One hundred and thirty-five years ago Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical letter Rerum Novarum (Of New Things), which is the bedrock of Roman Catholic Social Teaching. Over the centuries encyclical letters dealt with matters of faith and morals – many still do – but Rerum Novarum considered the right relationship between labour and capital in the face of mechanisation and mass production. It remains a radical and readable document.

In 1981, much in the same vein as Rerum Novarum, Pope (now Saint) John Paul II issued Laborem Exercens (Through Work), in which he considered the purpose of work – which was not just for workers to transform materials into products, but for the workers themselves to become transformed, for the better, in the process of work. Laborem Exercens, also a very readable document, added to the Catholic canon on social teaching.

During the disastrous reign of Pope Francis we were treated, along with three other encyclicals, to the dismal document Laudato si’ (Care for Our Common Home), where he went ‘full Greta’ and echoed every climate emergency cliché imaginable, making some howling errors in the process. This too was an addition to the social teaching of the Church, making him very popular with all manner of green activists and New Agers across the globe.

The Roman Catholic Church is in something of a crisis, with confusing messages coming from the Synod on Synodality regarding the blessing of gay relationships and the potential for genuine schism over the matter of the Traditional Latin Mass. Catholics on both sides of these arguments would like to see some clarity one way or the other. But both sides will have to wait.

Instead of addressing the tensions within the Church – or even an issue such as the rise of fundamentalist Islam, surely an existential threat to the Church in some regions, or indeed a threat to humanity itself – Pope Leo XIV has released the dampest of squibs in the form of Magnifica Humanitis (Magnificent Humanity), which addresses the rather less pressing issue of artificial intelligence (AI). This is his first encyclical.

The groundwork for Magnifica Humanitis was laid in a previous document, Antiqua et Nova (Old and New), issued in January 2025. If only he had stopped there.

What can one say about Magnifica Humanitis other than “Rerum Novarum, it is not”? That criticism applies to both form and content. The writing is turgid. At 40,000 words the document is overlength by about 30,000 words and the message is, frankly, impossible to fathom. I can’t help feeling that a quick run-through on ChatGPT would have helped enormously.

Sure, AI has great potential for good, with accompanying dangers. It needs to be developed with humans and humanity in mind, and its capabilities and consequences are not yet fully understood, even by its developers. But 40,000 words?

There has been plenty of comment, so what did others have to say? Anthropic co-founder and proclaimed atheist Chris Olah was present when Pope Leo delivered his encyclical at the Vatican on May 15th. He was invited to make a statement and delivered what Private Eye would have described as being of an ‘arslikan’ nature.

Clearly much relieved that Pope Leo had not outright condemned AI, he referred to the encyclical as “timely” and proceeded to expound on the ‘global poor’, ‘human flourishing’ and ‘discernment’ in the development of AI. Then he went and put his foot in it by telling the Pope and those present that at Anthropic they “keep finding things that are mysterious, even unsettling” in their research into their own AI tools. I’ll wager he did not forewarn Pope Leo about that.

Brandon Goldman in Crisis Magazine, which describes itself as “A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity”, provides a balanced account of the contents of the encyclical. He admits that many – presumably including himself – ‘offload’ their thinking to AI, raises the spectre of AI considering humanity obsolete and says that the document “does not offer one succinct answer on AI”. You can say that again.

In a lavish display of ‘arslikan’, Spectator editor Michael Gove describes Magnifica Humanitis as “the most powerful political document of the year” (steady on, Lord Gove), which suggests either that he did not read it all – he is not alone – or saw only what he wanted to see in it. Gove reckons that Pope Leo’s encyclical “shames our politicians” but does not explain why.

He ends by referring to Gramsci, saying that we need politicians who are capable in the same way he was. It is almost as if he cannot see the damage Gramscian thinking has already done to the UK. Gove ends cryptically, quoting “another great churchman” who said: “We have left undone the things which we ought to have done…” He is quoting Thomas Cranmer, but I am not sure who the first one is yet.

It falls to Matthew Walther, editor of the Lamp – a bimonthly Catholic magazine of literature, science and the arts – to bring some common sense to the commentary on Magnifica Humanitis. Walther read the encyclical in its entirety. He is not impressed. While it is very much in the tradition of encyclicals to quote predecessors, Pope Leo overdoes it. Walther quotes Harold Macmillan, passing judgement on C.P. Snow’s novels, who said: “You have done fine work as others have done before you.”

He describes Magnifica Humanitis as “not compelling” and “something of a letdown”, and says he gets the impression that Leo thinks AI is neither good nor bad but regulable in the same way a food additive might be by the European Union. The writing “sounds lofty” but is inconsequential, and Walther reckons that, at the very least, Leo could have taken the opportunity to ban the use of AI in Catholic schools.

According to Walther, Leo “tends to choose facts selectively” and that at least a modicum of rhetorical writing might have made the encyclical “memorable or interesting”. He reckons that, for the remainder of Leo’s papacy, we will “have to accept a certain amount of banality”. If Magnifica Humanitis is anything to go by, he’s probably not wrong.

I also read the entire encyclical and was ‘triggered’ so often that I may require therapy. In common with Walther, I noted that just war theory was, incongruously, “buried somewhere in the middle of the document”. But other ecclesiastical non-sequiturs were likewise scattered throughout. ‘Synodality’ reared its ugly head – just how’s that going anyway? – and well-rehearsed Catholic concepts such as ‘subsidiarity’ were referred to alongside ‘social justice’ (multiple mentions) without an explicit link to the immediate issue of AI.

Like red rags to traditionalist bulls, Vatican II and Pope Francis are ‘bigged up’. Reference is made to how Pope (now Saint) John Paul II regarded the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as one of the “highest expressions of human conscience of our time”. Such high praise for a Godless organisation producing a document which neither protects the unborn nor those at the end of life displays, unfortunately, how the overwhelming humanity and charisma of Saint John Paul II often clouded his common sense.

Woke buzzwords including “colonialism”, “gender discrimination”, “migrants” and “refugees” (without distinction between legal and illegal), “climate change” and “environmental disasters” all get thrown into the mix. Of course, “slavery” is mentioned and, it seems, simply to give Leo the opportunity – I am not making this up – of issuing an apology for any part the Roman Catholic Church may have had in perpetuating slavery. His precise words are: “For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon.” How long now before the perpetually oppressed descendants of slaves – or any person of colour – comes after the Vatican coffers?

Even worse, alongside Mother (now Saint) Teresa of Calcutta we are pointed to shining examples of humanity such as Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela and Benazir Bhutto. A serial adulterer, a communist terrorist and a scheming Muslim (albeit a very beautiful one) alongside Mother Teresa. It takes time for that to sink in.

To Leo’s credit, he does indicate that “jihadist groups” are a threat (though quite what the segue is to AI remains unclear). Near the end we are treated to a quote beginning: “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world…” Which pope, saint or theologian said that? Well, it was Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings – not even a real person!

I could go on, but the threat of excommunication hangs over me like the Sword of Damocles. I am not saying that Pope Leo does not make some good points regarding the proper development and implementation of AI. But I am insufficiently trained in archaeology to find them.

Professor Roger Watson is Distinguished Professor of Nursing at Southwest Medical University, China. He has a PhD in biochemistry. He writes in a personal capacity.