(Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity-Year A; This homily was given on May 30 & 31, 2026 at Saint Augustine Church in Providence, Rhode Island; See Exodus 34:4-9 and John 3:16-18)
Seeking the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary through prayer
The United States is prepared to provide $100 million in humanitarian assistance to Cuba, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on May 13.
But there’s a catch.
Neither the Cuban government nor its military would be allowed to manage its distribution. Instead, only humanitarian and faith-based partners, such as Caritas — the Catholic Church’s humanitarian aid network — and other nonprofits would deliver the aid. That is, the U.S. is willing to provide assistance that will help the Cuban people, but it does not trust the Cuban government to distribute it.
A week later, on May 20, Rubio reinforced the caveats that came with the Trump administration’s announcement during a 5-minute video address directed at the Cuban people. In his remarks, which coincided with Cuban Independence Day, he blamed Cuba’s economic problems and chronic energy shortages on its own government.
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel has said Cuba would accept the U.S. offer of aid « without ingratitude, » while also criticizing the new approach and urging the U.S. to lift or ease the decades-old embargo. The timing of the offer was particularly challenging because it coincided with the U.S. indictment of Raúl Castro, a former Cuban president who helped lead the revolution that brought his brother, Fidel Castro, to power in 1959.
The Trump administration’s aid restriction may sound unusual. But as a scholar of Cuban studies and a former humanitarian aid worker, I have seen firsthand how faith-based organizations have long played a critical role in reaching Cuban families when formal systems there fall short.
You may wonder whether religious groups and other kinds of nonprofits are prepared to distribute $100 million in humanitarian aid inside Cuba.
But there’s evidence that this arrangement would probably work. The Catholic Church has one of the strongest national networks in Cuba outside the government, and this would not be the first time it has coordinated the distribution of humanitarian aid.
For several months after Hurricane Melissa hammered the island’s eastern provinces in 2025, Washington supported smaller humanitarian shipments to Cuba. And it sent that assistance through the church.
From 2011 to 2017 I saw church networks become lifelines for the most vulnerable, delivering aid from governments, humanitarian organizations and faith-based groups directly into communities and opening pathways beyond Havana into rural areas where need is often greatest.
Cuba’s other faiths
Not all of these faith-based groups are tied to the Catholic Church.
Protestant and evangelical churches, including Baptist and Assemblies of God communities, maintain extensive networks across Cuba.
I observed that foreign aid that arrived in Havana did not automatically reach rural provinces such as Holguín or Santiago de Cuba. Getting it there required trucks, fuel, warehouses, local partners and logistical assets that Cuba lacked even then and has in much shorter supply now.
I worked directly with vulnerable communities in the aftermath of hurricanes and other disasters in Cuba to help deliver lifesaving aid, including food and clean water, to those most in need.
That experience makes me certain that other faith-based networks could potentially also play a critical role in delivering U.S. humanitarian aid as they have done in years past and in the spring of 2026.
Many of Cuba’s faith-based groups operate through house churches — small congregations that meet inside private homes instead of formal church buildings. They emerged because the Cuban government didn’t allow anyone to build new churches after a constitutional change in 1992 led to somewhat more freedom for worshippers. New local congregations could form, but they had to be based in houses. House churches are now deeply connected to their communities.
Together, these networks often reach rural areas and vulnerable families that more formal systems struggle to serve.
Pivot from Russia to Venezuela
After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Cubans endured years of severe shortages of food, fuel, medicine and basic supplies, hobbling transportation and many basic services. Daily life changed dramatically, and families had to find new ways to survive with very little.
Until then, the Soviet Union had met Cuba’s demand for oil in exchange for shipments of Cuban sugar. The Cuban government euphemistically called that era of economic collapse a « Special Period in a Time of Peace. »
Starting in the late 1990s, Venezuela began to supply Cuba with deeply discounted oil, an arrangement that lasted until January 2026, when the U.S. ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The U.S. subsequently imposed an oil blockade on Cuba.
Losing access to oil has created a major crisis. Without fuel, Cuba’s government is unable to operate power plants, buses, water pumping systems, food refrigeration, hospitals, schools and agriculture at full capacity.
Many Cubans are enduring frequent, long blackouts and are unable to get to work or travel almost anywhere. They’re losing access to healthcare, and food insecurity is growing.
In short, Cuba is facing a major human-made disaster today without having been hit by a hurricane, earthquake or other kind of common disaster. Instead, it’s the result of politics and foreign policy.
