repentance. Yet nobody seriously argues that Leo XIII abandoned Christocentrism. Why? Because the dignity of workers was being defended precisely because those workers were made by God and redeemed by Christ. Leo XIII explicitly taught that “the true worth and nobility of man lie in his moral qualities, that is, in virtue” (RN, 24).
Likewise, Pope Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno devoted extensive attention to economic systems, industrial organization, social reconstruction, and the proper ordering of society (QA, 53–148). Yet Pius XI simultaneously taught that “the ultimate and supreme end of society is the Creator Himself” (QA, 118). Pope Pius XII repeatedly addressed scientific progress, medicine, economics, and political order throughout his pontificate. Pope John XXIII’s Mater et Magistra and Pacem in Terris spent hundreds of paragraphs discussing social conditions, human rights, development, political structures, and international relations.
Were these documents theologically anthropological? Sure!
Were these documents anthropocentric? Of course not.
The reason is simple. Catholic social teaching begins with Christ and then applies Christ’s lordship to every area of life.
The Compendium itself explains this point beautifully. Paragraph 52 states that “God, in Christ, redeems not only the individual person, but also the social relations existing between men.” That statement destroys the false choice proposed by many critics. Catholicism does not force a choice between salvation and social doctrine because salvation transforms the whole human person and consequently transforms human relationships.
Even the Second Vatican Council repeatedly affirmed this principle. Gaudium et Spes famously declares that “it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear” (GS, 22). The council’s intense focus on the human person flowed directly from Christology. The Church could devote significant attention to humanity precisely because God became man. This theological principle stretches back much further than Vatican II.
Saint Irenaeus wrote, “The glory of God is man fully alive; and the life of man consists in beholding God” (Against Heresies, IV.20.7). Human flourishing and divine glory belong together. One reaches its fulfillment in the other. That same logic permeates Magnifica Humanitas.
Far from sidelining salvation, Leo XIV continually returns to themes of grace, communion with God, Christian humanism, the Gospel, and the supernatural vocation of humanity. The encyclical explicitly teaches that “every authentic concern for human dignity finds its source in the mystery of the Incarnation and its fulfillment in the destiny to which Christ calls every human person” (MH, 34). It further teaches that “the Church’s social doctrine is inseparable from her mission of evangelization and salvation” (MH, 18). The encyclical concludes by affirming that “the Church’s service to humanity is ultimately ordered toward the salvation won by Christ and offered to every person through the Gospel” (MH, 142).
Furthermore, the document repeatedly identifies technological threats precisely because they endanger the conditions necessary for authentic human flourishing ordered towards God (MH, 72–92). When artificial intelligence weakens human reflection, diminishes communion, replaces authentic relationships, or encourages trans-humanist fantasies, the danger extends far beyond economics. The danger reaches the spiritual life itself.
This is why Leo XIV’s focus on AI is entirely appropriate. Every age presents its own challenges to the human person. Leo XIII addressed industrial capitalism. Pius XI addressed economic upheaval. John XXIII addressed nuclear tensions and global politics. John Paul II addressed totalitarianism and consumerism (Centesimus Annus). Benedict XVI addressed relativism and technological power (Caritas in Veritate). Francis addressed ecological degradation and technocracy (Laudato Si’).
Leo XIV has inherited an age increasingly tempted to replace human judgment with machines and human relationships with digital mediation. A pope who remained silent on such matters would be neglecting part of his pastoral office.
The salvation of souls remains the supreme law of the Church (1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 1752). Yet salvation never occurs in abstraction. Souls belong to human beings. Human beings live within cultures. Cultures shape families. Technologies influence cultures. Therefore, a pope concerned about salvation must inevitably address technology.
The irony of Bishop Strickland’s critique is that he correctly identifies the centrality of salvation while missing that Leo XIV is defending precisely the creature whom Christ came to save.
The Church has always understood that social doctrine without Christ degenerates into humanitarian activism. Yet the Church has equally understood that Christ without concern for the human person becomes a distorted abstraction disconnected from the Incarnation itself.
