chris

“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. 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.” Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas (par. 120) (May 15, 2026)

On the eve of the new encyclical, here are some of the questions that I will bring to a first reading: How explicitly does it relate itself to, echo, or extend Rerum Novarum? What other papal documents of the last 100 years will it most rely on? Gaudium et Spes? Others? How philosophical is it? (I.e., does it mostly appeal to natural reason, or to a signifant degree also on specifically Christian revelation?) How much does it draw on Thomas Aquinas? What other thinkers, if any, does it treat as helpful or authoritative? Will its anthropology attempt to relate itself to that of John Paul II? Will it explicitly attempt to display a continuity of thought with all three previous popes? In addressing man’s social nature, how much will it articulate a social or even political philosophy? Will there be anything in it to continue some earlier pope’s efforts to provide a “hermeneutic key” to Vatican II? What Biblical stories, imagery, etc. will it find useful to advance its arguments? On AI, will it seek to carve out a “middle path,” and warn of dangers on the side of eager adoption and extreme opposition? Also on AI, will it formulate specific principles? Offer practical counsel? Will it find any particular saints as apt models? Will it end with an invocation of Mary, and if so what Marian virtues specifically will it emphasize?

On the eve of the new encyclical, here are some of the questions that I will bring to a first reading: How explicitly does it relate itself to, echo, or extend Rerum Novarum? What other papal documents of the last 100 years will it most rely on? Gaudium et Spes? Others? How philosophical is it? (I.e., does it mostly appeal to natural reason, or to a signifant degree also on specifically Christian revelation?) How much does it draw on Thomas Aquinas? What other thinkers, if any, does it treat as helpful or authoritative? Will its anthropology attempt to relate itself to that of John Paul II? Will it explicitly attempt to display a continuity of thought with all three previous popes? In addressing man’s social nature, how much will it articulate a social or even political philosophy? Will there be anything in it to continue some earlier pope’s efforts to provide a “hermeneutic key” to Vatican II? What Biblical stories, imagery, etc. will it find useful to advance its arguments? On AI, will it seek to carve out a “middle path,” and warn of dangers on the side of eager adoption and extreme opposition? Also on AI, will it formulate specific principles? Offer practical counsel? Will it find any particular saints as apt models? Will it end with an invocation of Mary, and if so what Marian virtues specifically will it emphasize?

When you assess the takes on Magnifica Humanitas in the coming weeks look first at the quality of the questions. Not just “ai good or bad?” I fully expect most of the armchair framing to be overly focused on issues that are way too imminent.

Imagine being this early

Who in the Bible prayed to Mary like Catholics do?

Future books will be written monk-mode, by hand, completely offline, in digital monasteries purpose-built for focus.

At the New Polity Conference, Andrew Willard Jones just gave the best account of the hierarchical order of creation I've heard. He argued that Aristotle's view of hierarchy is ironically based on excessive egalitarianism (the view that everyone should be equal and if they aren't, they are defective and fit only to be means to the end of those on the top), whereas in St. Thomas's view of hierarchy (based on creation ex nihilo), inequality is essential to the common good of the universe and each individual part is also ordered to the final end of the whole - God is directly connected to every part of the hierarchy, not just the top. And more gifts are given downward than upward - each part receives more than it gives from above and, looking down, gives more than it receives. Nonetheless, Aristotle was right to observe that inequality is everywhere and necessary for the good of the whole, but his understanding of its function is profoundly different from that of St. Thomas. Jones did not even need to make explicit how this Thomistic view applies to the talk's theme of hierarchy between men and women, because the implications were clear. (The talk was titled "Not Unequal Enough: The Egalitarianism of Aristotle's Treatment of Women".) He perfectly expressed my entire worldview and richly deserved the standing ovation he received.

Imagine thinking you could pick better than God. You would choose a Frankenstein-ass child who would be smart (sure) but would come with a slew of other traits you’d regret engineering. Then you throw away 30 children and live your whole life wondering if you made the right decision.

A friend of mine had her embryos screened by Herasight and they found one with an IQ score in the 99.99th percentile

Christopher Alexander does this crazy thing. He asks you what you like. You tell him, and then he patiently explains that you’re wrong, you actually like what he likes. The funny thing is, he’s right. You don’t like what you like. You like the timeless way.

The challenge we face is that of *desire* oriented ultimately to love (caritas). We can in someway know the ends (telos) and the anthropology perfectly and still not have life abundant, still not be fully alive. Satan himself is the prime example. He knows full well the ontological and anthropological stakes, better than any human could without a singular grace from God. But he lacks love.