Potential appeal to Cuban Americans
Many Cuban Americans support sending U.S. humanitarian aid to Cuba if it reaches ordinary Cubans and does not strengthen the Cuban government. Bypassing the Cuban authorities by distributing assistance via faith-based groups would be appealing to Cuban Americans who have long accused Havana of using foreign assistance from foreign sources to maintain their grip on power.
Based on my own experience on the ground after disasters in Cuba, I believe that if aid is delivered through trusted and transparent channels, it could save lives and reduce suffering.
And if the aid is never delivered, I would expect that the people who need help most would once again pay the highest price.
In « Pressure, » director Anthony Maras has created a thrilling and satisfying war drama about the 72 hours before D-Day and the high-stakes decision-making of General Dwight D. Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) and chief meteorologist Captain James Stagg (Andrew Scott).
One might not expect themes of the coexistence of faith and science to appear in a war movie, but in « Pressure » it’s a central tenet — and it works. In one scene, the generals are in church singing the hymn « All Creatures of Our God and King » and grappling with what is out of their control.
« It was very satisfying to film that scene, » Maras told the National Catholic Reporter. « These characters, when the chips are down, find strength in their faith, and to see them come out of the church and meet the scientist, and somehow these two groups have got to reconcile and work together, it says a lot. »
Fraser delivers a towering, vulnerable performance as « Ike » Eisenhower, showcasing a man tormented by the decision over whether to deploy troops on D-Day. It could have easily been a one-note role, not unlike the many stern generals we’ve seen onscreen before, and Fraser is more than capable of playing the hits.
Instead, Maras saw the actor « dare to access a vulnerability inside himself and a humility beside himself that makes Eisenhower more multidimensional … not just the diplomat, not just the strong leader, but someone who had to grapple with demons to get where he got to. There’s heroism in that. »
NCR sat down with Fraser over Zoom to discuss playing such an iconic American character.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
NCR: « Pressure » is about the 72 hours before D-Day, but one might also say it’s about the tension between certainty and confidence. How did you navigate that tension to play General Eisenhower?
Fraser: I developed a certain admiration for Eisenhower through the course of this film. He was not a perfect person by any stretch of the imagination. I’m sure the faith he had was likely challenged, considering that 749 soldiers died in a friendly fire accident, a rehearsal for D-Day called Operation Tiger. I didn’t know about this incident before [making the movie]. So I can personally only imagine the state of mind that he had on that weekend before he was about to deploy 300,000 more soldiers in the largest seaborne assault in human history to end the scourge of tyranny and fascism, knowing that, again, the grim statistic of their survival is not looking good.
For him to have made that decision, he was the type of leader who didn’t just hear people; he listened. There’s a difference. He solicited the opinions of the experts around him, formulated his commands and stood by them.
Your director, Anthony Maras, said the film sets an example for how to think about the problems we face, centering these characters who have the humility to admit what they don’t know even as they try to understand the world around them.
1944 was modern life at that time; our modern life is today, 2026. What we both have in common as the ages go by is that we can’t shake our fists at the sky and expect a different result when Mother Nature says, « No, this is what you get. » We have to be submissive in so many ways.
How did you approach playing Dwight Eisenhower as both a person and a leader, balancing his stern and tender sides?
I think about the fact that he wrote a letter, in the event of victory, to be read to the world — and he also wrote a letter in the event of defeat. [The latter] wound up in his coat pocket, and then it found its way to an autobiography some years later. In the victory letter, he gave credit to the troops. In the letter of defeat, he put it squarely on his [own] shoulders. So that’s the type of leader he is.
I’m a father of three sons in their 20s, and he at that time did have a 20-year-old who had graduated only recently from West Point. If you look at the file photos of the 101st Airborne the afternoon before they deployed on the gliders to make the first wave of attack, the connection he makes with them is authentic. He does care deeply for the well-being of the troops, and it’s reciprocated. He’s connecting with them in a way where he really is seeing over them in a way, almost as if they are all his sons, too.
If we put this character in conversation with two recent roles of yours, Charlie from « The Whale » and Phillip from « Rental Family, » the latter two have a deficit of faith and hope. In « Pressure, » Eisenhower needs both of those.
Eisenhower put his faith and hope in God when he needed to pray, and he put his faith in science and facts when he trusted his captain to provide an accurate weather report on a very important weekend. I don’t know what science fiction we would be living in right now if things didn’t shake out the way that they did, but it would be a certainly different world.
The Focus Features film opens in theaters across the country this weekend.
During the presentation of his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV explained why he turned the Catholic Church’s attention to the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, just as his namesake Pope Leo XIII did toward the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century.
