I’ve been reading Papal Documents for over 40 years and teaching them for over 20, and welcome and recommend the first Encyclical of Pope Leo. It contains a great deal, being longer than nearly all past papal documents, although shorter than the very longest of Pope Francis’ and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals. Read prayerfully and openly – everyone can find something to profit from.
That said, the document is not specifically addressed to anyone, which means, presumably, that it is addressed to everyone. In the past, with the release of many Papal documents, I have often noted that the document under examination seemed addressed to me and my students, among others, whether under the heading of “the faithful” or “people of good will.” For better or worse, Pope Francis’ first encyclical Lumen Fidei remains the last encyclical addressed to anyone in particular. This seems to have been a conscious choice, as in Paragraph 33 Pope Leo himself notes that John XXIII was the first to broaden the previous broadest group of addressees, “all the faithful,” to “all people of good will” in his 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris
The first chapter gives a lengthy introduction and historical grounding. I welcomed the conclusion of the section, in paragraph 45, which does a solid job of presenting and advocating for the “hermeneutic of continuity,” albeit without explicitly employing Pope Benedict’s term. This should be especially reassuring to any who may perceive Pope Francis an agent of rupture and fear that Pope Leo intends to perpetuate that rupture. On the contrary, the Holy Father presents himself as yet another link in an unbroken chain of valuable links.
The second chapter, looking at foundations and principles, after a brief introduction, rightly grounds the social life as a reflection of the inner life of the Trinity, the higher dignity of man in the Incarnation, and Man as created in the image and likeness of God (par. 48-50) . This is followed by an examination of key social teaching principles.
The third chapter is largely focused on the immediate problem at hand, namely, Artificial Intelligence. However, at the beginning, perhaps by way of transition, makes an important point that might have been included in the previous section instead. Paragraph 91 states:
(T)he concrete way of living out social relationships in the light of the Gospel is not established once and for all, but remains a task entrusted, from generation to generation, to the Christian community. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church allows herself to be enlightened by God’s word, reads the signs of the times and creatively seeks new ways for relationships between peoples and nations to become ever more conformed to the demands of the Kingdom of God.
At this point, I wished for contrasting this social reality with moral teaching, which is absolute: paragraph 55 in the preceding section provides a potential framework for doing so, when presenting the Church teaching on the supremacy of the right to life in a larger section entitled “The supreme value of human rights.” Combining this with traditional Catholic teachings on prudence, which require taking into account all particular circumstances of a situation and subsidiarity provides powerful and needed reflection.
Many, perhaps all, of these things, can be drawn out of the subsequent section by reading closely, and for that I am grateful: I would encourage people to read this third chapter for themselves to hear and reflect upon what the Holy Father has to say. As a theology professor at a small school, it has fallen to my lot to teach moral/spiritual theology, and I would appreciate more clarity in some particular parts of the Church’s Magisterium that touch upon what I teach. I firmly hold, that the magisterium at its core, guided by the Holy Spirit, builds upon itself, rather than contradicts itself, a point which the Holy Father has reiterated at the close of his first chapter, as noted.
Meditating to draw various threads of the teaching together can be hard work, but, as the Holy Father points out in the section quoted at length above, is a task that falls to each generation. I should not expect the Holy Father to relieve me of my task by offering such in an already lengthy encyclical, containing other things that the Holy Father has chosen to prioritize, hints at my own pride and presumption.
As someone also tasked with teaching Scripture, I also appreciated that the Holy Father provides a strong meditative tool by repeatedly contrasting Babel, which produced a magnificent edifice grounded in pride, with the wall of Nehemiah, which produced a humbler but adequate edifice grounded in the will of God. This is introduced in the opening section, and returned to both in this key chapter, and again in the final chapter.
The third chapter, closes, in paragraphs 127 through 130, by making the point that living the Divine life in this world is not only possible, but what is pre-eminently “more than human,” although may also be viewed as becoming “fully human.” Technology improperly employed obstructs and will lead to Babel – but it can also, with care, be employed in the way of Nehemiah. The final paragraph, drawing heavily (as is fitting for an Augustinian Pope) upon Augustine’s two city imagery in the City of God, concludes with two sentences that can be used as an examination of conscience: As throughout history, these two loves continue to contend for dominance in our hearts today. The age of AI is no exception: the construction of Babel or the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins within each one of us.
The fourth chapter examines pitfalls, dangers, and challenges. What it has to say about truth and slavery can easily be meditated upon with profit by many. From my limited reading of reaction to the encyclical in the secular press, paragraph 176 on the Church’s relation to and teaching on slavery over the course of history receives undue emphasis. Acknowledging and repenting for the shortcomings of one’s ancestors is much easier than examining and turning from one’s own shortcomings—and the former is often substituted for the latter. However, the Holy Father does call repeatedly for the latter, and acknowledging historical truths are important. As noted by others, someone descended from both slaves and slave owners has been given an ability to address this issue that most in the west do not have.
Anyone formed in the papacy of John Paul II will find the fifth and final chapter a familiar exhortatory conclusion, although again, there is much within it to reflect upon. As time has progressed, I appreciate a Marian conclusion to encyclicals, meant to draw one’s attention to the mother and Icon of the Church who is, as Vatican II taught, Mediatrix (Lumen Gentium 62). The final three paragraphs do not disappoint, but again, the chapter is worth reading.
In conclusion, the Holy Father offers much to meditate upon. Many of the faithful could profitably meditate, slowly, bit by bit, on what he presents. I certainly could: these musings are the fruit of an initial read, not deep reflection. The internet does make it possible to easily inform one’s self (or others) of the content through the more or less informed reflection, but that generally is not the optimal way to bring forth spiritual fruit.
Tolle, Lege
