Jesuit Institute South Africa

11/06/2026

Magnifica Humanitas. The AI Encyclical, which has shaken the tech giants with its urgent and timely message
by Justine Limpitlaw

I don’t think I have ever seen so many non-Catholics, indeed so many entirely irreligious lawyers, policy wonks and tech geeks, refer to and be challenged by Church teachings as they have by Magnifica Humanitas. On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence[1]; the encyclical letter published by Pope Leo XIV on 15 May 2026.

It has sparked an astonishing amount of secular reaction at a time when the entire world, left and right, developed and developing countries, are starting to wake up to the existential challenges posed by AI.

In the past few weeks, the following alarms have been sounded:

Anthropic, one of the largest US AI developers (including Claude), has said[2] that its latest, most advanced systems are beginning to show signs they “could escape human control”. It is said its AI models “are dramatically speeding up the rate at which they teach themselves, removing human input from the process”. Anthropic is proposing a slowdown in building such systems and is proposing global rules to contain them. This followed an April announcement by Anthropic that one of its new models was skilled at detecting software vulnerabilities and could be weaponised by people who wanted to carry out cyberattacks[3].

Anthropic’s warnings resulted, just last week, in the notoriously anti-regulation US President Trump signing a new executive order, “Promoting Advanced AI Innovation and Security”[4], giving the US government access to new AI models for 30 days prior to commercial release to assess any risks they pose.
Anthropic is not an outlier among AI companies in calling for regulation, as OpenAI (the creator of ChatGPT) has now also said that “democratic governments, and not AI companies alone, should determine the rules and safeguards” for AI technologies[5].

While AI is dominated by US and Chinese tech firms, they are not the only countries wrestling with AI regulation. South Africa’s own feeble attempt descended into ridicule and embarrassment for the hapless Department of Communications and Digital Technologies when it turned out that its Draft National AI Policy[6] was itself an AI-generated product and was immediately withdrawn.

The key challenge is how to harness the societal good that can come from AI, including, for example, using AI to develop a vaccine for whole families of viruses akin to the coronavirus, which has successfully passed its first human trial.[7] At the same time, avoiding the very real societal harms that can arise from AI use, which has been the subject of a 2025 civil lawsuit against OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which allegedly encouraged a teen to successfully commit su***de[8].

The Magnifica Humanitas is a dense, forty-page read, grounded in the “Social Doctrine of the Church”, which is made up of various Papal Encyclicals since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. One gets the sense of the teachings over the ages culminating in this guiding of the Church, indeed of the whole of humanity, to meet today’s challenge: the pitting of people against technology and the AI-driven worship of efficiency.

The Encyclical sets out the three foundations of the Social Doctrine[9]:
the human person made in the image of the Triune God
the equal dignity of all human persons
the supreme value of human rights,

and the principles of the Social Doctrine[10]:
the common good
the universal destination of goods
subsidiarity
solidarity
social justice
integral human development.

In my view, it summarises the task at hand with regard to AI as follows[11]:

Justice demands that we prevent the emergence of new forms of exclusion and deprivation of freedoms: individuals and peoples hindered or denied access to basic technologies, communities exposed to invasive surveillance and social groups penalised by opaque algorithms that perpetuate prejudice and discrimination. In the digital age, a just social order guarantees everyone equal access to opportunities, protects the youngest and weakest members of society, combats hate and misinformation and subjects the use of data and technology to public oversight, so that the guiding principle is not solely profit but the dignity of every person and the common good of all people.

Pope Leo warns of a modern-day Tower of Babel that will eventuate if AI is allowed to grow as a construction “that is grandiose, yet fundamentally dehumanising”[12].

The final chapter[13] of the Encyclical is a template of the key challenges and tasks. Essentially, the need to counter the prevailing culture of power and the normalisation of war which has stemmed from the crisis of multilateralism resulting in a multi-polar world “with a prevailing sense of mistrust”.[14] And its replacement with what it calls the “civilisation of love” which “will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanisation”[15]. In particular, Pope Leo calls for dialogue, diplomacy and multilateralism, and for a reinvigoration of international bodies such as the United Nations. He says that “diplomacy must be capable of operating effectively in this new environment, negotiating shared regulations on the use of digital technologies, in order to protect civilisations and the most vulnerable from ‘invisible’ yet real forms of violence”[16].