« Like the earlier ‘Leo,’ I feel entrusted to look upon another huge transformation with eyes of faith, with lucidity of reason, with openness to mystery, and with cries of the poor and the earth resounding in my heart, » the first U.S.-born pope said at the May 25 event inside the Vatican’s Synod Hall.
The remark also offered an apparent nod to Pope Francis, who 11 years ago in his social encyclical on ecology « Laudato Si’, on Care for Our Common Home » urged the world to « hear both the cries of the earth and the cries of the poor » as it works toward solutions, including technological ones, to socio-environmental problems like climate change.
« Care for our common home and our responsibility toward the poor and future generations, » Leo wrote in Magnifica Humanitas, « require that the use of the goods of creation and the new possibilities offered by technology be regulated in such a way as to respect the environment, avoid waste and prevent new forms of exploitation. »
« Our task today is not only ethical or technical. It is ecological in the deepest sense, for it concerns a new dimension of our common home, » the pope stated later in the text. « AI is already an environment in which we are immersed, as well as a force with which we must engage. For this reason, merely regulating it is insufficient; it must be disarmed, welcoming and accessible. »
Environmental issues posed by AI make up but a portion of the pope’s 42,000-word encyclical, yet in those sections Leo delves into some of the key concerns emerging from the means of the powerful technology’s development. He refers to the vast resources needed to power data centers and the extraction of its key building blocks, rare earth metals and minerals.
Magnifica Humanitas, in reflecting on AI’s ecological impacts, « stands in profound continuity » with Laudato Si’ and its follow-up apostolic exhortation Laudate Deum, said Cardinal Michael Czerny at its presentation.
« In those texts, Pope Francis taught that when technical power is separated from wisdom capable of safeguarding relationships, it can turn into domination over humanity and over creation, » said Czerny, who heads the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development.
« In the age of artificial intelligence, this awareness takes on new urgency. The digital construction site and the construction site of our common home converge on the same question: What kind of world are we building and what place does the human person have in it? »
AI’s potential and pitfalls
In Magnifica Humanitas, Leo presents his evaluation of the potential and pitfalls artificial intelligence poses for the world, including on environmental challenges.
« 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, » he wrote early in the text.
The pope’s pleas for greater discernment and regulations in the creation and use of AI extended to consideration of the created world. He stressed economic progress must respect the limits of creation and called for new development metrics beyond GDP, which he said often neglects the well-being of people and the environment. He reiterated church teaching that the goods of the earth — soil, water, air and natural resources — « are given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all, and that every person has an inherent right to the use of such goods, both now and in the future. »
Leo referenced climate change twice, in describing drivers of migration. He cited Laudato Si’ 10 times, calling integral ecology — to which Francis devoted a full chapter — « an indispensable dimension of the Church’s Social Doctrine. »
« Indeed, the quality of development is measured by the ability to integrate justice toward people and the care of our common home, and to promote dignified living conditions, access to necessary goods, just social relations, care of creation and consideration for future generations, » Leo wrote. « It follows that true progress is not what increases the wellbeing of some by degrading ecosystems, shifting costs onto the most disadvantaged communities, or compromising the living conditions of those who will follow us. »
That cementing of integral ecology into church teaching is significant, said Lorna Gold, executive director of the Laudato Si’ Movement, a global network of 900-plus Catholic organizations mobilizing church action on climate change and ecological issues.
Like Francis, Leo highlights the interconnections among humans, technology and the environment, said Brian Patrick Green, a technology ethicist at Santa Clara University. The pope also revisits Francis’ critique of the technocratic paradigm — where technology is viewed as a means of profit maximization and mastery over the earth — reaching the conclusion, Green said, that « at this point, things are getting out of control. »
« The technocratic paradigm is turning into the Tower of Babel … Something that was maybe the foundations for the Tower of Babel 10 years ago have now become the beginnings of the tower, and we have to ask ourselves, why are we building this thing? » he told EarthBeat.
Concern with data centers, mining
In a joint statement, the Catholic Climate Covenant and North American chapter of Laudato Si’ Movement applauded the pope for insisting on greater discernment in the creation and implementation of AI technology.
« Communities already facing poverty, pollution, displacement, and climate impacts are shouldering the hidden environmental and social burdens tied to advancing technologies, » they said, « which prioritize profit and efficiency above human dignity, including extractive industries, infrastructure, and unchecked development. »
Leo highlighted two such areas: data centers and mineral extraction.
« Nothing in the world of AI is immaterial or magical, » he wrote. « Every seemingly immediate and flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving vast networks of natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above all, people. »
In discussing new forms of slavery fueled by today’s digital economy, the pope lamented the « invisible labor, » often children, working in harsh and dangerous conditions to mine the minerals and metals needed for microprocessors and other components for AI and emerging technologies, including clean energy.
« The bodies of these people are scarred, injured and worn down so that computational flow may continue uninterruptedly, » the pope said, later calling for careful examinations of tech supply chains and working conditions.
At the Vatican presentation, Léocadie Lushombo, a theological ethicist at Santa Clara and member of the Integral Human Development dicastery, said some miners describe their conditions « as we work in our own grave. »
« The ethical obligation to shatter these oppressive chains and defend the rights of vulnerable workers rests with us all, » she said.
Along with human rights abuses, Leo said, there is a tendency to overlook the environmental impacts with the rapid and uncritical adoption of AI, including the « enormous amounts of energy and water » current systems require, along with their carbon emissions. Typical AI data centers use the equivalent power of 100,000 houses, according to the International Energy Agency.
« As their complexity increases, especially in the case of large language models, the need for computing power and storage capacity grows too, which requires an extensive network of machines, cables, data centers and energy-intensive infrastructure, » Leo wrote. « For this reason, it is essential to develop more sustainable technological solutions that reduce environmental impact and help protect our common home. »
The pope raised important questions on the extensive energy and water demands of AI, which require much larger data centers to power the massive level of calculations involved in training models, said Benjamin Lee, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania specializing in sustainable computing and a consulting scientist with Google’s Global Infrastructure Group.
« There needs to be a lot more thoughtfulness that goes into how to mitigate the cost and the environmental impacts of data center [computing], that’s for sure, » Lee told EarthBeat. « And that means figuring out where the energy is coming from, where the data centers go, and how to maybe invest in perhaps even more expensive sources of energy » to limit emissions contributing to climate change.
Advertisement
Amidst these development dangers, AI has already been utilized in myriad ways on environmental issues: helping predict floods; identifying rainforest biodiversity by analyzing recorded animal sounds; scanning the earth’s land surface for deforestation and other changes; as well as improving energy efficiency in its own data centers.
Green, the Santa Clara professor who has consulted AI developers like Anthropic, said those examples demonstrate that AI can do tremendous good for the environment. To maximize the good and limit the bad he said requires the kind of discernment to which Leo has appealed with Magnifica Humanitas.
« It needs to be done with some conscientious effort, where people are actually thinking about what they’re doing and wanting to do the right thing, » he said.
There were so many uplifting and energizing things to celebrate at the 50th anniversary of the Women’s Ordination Conference (WOC) held over Pentecost weekend in Detroit, Michigan. Coalition work is key to any movement, and this one is no exception. So it was wonderful to see and celebrate the blessed diversity of women’s ministries — and advocacy — in the women’s ordination movement, including pastoral ministers, parish justice leaders, LGBTQ+ advocates, parish priests, Catholic high school teachers, campus ministers, women religious, pastoral musicians, liturgists, scholars, women priests, theologians, biblical experts, spiritual directors and leaders of church reform organizations of every stripe. It was also a bit of an « old home week » to reconnect with many dear « mothers of the movement » with whom I had served as FutureChurch’s founding director.
Pentecost joy was palpable, hard to contain, and arrived unexpectedly to fill my own heart as well as those of my siblings in the struggle. The distance of years allowed me to see blessings heretofore hidden when serving in the trenches. Not least of these is the gift of solidarity with likeminded sisters — and more than a few brothers — committed to the full inclusion of all the baptized in church ministry and decision making. Yes, Pentecost joy was palpable. And so was a renewed determination to change the church we love.
Which brings me to the real subject of this column. It was my privilege to moderate a panel addressing a subject dear to my heart: How do we systemically transform institutional structures? The brainchild of WOC Executive Director Kate McElwee, the « Not if, But How — Reforming Institutions » panel gathered two sociologists and a political scientist to explore concrete strategies for changing institutions. It was a brilliant concept to bring the lens of their research in sociology and political science to bear on discerning where WOC might wish to go in the next five years if not the next 50. The panel did not disappoint.
Panelists were first asked to address the question: How do institutions really change, and what examples from your respective disciplines indicate that change is possible?
Michele Dillon, Professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire, and a leading scholar of religion and social change, observed that « advocacy and activism does matter. It does drive change. » She pointed to successful movements in secular society such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and marriage equality advocacy that relied on transforming consciousness. MADD changed the focus from drunk drivers « seen as the victim who couldn’t help themselves » to focusing on the victims who were killed or badly injured in drunk driving accidents. Applying her sociological observations to women’s ordination, she suggested a need for a continuous dialogue between « the realities we have and all the complexity of doctrinal ideas. » At the same time she observed it is important to ask that since « for the most part, » the church is Western-centric, « how are we going to shift opinion elsewhere given the emphasis on unity? » She expressed hope that « the new synodal processes will allow for those really tough conversations and questions. »
Tricia C. Bruce cited the extensive research in her first book, Faithful Revolution: How Voice of the Faithful is Changing the Church, which chronicled the efforts of parish-centered Catholics to leverage structural change — especially transparency and accountability — in the wake of the clergy sex abuse scandal. A sociologist of religion and U.S. Catholicism, Bruce is a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies and served as a papally appointed consultant to the Synod on Synodality. She found that one of the first challenges Voice of the Faithful parishioners faced « was having to legitimate themselves as Catholics … now mind you, these were folks who had been singing in the choir for 20 plus years. » Bruce’s subsequent research led her to conclude that « Parishes become places of real structural change in the church. » She cited the creativity of lay Catholics, priests and bishops who used canon law to create some personal parishes that permitted the Latin Mass, and others to meet the needs of Vietnamese Catholics.
Consuelo Amat shared fascinating insights from her study of the Catholic Church in Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship of the 1970s. A Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, Amat’s work focused on state repression, nonviolent resistance, and the Catholic Church’s role in authoritarian regimes. During Pinochet’s brutal reign, the Chilean church « made the choice to stand up for human rights, » Amat said. Cardinal Raule Silva Henriquez created « Vicariates of Solidarity » to document human rights violations and to address the immense poverty and unemployment ravaging the country by providing local services such as soup kitchens, education, health clinics, employment training and other programs. The Chilean church had three types of clergy at the time: leftist, moderate, and conservative. The mainstream church adopted a moderate stance. It allowed certain concessions to the military such as permitting the government to use the Cathedral for celebrations. This enabled it to continue documenting over 40,000 human rights abuses and offering desperately needed services to millions of people. Because these services were open to everyone, regardless of military-political leanings, « people who actually hated each other politically came together for the first time in decades, » Amat said. These newly created open spaces were foundational to the development of a more stable political alliance that resulted in Pinochet’s ouster in 1988.
Next, panelists were asked: What advice would you have for reformers? What key strategies could ordinary Catholics, reform organizations, parishes and other Catholic groups consider?
« One of the big challenges for WOC is that I don’t think most Catholics see it as a salient enough issue to get worked up about, » Dillon said. « Yes, there is support but it’s not intense enough … How can we reframe the issue both for the Western audience, then also more globally? »
Bruce observed, « Knowledge is power … one of the massive strengths [women bring] is to learn — be educated, be curious, ask questions … it’s kind of amazing how many women have used education to open doors that are not open to them via ordination. » She also noted the strength of storytelling as « a powerful agent of change. » While waiting for change can be frustrating, she observed, « We can also look back and see that in fact, things do slowly emerge and change. »
« Sometimes change and reform occur as a consequence of contingent events in history, but the key is that the agents of change, the political entrepreneurs, are in the right place at the right time taking action, » Amat said. She believes it is important to keep in mind the moderates — people in various networks that « bring different kinds of sectors and people together. » She also suggests: « There’s a lot to be said for bringing what you would like to see in the Catholic church on a grand scale to reality — and informally — at the local level … »
The final question was: Where can we find hope? Are there signs of progress to watch for in the next five years? Are we being too optimistic about the synod on synodality?
« Pay attention to the small, tiny changes and how they accumulate and make a visible difference, » Dillon advised, pointing to women leaders at Vatican dicasteries and the female voting members at the synod. She also reflected: « Oftentimes it’s the women who are the lay ministers who really are exemplifying all that we might wish for in the priesthood. So there is hope. »
Bruce quoted paragraph 60 of the Synod’s final document: « What comes from the Spirit cannot be stopped, » noting that the paragraph « actually has a lot of hope in it with regard to women’s roles in particular. » She finds hope in « knowing how to use structures that are already there, including even canon law. » Lastly, she pointed out that lived experiences of the faith can look different from the Church’s formal structures, observing that the two « can’t be thought of separately. » She finds hope in synodality as « a radical invitation to see the life of the church as both codified, structured, institutionalized and lived and felt and experienced. »
« Not to be a Debbie Downer, but it is important for movements to be prepared for backlash, » warned Amat. She grounds her hope « in developing enduring structures for change and in demonstrating to the Catholic hierarchy that the movement is here to stay. And it is here to continue persuading and creating the public opinion it needs worldwide … »
Indeed. Happy Anniversary, WOC. And thanks for developing a powerful Spirit-led « enduring structure for change. »
Nous utilisons des cookies et d’autres données pour :
Si vous cliquez sur « Tout accepter », nous utiliserons également des cookies et d’autres données pour :
Si vous cliquez sur « Tout refuser », nous n’utiliserons pas de cookies pour ces fins supplémentaires.
