Connect with us

Latest

BISHOP ROBERT BARRON: Pope Leo sees the AI age clearly — and warns we must save our souls

Published

on

Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae covers a variety of themes, both theological and anthropological, and has proved to be remarkably prophetic, and yet it is still, in the minds of most people, simply the “birth control” encyclical. Similarly, Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ ranges across a number of topics and provides a trenchant analysis of the philosophy that dominates the modern world, and yet, for most, it is simply the “global warming” encyclical. I am a bit afraid that something similar might happen to Pope Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas, for it is already being characterized as the “AI encyclical.” But to reduce this extraordinary text to that single theme would be regrettable indeed. Leo does, of course, discuss AI, and with remarkable insight, but there is so much more going on in this letter, and it should not be overlooked.

The best framework for understanding the text is the title. Pope Paul VI famously said that the Church is an expert in humanity, and the Vatican II document Gaudium et spes commences with the reminder that the Church is concerned with all dimensions of human experience. One of the last texts composed by Pope Francis, Dignitas infinita, focused on the “infinite dignity” of the human being. The irreducible nobility of the human being is, I believe, the master motif of Magnifica Humanitas. In line with his recent predecessors, Pope Leo insists that we human beings are magnificent because we have been made in the image and likeness of God and even more wonderfully elevated through the Incarnation to a share in divinity itself. It is not the secular humanism that the pope presents, but a deeply theological and Christological humanism.

Magnifica Humanitas effectively commences with a contrast between two images drawn from the Old Testament, namely, the construction of the Tower of Babel and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem after the return of the exiles from Babylon. The first, driven by imperialistic hubris and undertaken without reference to God, led to calamity; the second, supervised by Nehemiah, predicated upon the cooperation of the various elements within Israelite society and undertaken for the glory of God, led to something beautiful. Pope Leo worries that many of the “new things” of today, including and especially AI and other forms of advanced technology, can have a Tower of Babel quality, that is to say, a tendency toward manipulation, domination, and the reduction of all forms of communication to a singular digital language. But he firmly believes that, rightly employed, these marvels can fit into a more “Nehemiah” framework and become a means of enhancing human dignity and community.

But before he treats these matters in detail, he pauses to consider the great principles that undergird Catholic social teaching. He wants to show that a proper consideration of contemporary technology must take place within a fundamentally moral context. And so, in the second chapter of Magnifica Humanitas, Leo provides an extremely concise and helpful overview of the Church’s social doctrine, emphasizing its satisfying ideological equilibrium. Thus, subsidiarity (the preference for more local forms of authority), typically favored by conservatives, is placed in healthy tension with solidarity (our moral obligation to one another), typically favored by liberals. And the dignity of the individual, typically stressed by conservatives, is balanced by an insistence upon the common good, typically stressed by liberals. The moral legitimacy of private property and the free market, dear to more right-leaning people, is placed alongside the universal destination of goods, a theme of importance to people of the left, and so on. This creative tension is the genius of Catholic social teaching and is precisely what allows its representatives to enter into constructive conversation with those on various points of the political spectrum.

POPE LEO XIV CALLS THIS A CHALLENGE TO ‘HUMAN DIGNITY’ IN FIRST ADDRESS TO CARDINALS

In chapters three and four, Pope Leo turns with acute attention to the particular issues presented by the revolution in communication technology underway today. His entire discussion is conditioned by a theme borrowed from Pope Francis, namely, the danger of a “technocratic paradigm.” By this term, both Francis and Leo mean the tendency to privilege efficiency, control, and practical results over the dignity of the individual and the development of real communion. Leo, in fact, references Romano Guardini, a favorite of Pope Francis, who, at the beginning of the 20th century, bemoaned the dehumanizing features of a technologically driven culture. AI and its attendant technologies are good to the extent that they function as tools in the hands of responsible agents acting for a moral purpose; they are problematic to the extent that they come to dominate both thought and action, bending the properly human in the direction of the machine.

Within the confines of this brief article, I cannot begin to cover the complexity of the pope’s analysis of AI, but I might draw attention to a few highlights. 

First, Leo, as befits an Augustinian, is deeply concerned with the truth, and he fears that the digital space is inhabited by people who are far more interested in power than in truth. The denizens of the AI world can propagate, for a variety of reasons, “fake news,” deeply distorted narratives, and misleading information. But the Tower of Babel story shows that when will is divorced from reality, disaster follows: “Such power should be constantly guided by the pursuit of truth and respect for human dignity, so that the culture fostered on the internet does not become an instrument of excessive distraction, homogenization or dominance, but rather a setting in which inner freedom and critical thought can mature” (136). 

A related concern is how AI can undermine the sort of slow, patient, and careful work required to uncover the deepest truth. The ease with which AI delivers data to us can deceive us into thinking that acquiring “information” is the same as coming to understand. Here is the pope’s pithy conclusion: “Many educators already report signs of dehumanization, where people may ‘know many things’ but struggle to find direction in their lives, partly due to an inability to connect information with deeper knowledge or maintain a sense of purpose” (146).

Leo is also deeply distressed by the negative psychological impact of the internet on those who are drawn into the digital space. Many studies have demonstrated a tight correlation between “screen time” and depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem. Moreover, the internet has proved to be a breeding ground for sexual exploitation, grooming, and blackmail, not to mention an environment in which the worst forms of pornography have become available to children. Accordingly, the pope calls for effective regulation of this potentially dangerous media space.

THE AI REVOLUTION THREATENS OFFICE JOBS, BUT REVIVES DEMAND FOR SKILLED TRADES

Another preoccupation of the pope is the way AI has begun to affect the arena of work. Following St. John Paul II, Leo maintains that labor is not merely a practical necessity, but rather an essential dimension of human flourishing. Through our toil, we engage our minds, wills, and bodies, and we actualize potentialities within ourselves that we did not realize we had. And therefore, when the speed and efficiency of AI effectively eliminate possibly millions of jobs, certain economic advantages might accrue to the powerful, but a moral and spiritual disaster would occur for the working class: “The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good” (152).

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

I will draw attention, finally, to Leo’s deep anxiety regarding the addictive quality of social media. It has now been well established that the devices that give us access to the web were consciously designed to be addictive — and this is perhaps most evident in the “doomscrolling” practiced by so many today. 

Further, since AI tools capture so much personal data and information, all of us are deeply vulnerable to manipulation on the part of those who have less-than-savory economic and political motivations. Here are Pope Leo’s words: “When every action — movements, purchases, relationships and preferences — leaves a trace, a new form of power emerges, namely the power to profile, predict and influence behavior, often without individuals being fully aware of it” (171). Again, there is extraordinary richness in this fourth chapter of Magnifica Humanitas, and I would strongly encourage individuals and parish groups to engage in a serious reading of it.

The final chapter of Magnifica Humanitas finds the pope shifting to a somewhat different key, as he focuses on questions of war and peace. This might prove to be the most talked-about and controversial section of the encyclical, given the roiled circumstances of the political world today. 

In fact, I found this part of the letter the most thoroughly Augustinian. Basic to St. Augustine’s vision, especially as he articulated it in his City of God, is the contrast between the Roman society of his day, predicated upon the worship of morally ambiguous gods and goddesses, and the properly Christian society, predicated upon worship of the God whose name is love. In accord with the principle that we become what we worship, Rome was bellicose, violent, marked by what Augustine called the libido dominandi (the lust to dominate). And following the same principle, Christian society at least ought to be characterized by forgiveness, peace, and reconciliation. History, on Augustine’s reading, is an ongoing struggle between these two visions. 

Pope Leo is anguished because he sees the ways of war coming to dominate the polity of the world today. And he calls upon the Church to provide an alternative vision, a civilization of love. This City of God will not emerge, he says, from some grand plan imposed from above, but rather from the steady work of individuals producing, in time, a cumulative effect. Remarkably, Leo quotes the great J.R.R. Tolkien in this context: “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till” (213, Gandalf in “The Return of the King.”). Especially in our time, when AI and other forms of advanced technology have made warfare more likely and more “efficient,” Pope Leo wants the Church to present to the world the path of peace.

I might remark on a certain irony in this context. In regard to questions of war and peace, St. Augustine is best known, not for his proposal of a civilization of love, but for his theory of just war. But we have to be eminently clear regarding the function of this device. One must never construe Augustine’s theory as some facile “justification” for war, a means of providing moral cover for the wanton use of violence. In fact, just the contrary is the case. The great saint saw his criteria as providing a severe limit to the waging of war, and the Church has always treated them as such. There is one line from this section of the letter that puzzled me a bit. Leo says that he feels the just war theory is “outdated.” I certainly understand that since the means of waging war have changed so dramatically from Augustine’s time, a hasty application of the just war protocols would be naïve today. But I do not think that the criteria themselves — declaration by a just authority, proportionality, discrimination between combatants and noncombatants, last resort, and so on — are outdated. Instead, I believe they should be applied with particular rigor in our present circumstance.

