In his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV is ultimately offering a vision at a time when many in power have lacked a coherent and prudential sense of direction. For “all people of good will” (MH, §33) that vision is of a common good that holds to the highest standards human dignity for all and requires all to ask the questions, personally and at a societal level: “Where are we going? Toward what goal do we wish to orient ourselves? What direction should we choose as a people and as a human community?” (MH, §6).

For Christians, the vision is that of the kingdom of God, which is revealed by the Word Made Flesh: “In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness” (MH, §1). Leo offers a foundational vision of an anthropology that is highly Augustinian, so it might be helpful to outline some basic ideas that can aid in reflection on the encyclical.

For Augustine, humans are inescapably religious, worshipping beings who are oriented toward something ultimate. This might seem a controversial claim in today’s culture; however, there is a logical soundness to the idea. Humans are desiring beings, always oriented toward something, or loving something, and so there must be a highest, most-loved something in our lives, whether we know it or not. And whatever we desire most has a strong gravitational pull on the direction of our lives, where we are going, and where we will end up. The end that is sought or prioritized will subordinate and order all our other loves.

Most of the loves that humans pursue as ultimate ends cannot fulfil them and so are either distractions or highly destructive dead ends. They function as idols, hence Leo’s strong emphasis on the problem of idolatry. In the Confessions, Augustine famously elaborates the all-encompassing implications of the idea that: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you” (conf. 1.1.1; qtd. in MH, §11). Our desire is infinite and only the infinite God will satisfy it. Loving anything else is loving a substitute, an idol.

This is also why there is no neutral politics for Augustine. There is always an ultimate end being pursued, whether one knows it or not. And one is either pursuing the city of God or some lesser substitute. The latter, the city of man, is symbolized by Babylon (see, inter alia, ciu. 16.10, 17.16, 18.22) and is oriented toward “the love of self even to the contempt of God” (ciu.14.28; qtd. in MH, §130).

Leo writes of constructing the Tower of Babel (which was in Babylon). In the most basic sense this symbolizes trying to be gods unto ourselves, which is very similar to Augustine’s famous definition of sin, curvatus in se (curved in upon oneself). This is an apt image for A.I. as a fashioned counterfeit divinity, “without reference to God” (MH, §7) This also leads not only to having a false and unattainable end but also toward behaving as though one has no limitations. Without a sense of a proper end in a common good, it is not even possible to speak of progress, despite how ubiquitously the term is applied, especially with technology. Without a sense of where we are going, it is not possible to know whether we are any closer to that goal.

Much innovation is merely development and not actual progress. Augustine makes the distinction between progressio and procursus, or actual progress and mere movement. Technological development tends to care more that something can be done than whether it should be done. And often in pursuit of endless ‘ends,’ which are actually just means, and so requiring ever more—speed, scale, power. When development is pursued for the sake of development or only for profit, it is not truly “integral human development” (MH, §82-85, §181) robustly considerate of the ends of all creation. Efficiency and maximization can work toward improper ends, and this can be quite harmful. Many such examples abound.

Thus far with A.I. even experts seem neither to understand its development nor know where it will end up and with what consequences. Leo insists that there be appropriate vision and criterion for how and how not to use technology in the pursuit of truly human ends. By providing a rational and coherent foundational anthropology, grounding the nature and purpose of human life and dignity, this understanding can remain applicable to the rapidly changing concerns of these technological developments in a more perduring and ontologically sound manner than, say, the recent statements made by Dario Amodei and Bill Gates, helpful as they may be.

As with Augustine’s vision of the just society, Leo’s vision is not naïve optimism. It may be that, ultimately, people will not heed this vision, and one hopes that the document is not just seen eventually as an ‘I told you so.’ There is real reason for hope, as well as for caution. Ultimately, Augustine’s assessment of the failure of Rome was that it was not political enough and that its vision was lacking, being too narrowly focused on power and glory. He shows how tragic failure in these ends was inevitable.