Les annonces et les contenus non personnalisés dépendent, par exemple, du contenu du site que vous consultez et de votre position (la diffusion d’annonces est basée sur votre position approximative). Les annonces et les contenus personnalisés peuvent aussi inclure, par exemple, des recommandations de vidéos, une page d’accueil YouTube personnalisée et des annonces adaptées en fonction de votre activité passée, comme les vidéos que vous avez regardées et les contenus que vous avez recherchés sur YouTube. Le cas échéant, nous adaptons également l’expérience en fonction de l’âge de l’utilisateur à l’aide de cookies et de données.
Cliquez sur « Plus d’options » pour afficher plus d’informations, y compris sur la manière de gérer vos paramètres de confidentialité. Vous pouvez aussi consulter la page g.co/privacytools à tout moment.
Nous utilisons des cookies et d’autres données pour :
Si vous cliquez sur « Tout accepter », nous utiliserons également des cookies et d’autres données pour :
Si vous cliquez sur « Tout refuser », nous n’utiliserons pas de cookies pour ces fins supplémentaires.
Les annonces et les contenus non personnalisés dépendent, par exemple, du contenu du site que vous consultez et de votre position (la diffusion d’annonces est basée sur votre position approximative). Les annonces et les contenus personnalisés peuvent aussi inclure, par exemple, des recommandations de vidéos, une page d’accueil YouTube personnalisée et des annonces adaptées en fonction de votre activité passée, comme les vidéos que vous avez regardées et les contenus que vous avez recherchés sur YouTube. Le cas échéant, nous adaptons également l’expérience en fonction de l’âge de l’utilisateur à l’aide de cookies et de données.
Cliquez sur « Plus d’options » pour afficher plus d’informations, y compris sur la manière de gérer vos paramètres de confidentialité. Vous pouvez aussi consulter la page g.co/privacytools à tout moment.
Nous utilisons des cookies et d’autres données pour :
Si vous cliquez sur « Tout accepter », nous utiliserons également des cookies et d’autres données pour :
Si vous cliquez sur « Tout refuser », nous n’utiliserons pas de cookies pour ces fins supplémentaires.
Les annonces et les contenus non personnalisés dépendent, par exemple, du contenu du site que vous consultez et de votre position (la diffusion d’annonces est basée sur votre position approximative). Les annonces et les contenus personnalisés peuvent aussi inclure, par exemple, des recommandations de vidéos, une page d’accueil YouTube personnalisée et des annonces adaptées en fonction de votre activité passée, comme les vidéos que vous avez regardées et les contenus que vous avez recherchés sur YouTube. Le cas échéant, nous adaptons également l’expérience en fonction de l’âge de l’utilisateur à l’aide de cookies et de données.
Cliquez sur « Plus d’options » pour afficher plus d’informations, y compris sur la manière de gérer vos paramètres de confidentialité. Vous pouvez aussi consulter la page g.co/privacytools à tout moment.
A little more than 24 hours after the Vatican released Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas (« Magnificent Humanity »), theologians, clergy members, scholars and others were still digesting the document’s teachings.
In prepared statements, essays, social media posts and interviews with the National Catholic Reporter, several leading lay Catholics, as well as bishops, priests and deacons, mined the encyclical’s multilayered insights on the age of artificial intelligence.
« I am convinced that this will prove to be a defining document for our era, a profound and prophetic document, » said Notre Dame Law School professor Paolo Carozza, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences who studies the intersection of technology and Catholic social thought.
Carozza, who is also the chairman of the oversight board for Meta, told NCR that Magnifica Humanitas is « not just for Catholics, » but said it speaks to the concerns all humanity has in a time when AI not only bears the potential for dramatic transformations in daily life but also raises unsettling questions about what it means to be human.
« This is coupled with a real vacuum of moral leadership on the global stage, » Carozza said. « In that context, Pope Leo is offering a clear, comprehensive, and coherent voice urging us to take responsibility for constructing a world in which technology will serve humans rather than degrade them. »
Holy Cross Fr. Robert Dowd, president of the University of Notre Dame, said in a prepared statement that it was « a deliberate choice » the pope signed his new encyclical on the 135th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII’s landmark 1891 letter that established the modern foundation for Catholic social teaching.