In conclusion, please read this letter and do so with care and in a meditative frame of mind. Consciously step away from the online world of shouted opinions, arrogant self-assertion, and verbal violence. And take in the work of this wise man, an expert in humanity.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM BISHOP ROBERT BARRON

Continue Reading

Latest

Tucker Carlson Officially Makes Shock Announcement — He’s Out

Published

on

Tucker Carlson Officially Makes Shock Announcement — He’s Out

A growing divide within the conservative movement is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, as longtime commentator Tucker Carlson declared that he no longer considers himself a Republican, citing frustration with what he sees as the party’s abandonment of its America First roots.

Carlson made the remarks during a podcast appearance with hosts Travis Dhanraj and Karman Wong, where the discussion turned to the political landscape ahead of the upcoming midterm elections and whether voters remain satisfied with the direction of the Republican Party.

While Carlson made clear that he remains aligned with many conservative principles, he argued that some Republican leaders have drifted away from the priorities that helped fuel President Donald Trump’s rise and transformed the GOP into the dominant force it is today.

“I’m out,” Carlson said during the interview.

“And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.”

Carlson’s comments came as he discussed polling data and voter sentiment ahead of the next election cycle.

“I would not support the Republican party. There’s no chance I would support the Republican party,” he said.

The former Fox News host argued that certain Republican lawmakers had betrayed their voters by supporting policies he believes put foreign interests ahead of American priorities.

“How could I or any American voter support a political party that’s not loyal to the United States? That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens?

“It’s not possible to vote for people like that, and I’m not going to.”

Carlson’s remarks highlight a growing debate inside conservative circles over the future direction of the Republican Party.

At the center of the disagreement is not President Trump himself, but rather how some Republicans have approached foreign policy, military intervention, and America’s role overseas.

Trump built his political movement on the promise of putting American interests first, securing the border, rebuilding the economy, restoring energy independence, and avoiding the endless foreign conflicts that frustrated many voters for decades.

Many of Trump’s supporters continue to view the America First agenda as one of the defining achievements of his political movement.

Carlson suggested that some Republicans have lost sight of those principles.

“I think I’ve voted Republican my entire life,” Carlson said.

“I’ve been a consistent defender for 35 years, of the Republican party. I mean, a very consistent defender.”

“But there’s no defending this because it’s immoral and it’s exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing — which is representing its own voters, its own citizens, its own nation.”

“And they’re not doing that,” Carlson concluded.

The comments come amid an ongoing debate among conservatives regarding foreign policy, particularly following recent tensions involving Iran and the broader Middle East.

Carlson has been one of the most vocal advocates of a non-interventionist approach that emphasizes American interests above foreign entanglements. Other conservatives, including commentators and lawmakers aligned with a more traditional hawkish worldview, have argued that a strong American presence abroad remains necessary to protect national security.

The disagreement intensified after military operations involving Iran earlier this year, with Carlson and several other prominent voices warning against policies they believe could lead to deeper involvement in overseas conflicts.

Despite those disagreements, Carlson has generally continued to support many of Trump’s domestic policies, including border security, immigration enforcement, energy production, and efforts to prioritize American workers and taxpayers.

The broader divide illustrates the ongoing evolution of the Republican Party under Trump’s influence.

For decades, the GOP was largely defined by traditional establishment conservatives who favored aggressive foreign policy and intervention abroad. Trump’s rise fundamentally reshaped that coalition, bringing millions of working-class voters, independents, and populist conservatives into the party.

Today, debates like the one Carlson has raised reflect a larger question facing Republicans: how closely the party will adhere to the America First principles that helped fuel Trump’s political success.

Whether Carlson ultimately returns to the Republican fold remains to be seen. But his comments underscore a reality that many political observers have noted in recent years: the future of the conservative movement is increasingly being shaped by debates over foreign policy, national sovereignty, and what it truly means to put America first.

As those discussions continue, one thing remains clear: the America First movement that transformed Republican politics is still driving much of the conversation inside the conservative movement today.

Continue Reading

Latest

Top Fox News Host Suffers Deranged Meltdown On LIVE TV — Doesn’t End Well…

Published

on

Top Fox News Host Suffers Deranged Meltdown On LIVE TV — Doesn’t End Well…

A growing divide within the conservative movement spilled into public view this weekend as Fox News host Mark Levin launched a blistering attack on President Donald Trump’s Iran strategy, accusing the administration of pressuring Israel while pursuing a diplomatic agreement designed to permanently prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The dispute comes as the Trump administration continues negotiations with Tehran following a series of devastating military strikes that crippled Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, eliminated key regime leaders, and left the Islamic Republic in one of the weakest positions it has faced in decades.

President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have argued that the administration is negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength after demonstrating a willingness to use military force when necessary. Their goal, they say, is simple: ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon while avoiding another endless war in the Middle East.

Levin, however, remains deeply skeptical.

During a fiery monologue that lasted more than 17 minutes on Saturday, the longtime conservative commentator accused members of the administration of unfairly targeting Israel while becoming too optimistic about Iran’s intentions.

“I want to say to people in and out of the administration: stop trashing, smearing, bullying the little state of Israel. Stop cozying up to and telling us that the enemy regime in Iran is now more rational, more moderate, and a regime that we can deal with,” Levin demanded. “When just a few months ago they slaughtered 50,000 people, they’re still hanging young people today and, if they had a nuclear missile today, they’d fire it into our country as sure as I’m alive.”

Levin also rejected any suggestion that Israel should allow outside governments to dictate its security decisions.

“I don’t know what’s going on, but if people think they can bully a little country, Israel — a people that have existed 4,000 years through the Babylonians and the Persians, through the Romans and the Third Reich — into surrendering their defense and their decision on how to secure their country, they get another thing coming,” Levin continued. “I think it’s outrageous.”

The criticism did not stop there.

Levin also used social media to question several administration policies, including reports surrounding a Boeing 747 gifted by Qatar and modified for use supporting presidential airlift operations.

“If it’s legal and other countries do it so be it. Do you think wealthy countries should be able to lavish gifts on our government?” Levin wrote.

His sharpest criticism, however, focused on the administration’s efforts to secure a broader peace agreement with Iran and its proxies.

“Item #1 in the MOU provides there’s an immediate and permanent end to the war and that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is Hezbollah,” Levin posted. “What’s the enforcement mechanism? Nothing. Israel defends itself after constant attacks from Hezbollah and is admonished for it. Its interests are not aligned with ours, we’re told. It’s endangering the peace deal. This is beyond nuts.”

In another post, Levin argued that current ceasefire efforts were coming at Israel’s expense.

“Apparently as long as Israeli soldiers are killed the ceasefire is holding,” Levin claimed.

The administration has strongly rejected suggestions that it is abandoning Israel or weakening its support for America’s closest ally in the Middle East.

President Trump responded directly Sunday with a warning aimed squarely at Iran and its regional proxies.

“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

For supporters of the administration, that message demonstrates exactly why they remain confident in Trump’s approach. They argue that no modern president has shown a greater willingness to confront Iran militarily while simultaneously seeking a diplomatic resolution that serves American interests.

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both emphasized that any final agreement would require Iran to permanently abandon its nuclear ambitions, submit to extensive inspections, and comply with strict verification requirements before receiving any economic benefits.

Administration officials also note that no sanctions have been lifted, no frozen assets have been released, and no direct payments have been authorized.

Instead, they argue that Trump has successfully put Iran in a position where the regime must choose between compliance and continued isolation.

The disagreement highlights a broader debate that has been developing inside the Republican Party for years.

Traditional foreign-policy hawks often favor maintaining maximum military pressure and remain deeply skeptical of negotiations with hostile regimes.

Trump’s America First coalition generally supports overwhelming military strength but prefers leveraging that strength into favorable deals that avoid long-term military entanglements.

Supporters of the president argue that Trump’s strategy reflects the same formula that has defined much of his foreign policy: peace through strength.

Strike hard when necessary. Demonstrate unquestionable resolve. Negotiate from a position of power. And avoid the costly nation-building efforts and endless conflicts that frustrated many Americans for decades.

As negotiations continue, the debate between Levin and the Trump administration reflects a larger question facing conservatives: how best to secure American interests abroad while staying true to the America First principles that have reshaped the Republican Party.

For now, President Trump appears committed to proving that military strength and diplomacy are not opposing strategies—but complementary tools for achieving lasting peace and protecting America’s national security.

Continue Reading

Latest

It’s Over! The House Votes 396-13 — Trump Just Won!

Published

on

It’s Over! The House Votes 396-13 — Trump Just Won!

In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the amended 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act this week, advancing a package of reforms designed to tackle America’s housing affordability crisis while delivering on several key priorities championed by President Donald Trump.

The legislation passed by a decisive 396-13 vote, reflecting broad agreement that soaring housing costs, rising rents, and limited inventory have pushed homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans.

Supporters say the bill addresses one of the country’s most pressing economic challenges by cutting red tape, increasing housing supply, strengthening lending opportunities, and helping ensure that American families—not large corporations—have a fair shot at buying homes.

The legislation combines elements of previous House and Senate proposals and seeks to address housing shortages that have contributed to record-high home prices in many parts of the country.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill praised the measure as a practical, results-oriented solution focused on expanding opportunities for working Americans.

“This bill prioritizes American families by expanding homeownership, enhancing affordability, reducing burdensome regulations that drive up costs, and increasing housing supply nationwide,” Chairman Hill stated.

“Importantly, it delivers on President Trump’s call to limit institutional investors from competing with the American people as they seek to purchase a home,” Hill added.

The legislation includes a variety of reforms aimed at accelerating housing construction and reducing barriers that have slowed development for years.

Among its key provisions, the bill streamlines federal permitting requirements, reduces lengthy environmental review processes for certain redevelopment and infill housing projects, and encourages innovative housing solutions such as modular and manufactured homes.

The measure also provides grants to local governments willing to modernize zoning laws and remove restrictions that limit new construction.

Supporters argue that restrictive zoning policies, excessive permitting delays, and government bureaucracy have significantly contributed to America’s housing shortage.

Rather than relying on massive new federal spending programs, the legislation focuses on empowering local communities, encouraging private-sector investment, and removing obstacles that make housing more expensive.

The bill also raises loan limits for multifamily housing developments, creating incentives for apartment construction and expanding options for renters and first-time buyers alike.

Additional provisions strengthen rural housing initiatives, expand support for veterans seeking housing, modernize financing for smaller mortgage loans, and increase the role community banks can play in local lending markets.

Community banks have long argued that excessive regulations have made it more difficult for them to serve homebuyers and construction projects in their local communities.

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters acknowledged the seriousness of the housing crisis despite broader political disagreements.

“America is in the middle of a full-blown affordable housing and homelessness crisis, and working families are burdened by skyrocketing rents and a housing market that is pushing homeownership further out of reach,” Waters said.

One of the most notable aspects of the legislation is its effort to curb the growing influence of large institutional investors in the housing market.

For years, investment firms and corporate landlords have purchased thousands of single-family homes, often outbidding families and first-time homebuyers. Critics argue that this trend has driven up prices while transforming communities into rental markets dominated by large corporations.

The legislation includes targeted restrictions designed to discourage large institutional investors from acquiring additional single-family homes.

That approach aligns closely with President Trump’s housing agenda.

Throughout his second administration, Trump has repeatedly argued that homeownership should remain a cornerstone of the American Dream and that government policies should prioritize families over Wall Street investors.

In his National Homeownership Month proclamation earlier this month, Trump emphasized the importance of restoring affordability and expanding opportunities for future homeowners.

“During National Homeownership Month, my Administration recommits to making housing more affordable so that young Americans and hardworking families can raise children, build memories, and create a future in a home of their own,” Trump said.

The president has frequently blamed the housing crisis on “reckless spending, burdensome regulations, and failed housing policies” implemented under previous administrations, as well as “mass illegal immigration and large institutional investors” that have increased pressure on housing supply.

Trump has also taken executive actions aimed at reducing institutional ownership of single-family homes, lowering mortgage costs, and strengthening federal housing programs.

“Under my leadership, America will be a Nation where homes belong to families — not corporations,” Trump said.

At the same time, Trump has emphasized the importance of protecting the value of homes already owned by millions of Americans.

“I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes. Existing housing, people who own their homes, we’re going to keep them wealthy. We’re going to keep those prices up. We’re not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn’t work very hard can buy a home,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting earlier this year.

He has also repeatedly summarized his housing philosophy with a simple message:

“Homes are built for people, not for corporations, and America will not become a nation of renters.”

With overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and growing concern over affordability nationwide, supporters hope the legislation will mark a significant step toward restoring homeownership opportunities and ensuring that the American Dream remains within reach for future generations.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 Political Signal