Today, Leo is aware of the resurgence of the vain pursuit of power and glory, and such aims must be disarmed (MH, §110), so that the same fate is not suffered. Power and glory, political and technological, though seemingly noble to many, eventually tend toward the lust for domination (libido dominandi), which inevitably ends in disaster and destruction. Supposed virtues pursuant to bad ends are actually vices. These aims are zero-sum, winner-take-all, and result in dissipation, or worse. True and proper ends, such as communal love and justice, are only enhanced the more they are mutually shared, not diminished.

The vision here is not one of a dismal ‘state of nature’ where leaders must opt for ‘necessary evils.’ This vision includes not just original sin but original goodness; that humans are ecstatic beings who are destined for love of God and neighbor insofar as being made in the imago Dei; meaning that our deepest identity is found in loving care for one another in community. The truly just society is established in Christ Jesus. And this justice is interchangeable with love (caritas) for God and neighbor.

For Augustine, ignorance or shortsightedness, weakness from the fear of death, are very real. But they can be healed by the medicine offered by Christ, if one has faith, humility, and repentance. These open the way of wisdom, whereby accepting God’s grace in putting one’s faith in Jesus and following him along the way as humble pilgrims, one can put on Christ and seek the true virtues of the citizen of the kingdom of God. Believers can cultivate a rightly ordered love that desires and delights in true justice (ordinata dilectio est iustitia) as revealed by Christ’s wisdom. This is the vision of the civilization of love (MH, §182-228).

For Augustine and Leo, although this civilization of love is only fully realizable in the fullness of time (Parousia), it is great cause for a hope that is willing to endure and strive for the end that Christ has already won in the resurrection and defeat of sin. And having been established, there are visible signs that permeate society and offer a guiding light even in darkness. For Augustine, one of these is the political microcosm of religious (monastic) community life outlined by Augustine in the Rule, that aspires to live as one in mind and heart intent upon God (Rule 1.2); holding itself to that high aspiration of communal life as a highly visible witness to the broader community surrounding it in the city.

Another is the family, that must aspire to formation of citizens of the city of God, who are in the world, but not of it (MH, §165-169). The Christian household is the school of formation for good citizens of the heavenly city, who are formed in servant leadership, who work for justice and inspire others toward magnanimity and that same love of the bonum commune, rather than self-referential ‘success’ according to societal convention.

For Leo, schools and particularly the Catholic university can also act as such a sign, particularly as outlined in the Apostolic Letter “Drawing New Maps of Hope” (MH, §139-142). And of course, there is the Christian community as the Body of Christ, which in Augustine’s letter to Volusian he offers a new vision of a political community grounded in a hope for concordia to be a compelling model of the republicae salus (ep. 137.5.17; see MH, §230-237). Leo makes powerful use of Augustine’s famous Sermon 272 as an inspiration to be more Christlike in the transformative power of the Eucharist (MH, §234). All of these forms of community can act as beacons of hope.

Three of the biggest challenges facing humanity—militarization, climate change, and A.I.—are going to require significant and multilateral coordination in order to place guardrails on development and to ensure integral human development that does not jeopardize people or the planet (MH, §201). For these not to be seen merely as arbitrary constraints, various political communities on concentric levels will have to foster a vital vision of the common good that enriches the understanding of why such measures are necessary for the flourishing of all. This requires a sense of anthropology and a basic sense of how human desires must be properly oriented toward such flourishing.

The difficulty is that such an understanding challenges the deeply ingrained voluntaristic and individualistic conception of selfhood that has been predominant since the modern era and further complicated by cultural forces such as greed and consumerism in recent decades. These have become a quasi-religious formation or deformation that are acting almost like the shackles and shadows in Plato’s cave, causing a diminishment of authentic human agency in a pseudo-reality. However, a formation in the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love, through prayer (MH, §243), with the humility to accept the gift of God’s healing grace that can restore a true vision, can magnify human agency to its fullness in the imago Dei, fulfilled in the love that brought forth all creation, ex nihilo.