« Just as Leo XIII addressed the disorientation of the industrial revolution, » Dowd said, « Leo XIV calls us to moral clarity and solidarity in the midst of this latest societal transformation, underscoring the urgency of the questions humankind faces. »
Daniel Rober, a Catholic studies professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, told NCR that Leo is using the « AI question » to push back against the modern technocratic paradigm’s framework much in the same way that Francis did with environmental issues in his 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’.
« I thought the use of the word ‘disarming’ around AI was quite an interesting choice of language. That’s clearly a favorite motif of Leo’s, » Rober said. He added that the pope using the encyclical to describe just war theory as « outdated » was also « quite notable. »
« I’ve spoken a lot on Leo as being a pope who will be known for doctrinal development, with the way he speaks to a lot of contested issues that leaves a temporal for future development, » Rober said, specifically pointing out Leo’s apology for the Holy See’s complicity with slavery.
Steven Greydanus, a deacon in the Archdiocese of Newark, wrote on Substack that Leo’s « deprecation » of just war theory was a « bold step forward » that will need further unpacking and discussion but that « could lead to yet another revision of the Catecheism » of the Catholic Church.
Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic who is a proponent of AI technology, told NBC News that he had read « bits and pieces » and scanned summaries of the encyclical.
Advertisement
« What I read of it sounds very profound, and the sort of thing that you would expect and hope from a leader of the church, » Vance said. « The thing about morality is that the principles never change, but the way you apply those principles does, because the world changes, right? »
In Magnifica Humanitas, Rober said, Leo emphasizes the need for accountability and the importance of ongoing internal church discussions to prevent abuses of all kinds.
« I think he wants the church to purify itself to be able to be an effective counter-witness to the negative dynamics you see in the world, » Rober said.
Mary Catherine O’Reilly-Gindhart Simpson, a theologian at St. Joseph University in Philadelphia who studies the clergy sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, told NCR that she sees the encyclical’s discussion of AI’s capability to manipulate images and videos as creating an opening for a new church law that would make it an ecclesial crime to possess digitally created images of child sexual abuse.
« We need a continued conversation about addressing the sexual abuse crisis for artificial images, because that is a new avenue that AI creates, an avenue that we wouldn’t have thought of 20 years ago, » said O’Reilly-Gindhart Simpson, who also noted that the encyclical underscores the link between proclaiming the Gospel and « pursuing a more just social order. » She further highlighted the encyclical’s emphasis on the « value of every human person and their rights » and its potential to further the church’s ongoing debate surrounding the female diaconate.
Brian Patrick Green, director of technology ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, said he sees Magnifica Humanitas issuing a direct challenge to some of the cultural presuppositions in Silicon Valley with its direct critiques of transhumanism.
« I think the world reads that and breathes a sigh of relief and says, ‘Oh good, finally someone said it,' » said Green, who also pointed out the unique manner in which Vatican officials released the encyclical.
« Papal encyclicals are usually not delivered at press conferences with the pope in attendance, so this was really different, » Green said, noting that Leo participated in the press conference with Christopher Olah, the cofounder of the AI firm Anthropic.
« That mutual acceptance of invitation is exactly what we want in this dialogue, » Green said. « I think it’s important to be able to talk and converse on these very difficult subjects. »
In Magnifica Humanitas, Leo does not outright reject artificial intelligence but rather points out that advances in technology arise from « our God-given creativity and free will, » Detroit Archbishop Edward Weisenburger said in an essay published on the archdiocesan website.
« The choice is not between accepting or rejecting advancements, » Weisenburger said. « Rather, the choice is between uses of technology that undermine human dignity or safeguard it. »
Katharina Westerhorstmann, a professor of theology and medical ethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville, said in remarks emailed to NCR that St. Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 12:9 — « Power is made perfect in weakness » — can be viewed as an underlying exhortation in the encyclical.
« The Pope does not condemn technological development, or proper use of artificial intelligence, » she said. « However, he strongly opposes transhumanism and a culture that seeks to overcome human weakness through technological manipulation, by dominating resources, and subduing human nature. »
Magnifica Humanitas, Westerhorstmann added, presents a « biblical, theological, and spiritual approach based [on] the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine to renew the Church`s commitment in the defense of and the love for the human person in all its grandeur and woundedness. »
Though Pope Leo XIV’s nearly 43,000-word teaching document largely looks to the future, warning of the moral risks of humanity’s rapid entry into the age of artificial intelligence, it also revisited two of the church’s most fraught teachings from the past: slavery and war.