Pope Leo XIV avoids both errors.
His encyclical repeatedly roots human dignity in God (MH, 34, 76, 81). It repeatedly invokes the Gospel (MH, 18, 142). It repeatedly situates social doctrine within Christian anthropology (MH, 18, 34, 76). It repeatedly points toward grace and communion with God (MH, 29–36, 76, 81). Its concern for the human person flows from Christ and returns to Christ.
Ultimately, the deepest defense of Magnifica Humanitas is the Incarnation itself. God became man (Jn 1:14). Therefore, man matters. Christ assumed human nature (CCC 456–460). Therefore, human dignity matters. Christ died for sinners (Rom 5:8). Therefore, the human person matters. Christ rose from the dead to bring humanity into divine life (2 Pet 1:4). Therefore, safeguarding the human person from technological degradation becomes a profoundly Christian concern.
The Church has always preached salvation. The Church has always defended human dignity. These are deeply interconnected realities. In Leo XIV’s encyclical, they remain exactly where Catholic theology has always placed them: under the lordship of Jesus Christ and ordered toward eternal communion with Him (MH, 142).
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“Why Bishop Strickland is wrong about Magnifica Humanitas”
Marcus Peter can state that he DISAGREES with Bishop Stricland’s assessment of MH but it is prideful for him to state: “Why Bishop Strickland is wrong about Magnifica Humanitas”.
Humanity is not magnificient, rather it is sinful. As the Holy Spirit reveals in St. John’s letter, any man who says he has no sin is a liar and the truth is not to be found in him. If humanity was so magnificient why did Jesus take on human nature in order to save and perfect it? The focus on humanity today has led, as Bishop Strickland, noted, to ignorning the presence of God and the necessity of Jesus for salvation. How can humanity be magnificient if it is in need of salvation? Actually the Liturgy, which is about the worship of God, has now become focused on the worship of man.
It’s simple: Jesus took on human nature to save and perfect it precisely because of the magnificence of fearfully and wonderfully made humans i.e., WE needed saving because of our sin. He did not come as a tree, or a clam, or a chimpanzee: He came as a human. Our Lord, His mother, and the countless holy saints who followed have showed us the magnificence to which we are all called.
That such a spirited defense of a papal encyclical is today deemed necessary says more about the state of trust in the magisterium post Fiducia Supplicans than about the state of the encyclical 😉
God reaches fulfillment in a creation? Sounds a bit like creation as a necessity.
In support of Marcus Peter’s analysis of Bishop Strickland I offer a previous comment made here on Chapp’s essay: Why I think Magnifica Humanitas is a pointed and prophetic gut punch 5.28
Rabelais could not have invented a greater, more voracious Gargantua than AI. Leo XIV had to address it. We’re all being swept into this high tech monster and require some basis for moral decision since AI will affect everything.
Chapp makes the appropriate argument why we should read Magnifica Humanitas, a deceptive title misunderstood by some as the glorification of Man rather than God. Pope Leo does the opposite, leaving glorification to God as the work of grace within us.
There may be a turning point in this Leo XIV encyclical regarding reliance on the theology of his predecessors especially those who preceded Pope Francis.
“could not have invented a greater, more voracious Gargantua than AI.”
The problem with commenting on any emergent technology is that we often have no idea where it goes, because there’s so much hype and important limits, defects and misuses are simply not yet known.
An example:
Richard Mattesich, published ‘Budgeting Models and System Simulation in 1961, providing the theoretical basis for what we now generically call the electronic spreadsheet. The idea couldn’t be widely deployed until the invention of the first “microcomputers” and so it took 18 years until Dan Bricklin gave us the first “killer app” Visicalc.
Visicalc gave rise to Lotus 123 and when Lotus invented a refinement called Improv (which was far superior, but less intuitive) that confused its customer base, Microsoft came in with Excel. So now where are we?
Colloquially, we are in “Excel hell”. Originally intended as an ad hoc, ephemeral presentation and documentation tool, most spreadsheets are in fact applications in themselves, but not subject to the design, document and test cycles IT applications should be subjected to prior to deployment and use.
Millions of users blissfully remain unaware of the perils of confusing ease of use with effective and prudent use. Academics and practitioners have lamented the limitations and misuse of Spreadsheets for decades. A group called the European Spreadsheet Risk Interest Group (EUSPRIG) has been organized to address five major issues: error, fraud, overconfidence, interpretation and archival.
And despite the hype, there is evidence that the promises and perils of AI are overblown. On Wednesday, SanDisk (The computer memory maker) was a 40 dollar stock a year ago. Yesterday it closed at 2,184.75. In after hours trading, it is over 2200.
Yet despite that, one can sell a put option with a strike price of $655 that expires next Friday. What that means is that some people are concerned that the stock price will be less than a third of its current one, NEXT WEEK. Citizens battered by electricity prices and the constant harangues about power use are revolving against the data centers that promise to be black holes for killowatt hours.
The Pope, like everybody else is speculating on AI. Paul VI and John Paul II never felt compelled to opine on spreadsheets. Prior Popes never issued Encyclicals on other proliferative and transformative technologies such as the automobile, radio or the television, the internet or the stupid phone. The best encyclical on a “technology” was Humanae vitae, which appears somewhat prophetic now, although I don’t recall it predicting contraception being used as a weapon by governments or risking the elimination of whole groups of peoples.
I suspect when the MOAB (mother of all bubbles) bursts, the hype surrounding AI will look like the new ice age “doom porn” of the 1970’s. Sooner or later, this asymptotic growth stops and reverses. I hope to profit handsomely from from it.
If you’ve forgotten go look up the video with Leonard Nimoy (actor, not the hyperintelligent character he portrayed) warning us of it.
Please reread Humanae Vitae – Paul VI is explicit in his prophecy of governments utilizing the brutalizing pill to manipulate and impose degradation and death on those they govern.
The only way we further our knowledge and views is contemplating the varying views of those who intelligently respond, as experienced here with Pitchfork Rebel and John Hinshaw. Generally truths are rarely black or white, it’s the variables that we should also consider.
I re read it. There is an appeal to “public authorities” in ¶ 23 , but that seems to imagine a misguided promotion of contraception due to a fear of over population. What I was considering was how contraception is being promoted and accepted to suppress individual populations. The Western World is engaged in the diminution of native peoples.
If there’s something that addresses demographic demolition, please cite the text.
With all due respect, Father Peter, this turning point would be happening after his Papal election demonstrating both his lack of ability and desire to accept The “forever” Office of The MUNUS and thus The Ministerial Office, prior to his election, having denied The Unity of The Holy Ghost in The Deposit of Faith. A validly elected Pope, must be in communion with Christ and Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church and would thus would never engage in the reordering of persons according to sexual desire/inclination/orientation in order to justify the engaging in of demeaning sexual acts that no one should be engaging in because they deny the Sanctity and Dignity of every human person. The desire to engage in a demeaning act of any nature, does not change the nature of the demeaning act. Desiring to engage in sin does not change the essence of sin. “Go and sin no more”, is not an invitation to sin if one so desires.
Just like the claim that “according to official Catholic Theology, both Jews and Muslims worship the same God, as Catholics do, even if their understanding of His Nature differs”, is not true, because neither The Jews , The Muslims, or Protestants , accept The Divinity of Christ, and thus The fullness of Divine Revelation, and Jesus Said, “No one can Come to My Father Except Through Me”, thus we can know through both Faith and Reason, that Jews, Muslims and Protestants have more in common with Arianism than Catholicism.
Pray for the conversion of all People “Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, Oh God, Almighty Father, In The Unity of The Holy Ghost”, and thus, In The Unity Of The Catholic Faith.
