This is the section I keep coming back to, over and over again. The entire argument about AI actually hinges on this understanding of who is human, and how and why, and what it means to be human, and what is and is not part of the human experience. I've read these few paragraphs a half dozen times already. Most of what makes us MOST human can never be optimized.
There won't be suffering in heaven, but that doesn't mean all our infirmities and wounds will disappear. Jesus was resurrected with all His wounds. What if heaven just means those infirmities and wounds aren't limiting anymore—that they aren't inextricably linked to suffering?
"Even when limitations are experienced as inner suffering, human wisdom teaches us not to deny or suppress it, but to integrate it. To eliminate suffering entirely would mean, in the end, extinguishing love and desire as well. Those who love and desire cannot avoid passing through trial and suffering; and over the years, we carry within us lessons that leave their mark like scars, the memories of a journey shaped by freedom and failure, dreams and disappointments. It is only thanks to the interplay of these elements that the wonders of the soul occur within us, allowing us to sense the richness of our humanity. [132] To renounce this adventure, both tragic and splendid, in the name of a presumed transcendence of all limits, could mean many things, but it would no longer be human."
Coming from my self-imposed world of Protestant/evangelical ethics of the body and fertility, this seems absolutely spot on. I've been wrestling with what feels off when we approach the (even potential) hardships associated with all things childbearing in a way that comes eerily close to a secular view of it. This is a hard needle to thread, without sounding callous or glorifying of suffering. But when we resort to, say, sterilization at every potential risk of anything (or in another sense, IVF), we are losing something profound about not just human existence--but a *Christian* one--in many ways. And it's a loss.
I have not finished it, either, but 124-125 is striking to me as a very Leonine* move towards reconciliation and unity. As examples, he raises up both darlings of the American left like Dorothy Day, who worked against systemic injustice; alongside favorite saints of the American right like St Maximilian Kolbe, remembered for their individual heroism. I am very grateful for the Holy Father's gentle insistence that, in everything to come, the lives of the saints are a tapestry of both/and exemplars, not either/or's.
My grandmother died this past week. We were very close, and I managed to visit her the night before her death, despite being warned by an aunt that she was "not the Nanny you remember." (She was indeed in rough condition, but she still recognized me and we exchanged some very heartfelt words.) So, naturally, this is the sentence that stood out to me: "To eliminate suffering entirely would mean, in the end, extinguishing love and desire as well." Exactly right!
(As a Protestant, though, I am puzzled by the reference to the Protestant work ethic in the question prompt.)
As for the Protestant Work Ethic, I was thinking of passages like this:
"It is important to ensure that this growth in appreciation of human dignity is not obscured by the pressure of new ideologies or very powerful interests in today’s world. Among these ideologies, I consider particularly insidious the one that suggests that every person must earn or justify his or her own worth, to the point of attributing greater value to those who are more efficient or effective. From this perspective, persons end up being reduced to a means of achieving results, a resource to be used and exploited, and are no longer recognized as a proper end in themselves who should never be instrumentalized. The value of persons, however, does not depend on what they achieve or produce. "
Where what I'm seeing the pope push back against is the idea you are worth what you do / we can see how you are doing spiritually by your worldly success. Not all Protestants believe this, but it's a particularly American, up by your spiritual bootstraps idea.
I read quite a bit of military history, so his sections about war-making were particularly interesting to me.
I thought §192 was particularly insightful. The already existing “algorithms that reward conflict” condition us toward a conflict mentality, making war an easier option to choose.
“Thus, war is not only fought, but also culturally conditioned through simplistic narratives, a friend-or-foe mentality, disinformation and fear.”
He also says, “Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the ‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.”
I’ve been leaning towards this idea for a while too. Largely thanks to Pope Francis. And also due to how modern war causes incredibly high civilian casualties, even if not intended. World War II, Vietnam, the War on Terror; the civilian deaths either matched or far exceeded military deaths.
Can a “just war” remain so if fought in an unjust manner? In an era of industrial warfare, is it even possible to fight a war justly? (After all, bombs are indiscriminate. We may kill an enemy but usually only along with many others.) I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I do wonder about them.
A lot has changed in the world since St Augustine began formulating a just war theory. How would he articulate his theory if he lived today, in which a button or an AI bot can wipe out thousands of innocents?
I only had a chance to read the introduction so far, and I like what I read so far, but you intrigued me with your prompt about how Pope Leo’s account of human dignity might clash with meritocracy, because I recently read an interesting book that criticizes meritocracy.
The book is “The Tyranny of Merit” by Michael J. Sandel. Sandel argues that meritocracy is not as great or fair as it seems because people who are already fortunate have the greatest advantages, it ignores chance and luck, and it encourages people to be sore losers and sore winners. Sandel also argues that a better way includes taking luck (good and bad) into account and finding and supporting a vision of the common good. He convinced me with his arguments, and I can’t wait to see how Pope Leo’s encyclical discusses dignity and the common good.
This is the section I keep coming back to, over and over again. The entire argument about AI actually hinges on this understanding of who is human, and how and why, and what it means to be human, and what is and is not part of the human experience. I've read these few paragraphs a half dozen times already. Most of what makes us MOST human can never be optimized.
