Post by Fr David Neuhaus SJ | 29 May 2026
Consoled by Pope Leo’s encyclical
Among the most horrific articles I have read on what has happened in Gaza are those by Yuval Abraham describing the use of AI in the destruction of Gaza. (cf. “A mass assassination factory: Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza” (30.11.2023) “Lavender: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza” (3.4.2024)
I also published a podcast with Yuval Abraham on this subject (https://conquestorleaven.org/leaven-yuval-abraham-on-gaza-genocide/) on this blog. It is for this reason that I am deeply consoled by Pope Leo’s encyclical, Magnifica humanitas Pope Leo subtitled his text with the words “safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence.” I want to share some of my take-aways from this important document, keeping mind that I am reading it in the midst of a never-ending war in Palestine/Israel and the wider Middle East.
The main question raised in this encyclical can be found clearly formulated at the centre of the text: “(D)oes AI “make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?” If the answer is yes, then we can recognize it as an opportunity to be embraced responsibly, on a path of patient, shared reconstruction, akin to the rebuilding of Jerusalem narrated in the Book of Nehemiah. If, however, power grows while the heart withers and human bonds fray, then we are faced with a new form of Babel — a construction that is grandiose, yet fundamentally dehumanizing.” (129)
Here are some of the words that struck me as I read through this magnificent text:
– “Technology has the power to heal, connect, educate and protect our common home; but it can also divide, exclude and generate new forms of injustice. (…) In practice, however, technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it.” (9)
– “(L)et us establish standards for discernment — the dignity of the human person, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, care for our common home and peace — and let us translate these standards into practices such as responsible planning, the assessment of human and social impact, the inclusion of the most vulnerable, the promotion of digital literacy and guiding research and industry toward justice and peace.” (14)
– “In order to protect the human person in the age of artificial intelligence, I believe that today we must once again reflect on the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. I am convinced that a harmonious relationship.” (46)
– “As the divide between nations widens, a mentality of confrontation and aggression begins to take hold, and the difficult path toward a more united and fraternal world suffers new and painful setbacks. In this context, speaking of a shared journey toward a more just development for the entire human family “sounds like madness.” Yet we must not lose hope. I invite everyone to conceive of ways of cooperating and of more effective international institutions, capable of safeguarding the global common good without compromising the legitimate diversity of peoples and nations. Indeed, the promotion of the common good can never be separated from respect for the right of peoples to exist, to preserve their own identity and to contribute their unique qualities to the family of nations. Moreover, any attempt or plan to eliminate or subjugate a nation is gravely immoral and therefore unacceptable.” (64)
– “(I)njustices do not arise solely from the wrong choices of individuals, but also from structures, mechanisms and economic and cultural systems that produce inequality almost automatically. (…) In this perspective, justice is not merely about the fairer distribution of resources or the correction of current injustices, but also assumes a restorative dimension. It aims to mend broken bonds and reintegrate those who have been excluded, taking into account the wounds caused by injustices, such as wars, colonialism, racial or gender discrimination, violence against entire peoples and exploitation. This may include restoring dignity and a voice to those who have been ignored, fostering processes of healing for collective memory, opposing discriminatory laws and practices, and providing concrete support to those who still bear the consequences of wrongs suffered in the past.” (79)
– “The quality of a civilization is measured not by the power of its means, but by the care it is able to offer, by its ability to recognize the other as a face not merely as a function.” (114)
It is Part V that drew my attention in a particular way. It is here that Pope Leo provides the Church’s counterpoint to what is revealed in the articles of Yuval Abraham. This section is beautifully entitled “The culture of power and the civilization of love”.
– “While AI can enhance the defence and protection of civilians, it can also lower the threshold for the use of force, shield people from responsibility and foster a culture in which the enemy is reduced to a statistic and the victim to “collateral damage.” (183)
– “In our time, a culture of power is taking hold, in which the availability of resources and the ability to dominate tend to dictate the agenda and criteria for decision-making. In this way, the common good of humanity is relegated to the background and the concrete tragedy of peoples at war is reduced to a secondary consideration in relation to strategic interests. This culture of power infiltrates society, changes relationships and behaviours, and grows by normalizing war, pursuing ever-greater military power, taking advantage of the crisis of multilateralism and fuelling a false realism that insists that there is no alternative.” (188)
Of great significance is Pope Leo’s reflection on the just war doctrine, enshrined in Catholic tradition. Like his predecessors, Pope Leo continues to question whether just wars are even a possibility in our age.
– “When historical memory fades and the ethical principles that protect civilians and the most vulnerable are weakened, it becomes easier to justify violence as necessary, inevitable or even “sanitized.” It is in this context that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts. Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defence in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.” (192)
– “What has also re-emerged is the temptation to forge a collective identity in opposition to an enemy, fuelled by narratives in which each party portrays itself as a victim entitled to retribution. The reduction of complex issues into simplistic categories — “me first,” “friend or foe,” “us or them”— facilitates decisions that are often irresponsible and undermine mutual trust among nations. The force of international law is thus replaced by the claim that “might makes right.” (202)
– “At the core of these issues is a false realism, based not only on the prevailing mentality of force, but on the cultural and anthropological belief that war is an inevitable part of human nature. It is said that things have always been this way, except for occasional pauses, and that it will always be so! As a result, the concern is no longer the search for peace — which has been lost as a point of reference on the international stage — but rather how and when to take military action. This same argument maintains that it would be irresponsible not to prepare for conflict. I would argue, however, that what is truly irresponsible is Realpolitik, the form of political “realism” that sows in consciences and in society an attitude of resignation to the inevitability of war, and dismisses peace and dialogue as utopian or irrational positions that ignore the risks at stake. In fact, peace is neither a naïve hope nor merely the absence of war; instead, it is always possible as the fruit of justice and charity.” (205)
Finally, I am struck by Pope Leo’s concern to delineate clearly how we can make our contribution in the commitment to build a civilization of love as contrasted with the overpowering culture of power.
– “The first contribution we can make toward a more humane civilization is to be mindful of our words. “Let us disarm words and we will help to disarm the world.” Words have enormous power, something we experience in our daily interactions; for example, spoken words can change our mood for better or for worse.” (214)
– “There are times when, in order to remain human, we must set aside our reservations and take a stand. In some conflicts, it is unjust to remain neutral, nor is it enough merely to claim that we are not complicit. When we witness the bombing of civilians, attacks on hospitals, schools or vital infrastructure, and violence that affects children, we are confronted with scandals that wound humanity itself. For this reason, we cannot limit ourselves to the level of abstract analysis.” (216)
– “Giving space to the perspectives and voices of victims through communication and education helps us to become aware of the abyss of evil inherent in war, and generally in all forms of violence. It helps us to reject the normalization of conflict; not to turn away when human dignity is violated; and to restore to victims the dignity of being recognized and heard.” (217)