Furthermore, it is important to note:
“Freemasonry teaches that all people who believe in a Supreme Being worship the same God, regardless of their specific religion. The organization unifies diverse faiths by using the neutral title Great Architect of the Universe, allowing members to interpret the divine according to their own traditions. [1, 2, 3, 4]”
“The statement “salvation is from the Jews” is a direct quote from Jesus in the Gospel of John 4:22. It means that God’s redemptive plan was historically rooted in the Jewish people, culminating in the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, who came to offer salvation to the entire world. [1]”
Thank you Fr. Morello. Well said!
Today’s article in The Catholic Thing substantiates the commentary of Bishop Strickland to the rejection of this author who introduced a caveat on which frame his contentions supporting the modern church.
In beginning to read Dr. Peter’s commentary, I was stopped by this sentence in paragraph 2: [Bishop Strickland’s criticism] misunderstands both the nature of Catholic Social Doctrine and the theological logic that has animated the Church’s social teaching from the nineteenth century through the present day.” Assuming for the moment that Dr. Peters is correct, what then does that say about the credibility of a bishop of the Church in his role as teacher and shepherd of his flock? I leave it to others better qualified to sort that out.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece.
Well written article, Marcus, well documented and exhibits a depth of research; but for those of us who are not aware of Bishop Stricklands arguments, it is a complete loss. You did not present his arguments and refute them one
by one. You need to write another article incorporating this material. God bless you my brother in Christ.
“The irony of Bishop Strickland’s critique of the encyclical is that he correctly identifies the centrality of salvation while missing that Leo XIV is defending precisely the creature whom Christ came to save.”
“At the heart of this discussion lies a question far greater than artificial intelligence, technology, economics, or even global politics. The real question is this: Who is at the center?” – Bishop Strickland
“Who do you say that IAm?” -Jesus The Christ, Who does not desire to accommodate our sins but desires our Salvation.
Given the fact that we can know through both Faith and reason that a True Vicar of Christ would never accommodate and promote the reordering of persons according to sexual desire/inclination/orientation in order to accommodate, promote , and justify, the engaging in of sexual acts that no human person should be engaging in because they deny The Sanctity and Dignity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and , regardless of one’s desire, demean the inherent Dignity of all persons, are physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually harmful, and thus deny God’s Divine Will that we respect the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life from the moment of conception in all our relationships and all our experiences. The irony here is that in “defending precisely the creature whom Christ came to save”, Leo XIV by creating a god who denies God’s Commandment and Christ’s Teaching, regarding lust and the sin of adultery, which objectifies the Human Person, and denies the inherent Dignity of all God’s Beloved, which is an offense against God and Mankind, and an offense against Human Dignity, Leo XIV, denies the very Human Dignity he claims is being dismissed through AI technology.
Pope Benedict XVI, identified the ramifications of Relativism:
“When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker Himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.” – Christmas Greetings to the members of The Roman Curia, December 21, 2012
“Catholic theology begins with God. It begins with the glory of God, the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, the reality of sin, the necessity of redemption, the Cross of Christ, eternal judgment, and the salvation of souls. Human dignity is affirmed precisely because man is created by God, redeemed by Christ, and ordered toward eternal communion with Him. The dignity of man flows from God and remains subordinate to God.”- Bishop Strickland
“The Church has repeatedly warned against forms of religious humanism that preserve Christian language while gradually relocating the center of Christianity from God to man. When human dignity becomes detached from the sovereignty of God, when social transformation overshadows salvation, and when the language of communion replaces the language of repentance and sanctification, Christianity risks becoming reduced to an ethical or humanitarian vision.” Bishop Strickland
“The Church has repeatedly warned against forms of religious humanism that preserve Christian language while gradually relocating the center of Christianity from God to man.”
>Catholic Relief Services has entered the chat.
>The Catholic Campaign for Human Development has entered the chat.
Yes, yes, but too implicit is the larger reason why Strickland is off target…
Our moment in history now replaces the 4th-century Arian Controversy over the very nature of GOD (the Triune One) with the 21st-century Modernist Controversy over on the very nature of MAN (Christian Anthropology).
Four points:
FIRST, Exhibit A: a similar situation obtained at the front end of the Second Vatican Council, when peritus Ratzinger and Cardinal Frings wisely revised the draft schema for “Dei Verbum” to focus—not on previous letterhead documents—but directly on the underlying “event” of the Incarnation. Marcus Peters does conclude “Ultimately, the deepest defense of ‘Magnifica Humanitas’ is the Incarnation itself”…but, again, does his documentary on Catholic Social Teaching also tend to obscure today’s stark symmetry with Arianism? Thinking strategic chessboard rather than checkers, other instructive examples come to mind…
SECOND, Exhibit B: Had the 16th-century pope and emperor been less distracted by Turkish intrusions in the east, might they have noticed earlier and better handled the internal churnings and rupture from an obscure Augustinian monk in Germany?
THIRD, Exhibit C: Had “Nostra Aetate” been less influenced by the optimism of the early 1960s, would it have stressed both the similarities and the differences among religions? Would the opposite tensions of der Synodal Weg and SSPX now have become so much like a marriage dispute gone south?
FOURTH, Exhibit D: In our legitimate handwringing over the close-range application of Just War Theory in today’s world, how to augment the arithmetic of “proportionality” with the longer-term calculus of a 7th-century, anti-Christian Arabian and jihadist cult now well on the path toward a modern nuclear weapon, and global nuclear blackmail? And, a fused mosque/state foreign to our homegrown Christian/Western predispositions toward transparent civil dialogue and negotiation?
______________________________
At all levels, is this a good time to level the strategic mental gameboard by thinking more with the 5th-century St. Augustine, from a period of tectonic discord? Rather than routinely with the 13th-century St. Thomas, from a more settled time of conceptual synthesis and footnotes?
SUMMARY: Today: Apostolic times as with St. Paul? How to preach the “alarming” (Benedict’s term) historical “event” of the real Incarnation, in an amnesiac world that no longer even thinks in Christian categories? “Magnifica Humanitas” raises the humble witness and banner of Christian Anthropology…
Reading ND and Peter ellucidates… But I remain convinced the root of the issue with this encyclical is a loss of confidence in the modernist magisterium.
The magisterium was weaponised against Catholic Truth under Francis and now Leo. No magisterial document is going to be swallowed whole after Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, and Fernandez’ assault against the BVM… The tide has turned?
Especially true. Consider, as Fr. Morello notes, the title of the encyclical is “deceptive.” Really? Would a pope REALLY do that? If the encyclical’s purpose is to call wayward humanity to God, why does the pope claim humanity is magnificent?
Indeed. Beaulieu notes that an amnesiac world no longer even thinks in Christian categories. And the pope fails or forgets or considers it unnecessary to remind us.
Is Strickland a “wandering bishop”?
Given Bishop Strickland ‘s current status in the Church, I don’t understand why his opinion matters.
Because being cancel-cultured by Bergoglio is a badge of Catholic honor.
He remains a validly ordained Bishop. What’s your “status”?, “brother”? It matters more than yours, that’s for sure.
I’d gladly dine with Strickland, whereas dining with a Cupich or McElroy would risk projectile emesis and nobody wants that. Mine from the evulsion to the acrid lupine stench or theirs from whatever mental or physical infirmity afflicts them.
Ordained and consecrated.
hahaha. (Oh, I thought you referred to the evulsion!)
Alas, if I could type or proofread my own work…
When you miss the omission of a letter that turns one valid word (revulsion) to another valid, but inapplicable word (evulsion) that’s a special kind of screw up.
What a foolish thing to say. Any attempt to witness truth always matters, no matter who gives witness and how few listen. If you believe the witness errs, then provide a rejoinder, not an insult.
