Posted on 06/07/2026 9:39:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Pope Leo XIV, in his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, compressed here from Paragraphs 163-168, asserts that:
“More than ever, in the age of AI and robotics, it is no longer possible to rely solely on the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. Politics has the task of orientating economies and technologies to the common good ... to ensure equity: taxation, social protection and industrial policies must correct the imbalances created by the concentration of wealth and power” (emphasis mine).
Can the Pope reasonably hope to achieve these aims by relegating Adam Smith’s invisible hand illustration to the dust bin of history?
Pope Francis, Pope Leo’s predecessor, was also skeptical of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" concept in his Apostolic Letter Evangelii Gaudium, despite ample real-world examples that the freer the economy, the less hunger versus less free economies where government edicts allocate goods instead of widespread competition.
“Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?”
asked the Apostle James (Chapter 2, 15-16).
Should it be, however, by government command, which takes away from people the choice about a voluntary action of mercy and charity? In Matthew Chapter 19:21, Matthew writes:
“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
He does not say: "sell and give to an agency to give to the poor."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Today, the debate about Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” illustration rages on, because it has not been recognized as axiomatic, but remains only a theorem. Expensive hypotheses continue to be implemented, which devour human capital and potential. Smith wrote:
“But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can, both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention” (emphasis mine).
Adam Smith points out that all manner of good, prosperity, and fair allocation of resources will happen if we let the invisible hand of the marketplace do its incredible work unimpeded.
He’s a gay Commie. Explains it all.
So papal infallibility now encompasses computer science.
Amazing.
Leo’s personal opinion on economic theory (or that of his ghostwriter) does not belong in a papal encyclical any more than his opinion on whether the Earth revolves around the Sun. Whoever wrote this spent more time babbling about socialist platitudes than discussing the moral dimension of AI.
Hope it doesn’t affect his “me time”. Or do I?
The Pope is a Democrat from Chicago. True fact. Just read into that information and draw your own conclusions.
I trust more in the fairness of impartial market forces - which seek only to minimize friction and maximize profits - than in ideology-bound and hence inherently biased humans.
Regards,
To put it bluntly, a result that happens without the intent to promote the public interest is not good. The fact that under economic theory it necessarily produces the most good is irrelevant. If someone doesn't choose it to be that way, the act is at best accidentally good.
John Paul II's understanding of human action was much better because he valued the opportunity for self-improvement (i.e., freedom) under a market economy as a good in and of itself.
But unfortunately, John Paul II's theology is not widely understood in the Catholic Church, which, as with with most other Western institutions, has fallen under Marxist influence since the 1960s.
I did not say that
Infallibility is a very narrow, specific theological concept that applies only to rare, formal definitions of faith and morals. It definitely does not apply to the Pope’s views on AI, coding standards, or even his economic policies.
When the Vatican speaks on tech, they are offering 'moral advice' for the world. They don't claim it's divinely revealed truth; they claim it’s a perspective on how we can use our tools without losing our humanity.
You can treat his views on AI the same way you’d treat a corporate white paper or an ethical critique from a university professor: you can read it, learn from it, agree with parts of it, and—if you disagree—you are perfectly free to ignore it. No one is expected to treat a Pope's opinion on computer science as an article of faith."
His denial of Adam Smith's philosophy is another, because Smith was consistent with reality AND with Christian principles.
I must be nuts because I believe in capitalism as being consistent with both the Old and New Testaments.
The pope's denial of all that has been established in Western economies over the millenia, and his attachment to economic socialism/Communism, is grossly erroneous and sinful.
He is a stone commie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.