NEWS: July 22, 2026
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bird’s Eye View of the News
MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS, PROS & CONS - I –
As I finished reading Magnifica humanitas – MH – I had a sensation of relief: That chaotic dust storm which characterized the ensemble of Pope Bergoglio’s documents is over! This is an ordered document, with well-arranged chapters and a pertinent conclusion. What a luxury after 12 years of contradictions, confusions, temperamental outbursts and violent imprecations! Leo XIV pays tribute to an important but forgotten characteristic of our humanitas: its rationality. I thank him for this charity.
I could not make this eulogy regarding its length. The Pope could have said the same thing in a much shorter work. It would be much more accessible to the “people of God.” By writing a long document he restricts his audience to an elite accustomed to read and study. It is not very “synodal,” is it?
/bev318_L13.jpg)
Leo XIV says that he is inspired by Leo XIII’s
Rerum novarum. Wonderful! However, regarding length, Rerum novarum has 64 paragraphs and 40 footnotes while Magnifica humanitas has 245 paragraphs and 224 footnotes… About four times the size of that famous encyclical! Let us hope that with time the apprentice will come closer to his master…
Normally letter encyclicals are addressed to the Bishops, to the entire Catholic world or to a specific part of it. The name letter seems to demand that the addressee be mentioned at the beginning. Well, Leo XIV forgets to mention to whom he is addressing his encyclical. I had to wait until the end of his Introduction at §16 to discover that he is making “a heartfelt appeal to all the Catholic faithful, to all Christians and to all men and women of good will.”
So, this encyclical hardly has the form of an encyclical, but rather of a book or a university thesis. I am not sure whether this is the fruit of a calculated purpose to fulfill a progressivist agenda, or if it was an accident caused by the fact that the present-day Vatican officials who help the Pope write his documents have forgotten how to name and present the Church’s documents.
In my first reading of MH, these are observations that caught my attention regarding its form.
The general approach
Previous to Vatican II the Popes addressed their audiences as Kings, Fathers or Masters, since in fact they were. Convinced that Our Lord Jesus Christ is God and founded the Catholic Church as the unique seat of the whole Truth, they acted as Vicars of Christ. From that height they taught their inferiors.
Even the so-called Social Encyclicals of Leo XIII, Pius XI and the numerous social documents and allocutions of Pius XII were inspired by that background of Faith. Just as Catholic Morals is the translation of the principles of the Gospel to the customs, Social Doctrine is the translations of those principles to the needs of the workers.
/bev318_Rat.jpg)
After John XXIII and Paul VI, however, the Popes became ashamed of saying that the Catholic Church is the only depositary of the Truth, the only guardian of Revelation and the only road to Salvation. They apostatized from these dogmas and embraced Religious Indifferentism, which affirms that all religions share the truth and are similar ways to salvation. Therefore, the principles they adopted to judge situations and indicate solutions are based upon another set of criteria that comes from the Philosophy of the Enlightenment and have gone far astray from the Catholic Faith.
Leo XIV is a faithful echo of this infidelity. Indeed, in MH he states:
“Understanding that the truth is a gift to be shared, not a possession to be monopolized, frees the Church from the temptation of seeking forms of presence based on power. … In this same vein, I too have reaffirmed that the Church “does not claim to possess a monopoly on truth,” because truth is not a territory to be defended, but a good to be shared. … What matters most is not occupying positions of power or defending cultural strongholds, but initiating good processes and enabling them to mature. In this way, the truth of the Gospel is not imposed from above, but grows over time within the concrete interweaving of lives, communities and cultures. This is not a truth that fears diversity, but instead welcomes and guides it.” (§ 25)
Further on he again emphasizes that the Church should not be the Mistress of Catholics but their servant:
“Living out justice in the Church means purifying ecclesial relationships and structures from distortions that give rise to inequality, lack of transparency and abuse of power. … All authority is at the service of the People of God. This ministry of service is expressed not only through our faith celebrated and lived in the Sacraments, and in the adoption of a synodal style, but also in the concrete sharing of goods. Following the example of the early Church, ecclesial resources need to be shared so that no one among us may be in need (cf. Acts 4:34) …” (§ 89)
Therefore, the Catholic Church passed from being the majestic Queen to a subservient Servant, from the wise Master of the Truth to an ignorant apprentice, from the firm and militant Depositary of the Revelation to a wobbly and tolerant investigator.
I hope my reader realizes that this change of approach is an 180 degree Revolution against the previous two millennia teaching about the Catholic Church orienting society.