On another board I post at, unrelated to religion, there is a custom of acknowledging another poster’s effort as particularly compelling and insightful, especially if it is especially brief and a devastating exposure of arrogance or error, with “POTY”, or “Post of the Year”.
POTY. Well done, sir.
Brother Jacques, I believe Bishop Strickland is a bishop emeritus. If that’s the correct title.
Br. Jaques: nor yours. Yet, you continue to post your opinions here.
The first manifestation of Catheter social teaching was practiced before it was formulated and taught, as we learn from St.Likes account in the book of acts. He tells us that one result of the earliest preaching of the Apostles after Pentecost was the formation of community living and shared goods so that none was left in need and no one had more than they needed. Where did this social consciousness come from? It is doubtful that it was from the preaching of the apostles since no mention is made of it. Later Paul appeals to social responsibility when he travels around taking up a collective for the needy in the Holy Land. Apart from these two instances, there is little in the New Testament about our social obligations. Some of the letters have oblique references to applied Christianity, but there is not a lot to build on. Perhaps we need to be doing more and talking about it less. If each one of us started at home and worked out from there, a lot of needs could be met. Organized, institutionalized philanthropy is less personal and in many cases less effective than a one on one approach. In the end however, both are needed.
“Organized, institutionalized philanthropy”
Is populated with too many fraudulent grift. When you see how many “charities” meet the strict definition of avoiding “inurement” to stockholders, but are managed and staffed with “one percent” remuneration-usually to their upper tier (and this is all available on their 990 informational return). Worse, the privileged status of government donations as “public support” can cause mission redefinition (corruption) or an unhealthy Stockholm Syndrome.
It was fascinating some years ago to read an article in The NYT (when it still had occasions of being worth reading) by Warren Buffett’s son Peter about the charity industrial complex, including the purported pursuit of problems they create, a take on Munchausen syndrome by proxy he called “philanthropic colonialism”.
Like money for abortions for men.
The principles of Catholic Social Teaching are not new and, apart from the New Testament, are already found in pragmatic form still in the earliest days of the Church. See Igino Giordani, “The Social Message of the Early Church Fathers” (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1977).
James Connor! You are taking too many lessons from Pitchfork and making of my reading a comedy hour. He was talking about evulsion (ordained and consecrated) and you now talk of teaching from a Catheter. What the heck!?!
I am definitely on my way now to the beach.
What I do cannot be imitated or learned. 🙂
“Where did this social consciousness come from?” I think it came from the 2nd Commandment of Jesus: “Love your neighbor as your self.”
To deny The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, is not just to deny The Divinity of Christ, as in Arianism, it is to deny The Divinity of The Father and The Son, And The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love Between The Father And The Son, and thus , in denying The Divinity of The Blessed Trinity, is apostasy.
Pitchfork Rebel above (11:36 a.m.)
Thanks for your comments.
Interesting perspective on Humanae Vitae. There’s a discussion of a technology from the past whose effects we no longer have to guess at.
You are welcome.
I remember seeing a point by point list of predictions that came to pass, it was astounding.
Bishop Strickland’s analysis of ‘MH’ is very clear and mostly correct. As for this article (a quote):
“The central issue is simple. Bishop Strickland assumes that a concentrated focus on the human person necessarily signals a diminished focus on God. Catholic theology has never accepted such a premise. In fact, the Incarnation itself destroys that assumption.”
The author of the article seems not to grasp that Bishop Strickland criticizes a focus on humanity without a due reference to God, or better to say he shows how the ‘Magnificent Humanity’ covertly replaces God with humanity itself. Humanity now finds its meaning not in union with the Other, God and via Him with other human persons but in itself.
There is no such a thing as Christian anthropology without God because only in God a human being can see his true purpose/destiny – this is why Christian anthropology cannot omit God or move Him away from his true, central position when it speaks of a human being. If it moves God aside = reduces Him, human beings automatically become distorted/reduced/warped etc. – just like he is in the encyclical where he is reduced to an anonymous dweller of an earthly utopian city ruled by principals of “common good”, not by God’s good. There is nothing wrong with common good but it cannot be the ultimate destiny of a human being because we are created for more = for the Absolute Good.