[1] https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html
[2] Global News Podcast. 5 June 2026 “Anthropic: AI could escape human control” Available at: https://www.bbc.com/audio/play/p0nqck86
[3] https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/
[4] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/06/promoting-advanced-artificial-intelligence-innovation-and-security/
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/podcasts/the-daily/trump-ai-regulation.html
[6] www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202604/54477gen3880.pdf
[7] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/06/260605023357.htm
[8] https://www.techpolicy.press/breaking-down-the-lawsuit-against-openai-over-teens-su***de/
[9] In Chapter Two – paragraphs 46-59.
[10] In Chapter Two – paragraphs 60-85.
[11] In Chapter Two – paragraph 80.
[12] In Chapter Three – paragraph 129.
[13] Chapter 5 “The Culture of Power and the Civilisation of Love”.
[14] Chapter 5 – paragraph 201.
[15] Chapter 5 – paragraph 213.
[16] Chapter 5 – paragraph 225.

Photo credit: https://theway.ie/irish-bishops-reflect-on-pope-leo-s-encyclical-magnifica-humanitas/

04/06/2026

Superpower su***de
by Chris Chatteris SJ

‘Superpower su***de’ is a striking phrase used by the historian of totalitarianism, Professor Timothy Snyder. He argues the United States is in the process of committing ‘superpower su***de’, thanks to the Trump administration’s geopolitical blunders. Two egregious examples are the unwinnable war with Iran and the inexplicable alienation of its traditional allies in Europe.

It occurs to me that the United States is not alone. Witness the fatal self-harm that Putin’s Russia is inflicting upon itself, by hubristically taking on Ukraine in a war which Russia is losing and which is destroying its economy.

The parallelisms between the USA and the Russian Federation are instructive. Both have had the image of their overwhelming military might humiliatingly trashed by lesser but highly motivated and ingenious adversaries. This has been a stupendously costly lesson in dollars for the United States and in rubles and recruits for Russia.

One hopes this is a sobering lesson for other would-be aggressors. I imagine that China’s Xi Jinping is paying close attention as he ponders an invasion of Taiwan. What he notices happening in the Strait of Hormuz and the Black Sea must surely give him pause.

Snyder also mentions an economic ingredient to the US su***de overdose, namely the attempt to put the clock back on energy. One of the most unbelievable pieces of news recently has to be the Trump administration’s payment of over a billion dollars to a French energy company not to build a planned wind farm in the US.

Incredible, but there is a logic to this lunacy. It follows from the administration’s ‘drill baby drill’ policy, and it is also an expression of Trump’s animus against renewables and his quaint belief that he can leverage the US’s leadership in the extraction of shale oil to maintain global economic dominance. The saying attributed to Sheikh Ahmed Yamani comes to mind: “The Stone Age didn’t come to an end because we ran out of stones!”

Putin, too, made the mistake of overreliance on hydrocarbons. He built up a vast war chest through the sale of oil and gas, and he calculated that it would be sufficient to fund a short ‘special military operation’. However, after almost five years, warfare itself has evolved to the point where long-range drones have made significant portions of what is a very inflammable Russian industry vulnerable to attack. Hence, that which fuels the Russian economy is literally going up in smoke.

All wars are horrible, and they often lead to further wars. Obviously, therefore, it would have been better if neither of the two had ever happened. However, it can be argued that there are a few unintended consequences of these two conflicts which offer humankind sobering and useful historical lessons.

Firstly, annexing territory in the face of determined resistance is extremely difficult in the age of drones. Israel is just beginning to discover this in Lebanon. The second is that even the greatest superpower needs allies. The third is that if superpowers use energy as a gambit in waging war, then those affected by scarcity and price rises will naturally seek alternatives.

This double su***de of superpowers might just make the world a safer and greener place. We can but hope and pray.

