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 ...
|
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. |
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.
The Pope has a Cassandra syndrome. She was given the gift of prophesy by the gods but also tormented since nobody would believe her. The Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, and has no idea how faith and morals differ from science.
Anyone who still thinks there is an “invisible hand” in the market in this age of fascism and crony “capitalism” is delusional.
Mt 19:21 is quoted out of context.
Jesus first asserts that only one person is good (him) (all others fall short). (verse 17)
He then says, to enter the kingdom of heaven, keep the commandments.
The young rich then says “which ones?” Are you kidding me? The ones handed down by Moses at Mount Sinai. The ones written by the very finger of God. The 10 f’n commandments! (I paraphrase) (verses 18-20)
Now what does the young rich man say? He says he has done these things from his youth. What more need I do? (Verse 21)
Jesus says, “to be perfect ... “ the part you quote.
The literal translation is that there actually are some among us who are perfect (in which case we would have to reconcile this verse with the verse saying nobody is perfect [except Jesus] and all fall short of the glory of God).
The way I interpret this verse is Jesus using exaggeration to make a point.
How about you (or anybody else)? Are you called to this kind of service, or are you called to be the head of a household, a manager of property, etc., etc.? God knows we need all of these and many more? All of these callings are good. We need fishers of men and we need fishers of fish.
And, as for this perfection business, don’t worry about it. Your perfection comes from the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. You don’t want to fall into the trap of holier than thou. Just be attentive to God’s calling whether something big like one of the Gospel writers, or something small like Saint Theresa the Little Flower. And, if it is God’s will that you be a martyr, I’ll just say, you don’t have to worry about that either.
The chart in Figure 1 presents what you call a delusion.
https://blogs.darden.virginia.edu/brunerblog/2024/11/is-capitalism-broken/
Just a point of clarification:
Papal infallibility is not a claim that the Pope is omniscient or that everything he says is divinely inspired. It is a highly specific, restricted charism that applies only when the Pope speaks ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter) on matters of faith and morals intended for the entire Church.
Infallibility does not apply to scientific analysis, technological projections, or specific economic policy proposals. When a Pope writes about AI, robotics, or market mechanisms, he is engaging in the exercise of the “social magisterium.” This is considered a form of prudential judgment—an application of Christian values to temporal events—rather than an infallible dogma.
” has no idea how faith and morals differ from science.” — he is talking about the application of the science to daily life, not about the fundamentals of DS
In this view, if science asks “Can we do this?”, the Church views its role as asking “Should we do this, and what are the consequences for the human person?” The argument is that ignoring the ethical dimensions of technology is a failure of morality, not an adherence to science.
That's clearly not the case. The pope is fallible even in matters to Peter. If what Pope Leo or any other pope says ever disagrees with the teachings of Peter, I side with Peter any day (aside from when Scripture itself fusses at Peter, ala Galatians 2:11-14).
This is my Pope
This is my Pope
Tak jest!
*****
Except when romans don't like what the pope says or does.
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.