Throughout his first encyclical, titled Magnifica Humanitas (« Magnificent Humanity »), the pope used AI as an entry point to articulate the church’s position on broader social issues.
Highlighting the « new forms of slavery » propagated by technological developments — including people condemned to data labeling, model training and content moderation, as well as those who labor to extract rare minerals for tech devices — Leo addressed the church’s own history of complicity with the slave trade. He stated that Catholics cannot « deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce the scourge of slavery. »
« There is a subtle but important movement in the language that the document uses » on slavery, Anna Rowlands, a professor of Catholic social thought at England’s Durham University who participated in the encyclical’s presentation, told reporters after the document’s release. « This text, I think, is Pope Leo trying to say this is a church question; this is a question for the whole church, not just individual Christians. »
In a striking mea culpa, Leo acknowledged the ways in which the Holy See, « responding to requests from Sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, the enslavement of ‘infidels.' »
Several papal bulls issued amid waves of colonization in the 15th-century explicitly authorized the enslavement of non-Christians by Portuguese rulers. It was not until 1839 that Pope Gregory XVI called that slave trade « inhuman » and « unworthy of the Christian name. » The pope’s namesake, Pope Leo XIII, later issued an encyclical on the abolition of slavery in 1888.
Leo XIV, who counts both enslaved people and slaveowners among his ancestors, said that the church’s delayed moral development on the issue of slavery constitutes « a wound in Christian memory, one from which we cannot consider ourselves detached. »
« For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon, » he wrote.
Previous popes have addressed the church’s legacy on slavery, but Leo’s language appears to mark a development in how directly a pope links the church’s moral failures to the institutional church itself, including the role of former popes.
In 1992, St. John Paul II had apologized for the role of Christians in slavery during speeches he gave in Cameroon and Senegal. He asked for pardon on behalf of « men belonging to Christian nations » and called for God’s forgiveness for the sin of slavery « in which some baptized people took part without living out their faith, » but he did not link the apologies as closely to the institution of the church.
Magnifica Humanitas, however, raises questions over « exactly what space [Leo] is trying to lead us into by using the language much more of the church and the implication of his own predecessors’ role [in slavery], » Rowlands said.
« The context of these comments on slavery is looking also at modern slavery now, at contemporary slavery, » she said. The pope is « saying we must not be in a position at some point in the future, [for] a successor of Pope Leo’s, of having to make an apology » for « failing to recognize that there are new forms of slavery and subjugation, new colonialisms, that are connected with the AI and tech moment that we’re in. »
While Pope Francis questioned modern applications of the church’s just war doctrine, Leo, reflecting on how technological developments shape humanity’s practice and understanding of war, clearly affirmed that the church’s teaching on just war must be reconsidered.
Cardinal Michael Czerny, prefect of the Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development, said in response to reporters’ questions on the church’s just war teaching after the encyclical’s presentation that « one cannot talk about just war. »
« There is the right to self-defense, but it is impossible to justify a war, » he said.
Leo did not propose an updated framework for understanding just war in his encyclical, but he wrote that « humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. »
In a modern landscape which amplifies polarization through algorithms and makes war « culturally conditioned through simplistic narratives, » Leo wrote that just war theory « which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. »
Rowlands said that Leo « doesn’t completely repudiate » the church’s teaching on just war in the encyclical, but rather questions the « the moral performance of just war theory, » that is, using the church’s just war framework to too easily justify conflict.
Advertisement
Modern technological developments, she added, puts just war theory « under increased moral pressure. »
« That ‘moral performance’ question is placed under increased pressure when you look at what he talks about as the impersonalization of conflict and the rapidification of ways in which decisions are made. »
Leo wrote at length in the encyclical about the dangers of entrusting lethal decisions in war to AI systems and warned that automation can create the false impression that human actors are less accountable for acts of war.
Just war theory made headlines within the church in the United States after Cardinal Robert McElroy of Washington stated that the U.S.-led war effort in Iran did not meet the moral criteria for a just war.
Vice President JD Vance later publicly questioned the pope’s understanding of the church’s teaching on just war.
In presenting his encyclical at the Vatican, Leo said that artificial intelligence is « dramatically changing how war is waged. »
« Peace, not merely the absence of war, is justice at work, » he said, « but when technology weakens our critical sense, peace itself is at risk. »
The National Catholic Reporter’s Rome Bureau is made possible in part by the generosity of Joan and Bob McGrath.