And in Heaven there won't be suffering... but we will still be finite, created beings, living in full communion with the Infinite God.
There won't be suffering in heaven, but that doesn't mean all our infirmities and wounds will disappear. Jesus was resurrected with all His wounds. What if heaven just means those infirmities and wounds aren't limiting anymore—that they aren't inextricably linked to suffering?
This is so beautifully articulated:
"Even when limitations are experienced as inner suffering, human wisdom teaches us not to deny or suppress it, but to integrate it. To eliminate suffering entirely would mean, in the end, extinguishing love and desire as well. Those who love and desire cannot avoid passing through trial and suffering; and over the years, we carry within us lessons that leave their mark like scars, the memories of a journey shaped by freedom and failure, dreams and disappointments. It is only thanks to the interplay of these elements that the wonders of the soul occur within us, allowing us to sense the richness of our humanity. [132] To renounce this adventure, both tragic and splendid, in the name of a presumed transcendence of all limits, could mean many things, but it would no longer be human."
Coming from my self-imposed world of Protestant/evangelical ethics of the body and fertility, this seems absolutely spot on. I've been wrestling with what feels off when we approach the (even potential) hardships associated with all things childbearing in a way that comes eerily close to a secular view of it. This is a hard needle to thread, without sounding callous or glorifying of suffering. But when we resort to, say, sterilization at every potential risk of anything (or in another sense, IVF), we are losing something profound about not just human existence--but a *Christian* one--in many ways. And it's a loss.
I have not finished it, either, but 124-125 is striking to me as a very Leonine* move towards reconciliation and unity. As examples, he raises up both darlings of the American left like Dorothy Day, who worked against systemic injustice; alongside favorite saints of the American right like St Maximilian Kolbe, remembered for their individual heroism. I am very grateful for the Holy Father's gentle insistence that, in everything to come, the lives of the saints are a tapestry of both/and exemplars, not either/or's.
*Can we just start using this?
Thanks for drawing out these passages, Leah. I hadn't read them yet and love them.
My grandmother died this past week. We were very close, and I managed to visit her the night before her death, despite being warned by an aunt that she was "not the Nanny you remember." (She was indeed in rough condition, but she still recognized me and we exchanged some very heartfelt words.) So, naturally, this is the sentence that stood out to me: "To eliminate suffering entirely would mean, in the end, extinguishing love and desire as well." Exactly right!
(As a Protestant, though, I am puzzled by the reference to the Protestant work ethic in the question prompt.)
God grant you consolation as you mourn together.
As for the Protestant Work Ethic, I was thinking of passages like this:
"It is important to ensure that this growth in appreciation of human dignity is not obscured by the pressure of new ideologies or very powerful interests in today’s world. Among these ideologies, I consider particularly insidious the one that suggests that every person must earn or justify his or her own worth, to the point of attributing greater value to those who are more efficient or effective. From this perspective, persons end up being reduced to a means of achieving results, a resource to be used and exploited, and are no longer recognized as a proper end in themselves who should never be instrumentalized. The value of persons, however, does not depend on what they achieve or produce. "
Where what I'm seeing the pope push back against is the idea you are worth what you do / we can see how you are doing spiritually by your worldly success. Not all Protestants believe this, but it's a particularly American, up by your spiritual bootstraps idea.
I read quite a bit of military history, so his sections about war-making were particularly interesting to me.
I thought §192 was particularly insightful. The already existing “algorithms that reward conflict” condition us toward a conflict mentality, making war an easier option to choose.
“Thus, war is not only fought, but also culturally conditioned through simplistic narratives, a friend-or-foe mentality, disinformation and fear.”
He also says, “Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the ‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.”
I’ve been leaning towards this idea for a while too. Largely thanks to Pope Francis. And also due to how modern war causes incredibly high civilian casualties, even if not intended. World War II, Vietnam, the War on Terror; the civilian deaths either matched or far exceeded military deaths.
Can a “just war” remain so if fought in an unjust manner? In an era of industrial warfare, is it even possible to fight a war justly? (After all, bombs are indiscriminate. We may kill an enemy but usually only along with many others.) I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I do wonder about them.
A lot has changed in the world since St Augustine began formulating a just war theory. How would he articulate his theory if he lived today, in which a button or an AI bot can wipe out thousands of innocents?
I only had a chance to read the introduction so far, and I like what I read so far, but you intrigued me with your prompt about how Pope Leo’s account of human dignity might clash with meritocracy, because I recently read an interesting book that criticizes meritocracy.
The book is “The Tyranny of Merit” by Michael J. Sandel. Sandel argues that meritocracy is not as great or fair as it seems because people who are already fortunate have the greatest advantages, it ignores chance and luck, and it encourages people to be sore losers and sore winners. Sandel also argues that a better way includes taking luck (good and bad) into account and finding and supporting a vision of the common good. He convinced me with his arguments, and I can’t wait to see how Pope Leo’s encyclical discusses dignity and the common good.
I really liked that book!
You read it too? Awesome!
Yes, it's always hovering on my "write about this" list.