Popemobile advancing on the left

Last Thursday I participated in an academic event focused on the analysis of the encyclical Magnifica humanitas, by Leo XIV. It is a document that, contrary to what some summaries suggest, goes beyond, much further beyond, considerations related to generative artificial intelligence (GAI). This issue is certainly present, but the text echoes other matters that would be grotesque to summarize here. I will highlight an aspect that has little to do with GAI but which, in the current circumstances, I consider important. Magnifica humanitas projects a worldview that dismantles common political labels, and for this reason it may disconcert people who previously distrusted anything that could be associated, even tangentially or remotely, with Catholicism. It develops an anthropology of human dignity that openly confronts the discourse of far-right parties when they claim Christianity as a brand of exclusive identity. By addressing migratory flows from a logic of shared vulnerability, rather than the defense of administrative borders, Leo XIV invalidates this discourse (point 81). It delegitimizes the partisan use of faith and reclaims the idea of a Church that speaks from its own place, not subordinate to any specific political project. For progressive or liberal sectors that had perceived the Church as a subservient actor of the established order, this rupture may arouse, at the very least, curiosity. The tacit criticism of certain United States policies (points 63 and 64) reinforces the perception we are commenting on. When the encyclical questions North American migratory and economic measures, it does so from theology and in an ethical key, but the effect is that of an institution regaining a moral sovereignty capable of challenging the new emperors. The Church manifests itself as an actor that does not play – nor can it play – in the middle of the world geopolitical chessboard, but that can question it from another register. This is also not new, although in the current circumstances it has paramount importance. Far from the Catholicism of order and of an identitarian matrix that some extreme right-wing political groups claim, Leo XIV speaks of technology, migrations, and inequalities with a perspective that assumes fragility as a shared, universal human condition. The discourse connects with contemporary sensibilities – ecology, human rights, critique of technocapitalism (points 107 and 156) – but avoids the apocalyptic and ultra-ideologized tone of certain current registers. In fact, it does nothing more than adapt the social doctrine of the Church to the uncertain times of AI, as well as reclaim a Christian humanism that is incompatible with economic predation, extreme individualism, and the contempt for the intrinsic dignity of the person in the form of new esclavages, often associated with emerging technologies.

In my opinion, the appeal that Magnifica humanitas may generate will not translate into an increase in religious practice; I already tried to argue this recently in another article. In any case, people approach a spiritual tradition when they perceive at least moral coherence and also a minimum capacity to challenge the world with an articulated and serious discourse. In this sense, the encyclical can help to defuse (some) prejudices, to open or reopen spaces for dialogue, and to make it possible for certain sectors to qualify (I don't even say "reconsider") their perception of the Church. The impact of Magnifica humanitas, therefore, will certainly be more atmospheric than doctrinal: it will not change anything in the short term, but it will alter certain clichés. Beyond its confrontation with Donald Trump, Leo XIV emerges as a figure who bothers mainstream political blocs and who, precisely because of this, may be suggestive to people who would never have approached him. Beyond that, however, I am unable to sense any immediate change in the European mental ecosystem. In the United States, on the other hand, this could mean a significant turn (this would be enough for another article). Indeed, Magnifica humanitas could end up clearly outlining the gap between Catholics and Trumpist evangelicals, highlighting points of friction that already existed but are now theologically argued. In fact, for very broad sectors of the Republican Party, Leo XIV's discourse could be perceived as a resounding rejection of their entire project, which is not exactly political but religious in a darkly pre-modern, melancholic, and enervated sense – the worst of all.