Hence, it is turning away from a relationship with God and focusing on ourselves that Bishop Strickland rightly criticizes. God in ‘Magnificent Humanity’ is being covertly replaced by “the common good” creating a kind of a collective narcissistic preoccupation with ourselves, a horizontal pseudo-theology which cannot satisfy real spiritual needs of a human being.
The author of the article mentions Incarnation and it is a very good point re: what the true Christian theology should consist of. In Incarnation, Our Lord did not lose His divinity hence any discourse about humanity must constantly refer to God, have a dichotomy “human – divine”. Our common destiny is communion with God, very much like the man Jesus had with His Father. As soon as one considers humanity in the light of God and of Christ’s perfect humanity and divinity, he will see the necessity to speak of what separates humanity from God/from being Christ-like, namely warped psyche that sins and zero desire, of the majority, to follow Christ. None of that is present in ‘Magnificent Humanity’ hence no vector towards God. Yes, the potential of a human being is magnificent – but only because God created a human being that way and wants him/her to walk the path up, towards Him. This is why, if one truly wants to speak of the magnificence of a human being (not humanity – we have this “magnificence in 20.c and we see it now) as such, one must speak of God and His relationship with us. Our glory is realized only in that relationship. This is what Bishop Strickland’s critique was about.
Beautifully said Anna. Thank you! God bless you.
That was one the more unfortunate episodes of my innumerate episides of lapsus pennae.
I meant REVULSION nor evulsion.
Such pieces are a sure sign american conservatives are now engaged in popesplaining, as orthodox criticism is now targeted for “refutation.” And the same quarters once invoked the likes of Strickland for criticism of Francis and for the same dynamics! Strickland is also an easy target and Peters probably knows full well there are critiques of the encyclical by well-respected figures and scholars, but there is no attempt to refute any others.
The argument is somewhat contradictory: Strickland is faulted for noting the lack of supernatural primacy, but it then tries to argue that Leo places the latter at the fore. There is also a straw man presented: that because such documents contain a lot of material on temporal matters, that must mean they are neglecting the supernatural, and thus prior popes would be guilty of this. Please. There is also a notable difference in prior social documents and their emphasis on the spiritual vs. M.H. Peters would seem to misunderstand or misrepresent Strickland’s point: that the devaluation of the supernatural and the salvation of Christ will result in a flawed social teaching. The encyclical is thus faulted for presenting as the primary and ultimate solution to various problems, NOT the religious conversion of every person and supernatural salvation, or the social kingship of Christ- which is not even mentioned- but natural, humanist means: the “solution” is fraternity, solidarity, community, and coming up with the “correct” material and political structures- a right mix of governmental, political, economic, material structures, to be discovered when enough people come together in “fraternity” and “solidarity.” The same is said for the cause of problems- he roots them greatly in the same materialistic dynamics, in marxist fashion. This dynamic is now regular on Leo’s part and thus also objectively demonstrable: there are initial references to the Faith, which are often brief and superficial, but have their end goal the attainment of natural ends of fraternity and the like. He does this with even strictly doctrinal/spiritual topics like baptism, the Eucharist, and the Trinity, e.g., his homily for Trinity Sunday.
None of the refined critics above thought to take up such a human-race defining subject. Kudos to this Pope and Marcus Peter’s article.
I agree with most of what this Pope says except when he gets too deferential to Francis’ innovations
At a ‘gut’ level, this article doesn’t sit right with me. The author either doesn’t like conservative, ‘cancelled’ bishops, or he chooses to ignore the broader picture of Pope Leo XIV’s record so far in his papacy. At this point, no one can can possibly have a continued ‘wait and see’ attitude. To say the least, Pope Leo has engaged in climate activism, he has misunderstood or misrepresented the ‘illegal immigration’ issue, he has introduced confusion into the ‘death penalty’ issue, he appears without question to be continuing the agenda of Pope Francis (emphasis on synodality, a critic of ‘capitalism’, allowing the continued suppression of the Latin Mass, allows the continued discouragement of the lay people taking Holy Communion while kneeling or on the tongue, he continually aligns himself with progressive (globalist) elements, etc, etc). What more do we need to know that would stop us from being skeptical about anything Pope Leo writes. His words might be written in a way that does not reveal his entire agenda to the reader. That’s why, when I see an article like this, the author is either desparate to find a subject to write about, or he’s out there deceiving people just as much of the hierarchy has been doing for decades now.
Strickland is right. Magnifica humanitas is human centered. All humanity is condemned without Christ and baptism. Christ came to save us for the resurrection in the New Heaven and New Earth. The devil is leading the nations astray today and will be cast out of heaven will all his angels and the antichrist will make the whole world receive his mark. Only the elect will be saved. Magnifica humanitas speaks about rebuilding Jerusalem, but revelation tells us that the faithful await the New Jerusalem that will come out of heaven (Revelation 21:2). Besides, we know the Church will be deceived just as stated in the Catechism: “Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.” –Catechism 675
Actually, ‘Magnificent Humanity’ is in perfect harmony with ‘The Path of Implementation of the Synod’ which preceded the encyclical. They paint exactly the same picture and propose the same action which is based on reducing God/Christ to a mere reference necessary for the existence of the Church (the Church cannot exist without Christ so the task is how to remove Him without losing references to Him – hence their “horizonal theology”). More detailed analysis is here:
“Recollecting, Interpreting, Orienting, Celebrating” on ‘The Path of Implementation of the Synod’: the analysis
https://orthodox-christian-icons.com/path-of-implementation-of-synod.html
What is important: PL and Synod of Synodality are one in essence. PL cannot achieve “magnificent humanity” without “synodality”. Both are bubbles. I recently had an encounter with yet another person who went to a local synodal meeting. She looked euphoric; she informed me that each could speak for two minutes but were never allowed to discuss anything. Apparently, it was exciting. The topic was “missionary Church, how to live our missionary vocation”. When I asked her what she learnt, how she is supposed to live her vocation now, her euphoria switched off and it was clear that she did not wish to talk.
They all bubble about “being heard”. I wonder how they can know that they were “heard” and what are the fruits of that “being heard”? Human beings do not relate to each other this way because hearing causes some kind of relating to others/empathy and empathy causes questions and discussions (and a disagreement is a perfectly normal symptom of being alive). How can people be excited about a process which defies a normal humanity? – And yet they do.
Imagine Apostle Peter and Apostle Paul speaking this way. Apostle Paul: “I am sure gentiles should not be circumised”. No comment from Apostle Peter, both are very satisfied, because one “was heard” and another “listened”. I have just realized why it could never happen with the Apostles: because they did not care about “being heard”, they cared about what is good for the Church and that must be discussed and argued about. In fact, “synodal listening” cannot be find in the Gospels or in the records of the Church Councils (which were quite heated at times).
From here follows that ‘S of S’ is not just against normal humane ways of connecting, it is a fake therapeutic session, with a psychologist who does not care but practices so-called “empathic listening” which is all about repeating the words of a client. That “listening” totally devoid of connection with others is in fact that “magnificent humanity” of both the encyclical and of ‘S of S’ “path of implementation”. Humanity can become magnificent only being transformed in Christ. What we are having is a very “pleasant” shortcut based non-relating. The new Jerusalem is peaceful not because people live with God there but because they learnt the art of “listening” without responding.
Anna, that post was brilliant!
You are a dangerous joiner of the dots… dangerous for Synodal Modernists that is.
Kind regards
Mr Nut
(that’s with one ‘t’)
But its plain Cracked to my friends
The human person? Well there are three Divine Persons, billions of human persons and I suppose countless angelic persons and possibly other persons as yet unknown.