04/06/2026

Happening TONIGHT. Please register here to receive the link
https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/r3__4J_BSlakD1LuC-qbEw #/registration

03/06/2026

Still time to join us

Register here https://us06web.zoom.us/.../register/r3__4J_BSlakD1LuC-qbEw

02/06/2026

Register here https://us06web.zoom.us/.../register/r3__4J_BSlakD1LuC-qbEw

01/06/2026

The Jesuit Institute is excited to launch the Living Theology 2026 series, "Our Father? The Shadow of Father" with guest speakers David Neuhaus SJ and Kgaugelo Habyane.

When the image of a father is shaped by absence, neglect, or dysfunction, what
happens to our understanding of God?

This three-day Living Theology series is a journey into the history, the wounds, and
the reimagining of fatherhood. Together, we will explore how Scripture, especially the language of “Our Father” has shaped our image of God, and how that image meets the lived realities of fatherhood today.

Through reflection, dialogue, and engagement with Scripture, the Living Theology
creates space to acknowledge both personal and collective woundedness, while
opening pathways toward forgiveness, reconciliation, and integration.

We will explore fatherhood not only as a biological role, but as a social, spiritual, and
communal responsibility. What does it mean to reimagine fatherhood and our relationship with God for the next generation?

This series will benefit those wrestling with their own father-wounds and
struggling to relate to God, especially as Father. It will also be valuable for parents,
guardians, and caregivers seeking to better understand the relational, social, and
biblical dimensions of parenting.

Those involved in youth formation will benefit greatly, as this series can serve as a
resource for supporting young people, particularly those growing up without
consistent father figures.

For more information contact [email protected] or visit the website www.jesuitinstitute.org.za

01/06/2026

Register here https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/r3__4J_BSlakD1LuC-qbEw

28/05/2026

Youth at the crossroads
by Kgaugelo Habyane

I was recently stretched, challenged, and inspired by a rich and provocative dialogue between a diverse group of decolonial activists working across Southern Africa. This encounter among ACT Ubambano, the Church Land Programme, and Isiko Lamaqabane at the Jesuit Institute forced me to stand at a metaphorical crossroads. A space that, as our dialogue revealed, is often crowded and public, yet requires deep, solitary discernment. As I sat with the complexity of this space, I found myself reflecting on two vital markers for our youth: the International Day of the Boy Child on May 16 and South African Youth Day on June 16.

These two days serve as landmarks on what the prophet Jeremiah (6:16) calls the “ancient paths”. For the boy child, the crossroad is often marked by the shadows of a deepening masculinity crisis, wounds of fatherlessness and a search for symbols of a new path that doesn't rely on the compromised pulpits and podiums of the past. For the youth of June 16, the crossroads remain a site of inequality and resistance, where the courage to ask difficult questions often demands vulnerability despite the risk of undesired outcomes. Standing here, we must ask: how do we create a new pathway that is not merely a performance of activism, but a genuine movement toward self and communal agency?

The act of looking requires us to ask difficult questions. The questions we carry orient our attention, shape our actions, and reveal what matters most to us. They help us explore why the body of Christ has sometimes become quiet in the face of adversity and injustice. Yet, as we reflect on the youth of 1976 and some of our recent whistleblowers, we remember that questions have consequences; they can imprison or liberate. In extreme cases, seeking the truth can lead to being silenced, ostracised, or even death. We must interrogate who decides whose voices are heard and who determines which questions are worth responding to.

In our current state of hopelessness and failing legacy systems, there is a danger of falling into the performance of activism. Advocacy can easily become a job or a side hustle rather than a deep-seated vocation. True solidarity, as explored in the ACT Ubambano dialogue, requires a shift from humanitarianism to humanism. It asks us to move away from the pulpits and podiums and instead listen to the voices in the peripheries, the voiceless. This is especially crucial for the boy child, who may be navigating a world of inherited questionable narratives and ways of being while seeking symbols for a new path.

Can we walk new paths without losing our voice? Perhaps the new path is not something we find, but something we create as we walk. This path-making requires new capacities for dealing with uncertainty. It requires a vulnerability that allows us to sit with the complexity of the crossroads without seeking immediate and easy answers.

Ultimately, the goal is to be at home in the dialogue, to recognise that we are not alone at the crossroads. By listening to the marginalised and walking with the excluded, we might finally discover that good and new path that sustains us, even when the systems around us seem to be failing.