New set of criteria
Since they rejected the previous approach of the Church, where did the Conciliar Popes go to find the new principles to orient their social teaching? To the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. It is shocking! Yes indeed, but I can guarantee you that I am not making this up; it is an objective statement taught by Leo XIV in MH:
/bev318_Pius6.jpg)
“The Church gratefully acknowledges that ‘the movement toward the identification and proclamation of human rights is one of the most significant attempts to respond effectively to the inescapable demands of human dignity.’ In this regard, Saint John Paul II stated that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, remains one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time. It is ‘a milestone on the long and difficult path of the human race.’ For this reason, from the Christian perspective, human rights are not an external addition to the person, but an expression of intrinsic human dignity, which the international community is called to protect and promote.” (§ 54, cf. §§ 123, 189)
Now then, we know that the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights of the UN is a rendition of the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of the French Revolution. The latter, which had been approved in 1789, was incorporated in the Constitution by the French National Assembly in 1791, and soon it was condemned by Pope Pius VI in his Brief Quod aliquantum with these words:
“The necessary effect of the Constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only ensures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.”
We can see, therefore, that Leo XIV in Magnifica humanitas adopts those condemned principles to teach as if they were Catholic. They are not Catholic, but rather the principles of the enemies of the Church set out by the Enlightenment.
These are some of my initial observations on Magnifica humanitas. I hope to continue my analysis soon.
Continued
I could not make this eulogy regarding its length. The Pope could have said the same thing in a much shorter work. It would be much more accessible to the “people of God.” By writing a long document he restricts his audience to an elite accustomed to read and study. It is not very “synodal,” is it?
Leo XIV does not look like
the perfect disciple of Leo XIII
Normally letter encyclicals are addressed to the Bishops, to the entire Catholic world or to a specific part of it. The name letter seems to demand that the addressee be mentioned at the beginning. Well, Leo XIV forgets to mention to whom he is addressing his encyclical. I had to wait until the end of his Introduction at §16 to discover that he is making “a heartfelt appeal to all the Catholic faithful, to all Christians and to all men and women of good will.”
So, this encyclical hardly has the form of an encyclical, but rather of a book or a university thesis. I am not sure whether this is the fruit of a calculated purpose to fulfill a progressivist agenda, or if it was an accident caused by the fact that the present-day Vatican officials who help the Pope write his documents have forgotten how to name and present the Church’s documents.
In my first reading of MH, these are observations that caught my attention regarding its form.
The general approach
Previous to Vatican II the Popes addressed their audiences as Kings, Fathers or Masters, since in fact they were. Convinced that Our Lord Jesus Christ is God and founded the Catholic Church as the unique seat of the whole Truth, they acted as Vicars of Christ. From that height they taught their inferiors.
Even the so-called Social Encyclicals of Leo XIII, Pius XI and the numerous social documents and allocutions of Pius XII were inspired by that background of Faith. Just as Catholic Morals is the translation of the principles of the Gospel to the customs, Social Doctrine is the translations of those principles to the needs of the workers.
Benedict XVI bowing to the United Nations Assembly
Leo XIV is a faithful echo of this infidelity. Indeed, in MH he states:
“Understanding that the truth is a gift to be shared, not a possession to be monopolized, frees the Church from the temptation of seeking forms of presence based on power. … In this same vein, I too have reaffirmed that the Church “does not claim to possess a monopoly on truth,” because truth is not a territory to be defended, but a good to be shared. … What matters most is not occupying positions of power or defending cultural strongholds, but initiating good processes and enabling them to mature. In this way, the truth of the Gospel is not imposed from above, but grows over time within the concrete interweaving of lives, communities and cultures. This is not a truth that fears diversity, but instead welcomes and guides it.” (§ 25)
Further on he again emphasizes that the Church should not be the Mistress of Catholics but their servant:
“Living out justice in the Church means purifying ecclesial relationships and structures from distortions that give rise to inequality, lack of transparency and abuse of power. … All authority is at the service of the People of God. This ministry of service is expressed not only through our faith celebrated and lived in the Sacraments, and in the adoption of a synodal style, but also in the concrete sharing of goods. Following the example of the early Church, ecclesial resources need to be shared so that no one among us may be in need (cf. Acts 4:34) …” (§ 89)
Therefore, the Catholic Church passed from being the majestic Queen to a subservient Servant, from the wise Master of the Truth to an ignorant apprentice, from the firm and militant Depositary of the Revelation to a wobbly and tolerant investigator.
I hope my reader realizes that this change of approach is an 180 degree Revolution against the previous two millennia teaching about the Catholic Church orienting society.
New set of criteria
Since they rejected the previous approach of the Church, where did the Conciliar Popes go to find the new principles to orient their social teaching? To the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. It is shocking! Yes indeed, but I can guarantee you that I am not making this up; it is an objective statement taught by Leo XIV in MH:
Pius VI condemned as monstrous the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen
Now then, we know that the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights of the UN is a rendition of the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of the French Revolution. The latter, which had been approved in 1789, was incorporated in the Constitution by the French National Assembly in 1791, and soon it was condemned by Pope Pius VI in his Brief Quod aliquantum with these words:
“The necessary effect of the Constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only ensures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.”
We can see, therefore, that Leo XIV in Magnifica humanitas adopts those condemned principles to teach as if they were Catholic. They are not Catholic, but rather the principles of the enemies of the Church set out by the Enlightenment.
These are some of my initial observations on Magnifica humanitas. I hope to continue my analysis soon.
Continued
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |