Chevalier de la charité

As part of his apostolic trip to Spain and the Canary Islands, Pope Leo XIV arrives to the Catalan city of Barcelona today. Although much of his busy 6-day itinerary is focused on issues tied to the polarized political climate in Spain, his arrival to Barcelona allows for a spiritual reprieve. Tomorrow (June 10) Leo will visit the Sagrada Família (Holy Family) basilica, to inaugurate the newly finished Tower of Jesus Christ: the part of the basilica that officially makes it the tallest Catholic Church in the world (566 feet). 

The visit is timed in recognition of the centenary of the famed Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí, who spearheaded the construction of Sagrada Família for 43 years, until his untimely death in 1926. The Catalan architect and designer was one of the major contributors of Catalan modernisme movement, and his numerous religious projects led to his nickname, « God’s architect. » Gaudí’s complex vision for the famed basilica, as well as his other artistic contributions, reveals why Leo has opted to pay a special visit to one of the most iconic structures in Barcelona.

This trip comes on the heels of the release of Magnifica Humanitas, Leo’s first encyclical, which largely focuses on preserving human dignity in the age of artificial intelligence. The teaching document is also a call to safeguard human creativity in the digital age. Writing about how we can « improve and beautify the world, » Leo calls us all to consider how we can best be communal human collaborators, instead of yielding to automation.

Visiting Sagrada Familia provides Leo with the perfect opportunity to expand on his first major teaching document. In fact, the basilica is a physical demonstration of Leo’s essential message: that creativity and collaboration requires multigenerational thinking and represents the embodiment of what makes us human.

The long process of building Sagrada Família

Construction of Sagrada Família began in 1882, but Gaudí, who had already found widespread acclaim in Barcelona, took over as master architect in 1883. His design was ambitious in scope: calling for the construction of 18 different towers: representing the twelve Apostles, the four Evangelists, the Virgin Mary and Jesus. Facing critics who recognized the magnitude of the project and anticipated timeline of completion, Gaudí joked his « client » (God) was in no hurry. Gaudí abandoned all other projects besides the basilica in 1915. Gaudí was comfortable with the notion that he would not live to see its completion, noting, « There is no reason to regret that I cannot finish the church. I will grow old but others will come after me. » 

His vision of a multigenerational project was reminiscent of medieval builders, who laid the foundation of cathedrals knowing they’d never live to see their dream fully realized. Sadly, on June 7, 1926, Gaudí was hit by a tram and died 3 days later on June 10. Sagrada Família was only about a quarter complete at the time of Gaudí’s death.

Although the Spanish Civil War temporarily halted construction, Sagrada Família continued to rise higher into the Barcelona skyline throughout the 20th century. In his designs for the church, Gaudí capped the height of the yet-to-be-created towers, so that they would never eclipse the nearby mountain Montjuïc, which he said was God’s creation, not a human one. Sagrada Família became known as « the Bible in stone, » as the different towers, carvings, stained glass windows and other decorative features work in harmony to tell biblical stories to the millions of visitors who travel to the basilica each year. 

Jordi Faulí is the ninth and current architect of Sagrada Família, now in its 144th year of construction. Faulí has taken the basilica into the modern era, using 3D software to design and cut mosaic tiles. While his work stands on the shoulders of Gaudí, Faulí also said, « We’re not his disciples, because that’s not possible. But we are his successors, without doubt. Most of all, we’re his collaborators. » Though the completion of the Tower of Jesus Christ in February 2026 makes it now the tallest church in the world, it is still years away from its expected completion.

Papal interest in Gaudí

Pope John Paul II visited Barcelona in 1982 (the first pope to ever to do so). In visiting Sagrada Família, he noted, « The Sagrada Família commemorates another construction made with living stones: the Christian family. » This phrase is now etched in stone on the Nativity façade. The cause for canonization was opened in 2003 during his pontificate. Pope Benedict XVI visited Sagrada Família on Nov. 7, 2010, and consecrated it as a minor basilica. During his homily, Benedict praised Gaudí as « a creative architect and a practicing Christian who kept the torch of his faith alight to the end of his life, a life lived in dignity and absolute austerity. »

Though Pope Francis never made a visit to Spain during his 12-year pontificate, he did appear via video for the 2021 inauguration of the Tower of the Virgin Mary. In this address, Francis asked that his prayers, like everyone’s, « are represented at Mary’s feet on this beautiful Basilica. » Just days before his passing, Francis declared Gaudí « venerable » on April 14, 2025.

Disarming the new Tower of Babel, praising Gaudí’s human innovation 

While we have yet to hear Leo’s remarks when he blesses the Tower of Jesus Christ, it is possible that his comments on human beauty and creation within his first papal encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, can offer a framework for how the new pope appreciates human innovators like Gaudí. While much of the news cycle focused on Leo’s call to « disarm » artificial intelligence, the document is also a call to preserve human-generated creativity.

In the opening paragraphs, Leo discusses the Tower of Babel as a collective human failure. He then exhorts us to abandon such desires so that « humanity will never lose its beauty, and the world once again will come to recognize the human heart as the place where God desires to dwell. » While condemning « Babel syndrome » in the era of artificial intelligence, Leo urges readers to follow Nehemiah and build a « new Jerusalem. » When the pope arrives in Barcelona on June 10 to bless the Tower of Jesus Christ, he is shedding light on a prime example of generations of human creativity and collaboration.

When Gaudí was asked about his legacy, he observed, « What must always be conserved is the spirit of the work, but its life has to depend on the generations it is handed down to and with whom it lives and is incarnated. » It’s fair to think that he would embrace Leo’s stance on human creativity within Magnifica Humanitas. Leo places humanity at a critical juncture, whether to build a new Tower of Babel or « build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. » Gaudí’s vision for Sagrada Família is the latter, in praise of God but a product of human labor and creativity. 

On this week’s episode of « The Nonviolent Jesus Podcast, » I speak with beloved spiritual writer Sr. Joyce Rupp. An international retreat leader and conference speaker, Rupp is the author of three dozen bestselling books on compassion, grief, aging in midlife and in the later years, prayers and poems for every occasion, reflections on nature, and a memoir.

Among her bestsellers are Boundless Compassion; Return to the Root; Jesus, Guide of My Life; Constant Hope; Dear Heart Come Home; Praying Our Goodbyes; Inviting God In; and Walk in a Relaxed Manner. Orbis Books also published Joyce Rupp: Essential Writings.

Rupp is a member of the Servite community (Servants of Mary), was a volunteer for hospice for 15 years, and lives in West Des Moines, Iowa.

« Elderhood is really all about surrender, » she said while discussing her new book, The Years of Ripening. « But I like the word ‘acceptance’ better. I find the aging process quite exciting: so many opportunities for spiritual growth! We’re surrendering our physical limitations, our relationships, our ego challenges, and ourselves into the mystery of faith. »

« Jesus becomes vulnerable in the Gospels, » she continued. « As we become older, we become more vulnerable. … We have to start with self-compassion. Without that, we will not be compassionate to others. Acceptance and being with the process of surrender and letting go lead us to being at home in the heart of God. We can’t give in to discouragement. It doesn’t get us anywhere. » 

Listen to the full episode here. 

The last time Pope Leo XIV departed for an international trip, to kick off his tour through Africa, he made headlines while airborne by responding to journalists about the digital diatribe launched against him by President Donald Trump just hours before takeoff. 

This time, en route to Madrid to begin a seven-day visit to Spain June 6, the topic of conversation shifted in a decidedly different direction: sports. 

Chicago White Sox paraphernalia has become a staple at the pope’s general audience, and political leaders including Vice President JD Vance and Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson have gifted the pope sports gear, demonstrating the wide range of peoples’ desire to connect with the somewhat inscrutable Leo through the most ordinary and popular of passions.

That disarming desire extended, too, to the more than 70 journalists accompanying Leo on his flight to Spain and who are still, 13 months into the pontificate, trying to decipher him. Among conversation and questions that included the serious (the pope lamented the « open wound » of abuse within the church) and the blatantly banal, sports were sprinkled in throughout the pope’s airborne interactions. 

As the pope began to make his way down the tight plane aisle with about 30 minutes left on his two-and-a-half hour flight, the pope’s exchanges with journalists typically consisted of small talk, requests for personal blessings and well-wishes for safe travels. But the subject almost immediately turned to the soccer World Cup, which will begin during Leo’s trip to Spain on June 11. 

Veteran Vatican journalist Valentina Alazraki, from Mexico, gifted Leo a Mexican soccer jersey with « León » across the back and number 14. The pope said he hoped the World Cup would be a source of unity. 

Leo previously said in an interview that he would root for Peru and Italy in the World Cup, but neither team qualified for this year’s tournament. On the plane he said that he would see who he would root for and that he hoped to watch some matches. 

Toward the back of the plane, however, someone more directly asked Leo if would support the United States in the World Cup. 

« I will certainly support the U.S., though I am not sure how many games I will be able to see, » he said. 

The pope’s brother, John Prevost, told the National Catholic Reporter that Leo would typically watch international soccer matches while spending his summers in the United States. 

Asked again about soccer en route to Madrid, the pope was asked to weigh in on one of European soccer’s most intense rivalries, between Spanish clubs Real Madrid and F.C. Barcelona — both cities that are destinations on his trip through Spain. 

« The pope is for all teams, » he said with a smile, « but Prevost is (for) Real Madrid. » 

Leo was also asked to weigh in on tentative plans for the Chicago Bears to build a stadium and move to Hammond, Indiana. « That’s out of my pay (scale), » he said.

And while the world is already well-aware of the Southside Chicago pope’s affinity for the White Sox, I had a different sports request when my turn came to shake Leo’s hand. 

« Your Chicago White Sox play my Philadelphia Phillies today, » I told Leo. « If you could hold off on your prayers for Chicago, that would go a long way. » 

In response I got a belly laugh.  

After taking a beat to think over his answer, the pope said: « God has a different vision of sports than we do; however, Sox are doing pretty well this year. » 

Bishop Robert Barron recently participated in the « Rededicate 250 » celebration on the National Mall. It was an odd event. Barron took the occasion of his visit to Washington to give interviews, two of which showed signs of intelligent life and signs of ideological co-optation.

« The roots of our country are deeply religious and I would argue the basic principles of the country are inescapably religious and I think we’re here to celebrate that, » Barron told EWTN News’ Colm Flynn. The argument got a bit weird. He noted that in Lincoln’s handwritten draft of the Gettysburg Address, the words « under God » did not appear, that Lincoln had written only « that his nation might have a new birth of freedom » and added the phrase « under God » spontaneously when delivering the remarks. 

« So, you say, this is just pious decoration. No, no, no, » Barron asserted. « I think it represented a deep intuition that Lincoln had that you can’t really understand our democracy without it. » He said the phrase « under God » was « meant to hold off tyranny. » He explained that in the ancient world most political orders deified their rulers, but not Israel which believed all rulers were « under God, » subject to divine judgment, « and our founders understood that. »

There is a lot to unpack here. First, let’s give Barron a bit of credit for acknowledging that a belief in God should prevent any deification of a political ruler, though he might have paused when he said that and offered a knowing look to his audience. We are left wondering if he understood the irony.

Second, it was President Dwight Eisenhower, not Lincoln, who said, « Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. » Unlike Lincoln, Eisenhower was not particularly articulate and his expertise was in managing invasions, not navigating complex issues of religion and politics.

Barron’s historical sensibilities are rough around the edges. He cites nothing in Lincoln’s writings, nor in writings about Lincoln, to suggest his interpretation of the decision to add « under God » was not just a rhetorical flourish. Lincoln certainly was one of the most profound theological thinkers to ever live in the White House but he was also an expert wordsmith.

It is the case that Lincoln and all the founders all believed in some sort of providence, that the world was not devoid of meaning. The Deists among them had the most remote understanding of providence, a belief that God set the world in motion but did not interfere beyond having ordained the laws of physics and nature. At the other end of the spectrum, the one Catholic signer, Charles Carroll, obviously believed God continued to show up in human affairs. The Rev. John Witherspoon was a Protestant minister who was also sympathetic to parts of the Scottish Enlightenment, and he would have been somewhere between the two poles.

The founders were all believers in some sense and they also lived in a place and time in which Christian ethical understandings were in the air they breathed. There was yet no utilitarianism, no existentialism, no libertarianism in the ambient culture. But distinctions between Deists and orthodox Christians were, and are, profound in reckoning human responsibilities and rights, and Barron always seems to lump everyone together. Citations to the founders should acknowledge the founders had many different perspectives and ideas and often clashed profoundly. The « intent of the founders » was rarely univocal and uncomplicated.

Later, discussing the totalitarian regimes of the last century, Barron claims that the first move of tyrants « typically » is to « get rid of religion. » Actually, it is usually political opponents and organized labor that are the first to go when a tyrant takes power. As for religion, many tyrants co-opt it, as Franco did in fascist Spain, and others make a truce with the organizations of religion while undermining their wellsprings as Hitler did in Nazi Germany. Only in Soviet Russia was religion first on the chopping block, along with political opponents and aristocrats.

In an interview with The Washington Post’s Adam O’Neal, Barron was asked if America is a Christian nation. He explained that if the phrase meant any kind of establishment of religion, the answer is no, but « If they mean there are principles that are derived from the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition that are essential to our democracy, I would say, ‘yeah.’ « 

The claim would be unobjectionable if he acknowledged the role of liberalism in the founding which is, of course, historically inaccurate. Most of the founding fathers were familiar with the writings of John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers who argued that the government received its legitimacy not from the church nor from any organic natural law, but from the consent of the governed. To fail to even mention liberalism in this context is like trying to cook in a French restaurant with no butter. It can’t be done.

The omission is also strange given the fact that Catholicism is the one religion which, like liberalism, proposes a universal ethic. The Torah tells Jews how to organize their own community. The Church of England is, well, the Church of England, not the Church of France or Spain. At the time of the founding, both French and Austrian Catholicism were suffering Gallicanism and Josephism respectively, both of which were attempts by the crown to garner more authority over the local Catholic churches, but those efforts failed. Liberalism insisted that all human beings were endowed by the same rights just as Catholicism insists that all human beings are endowed with the same dignity.

Barron went on to say in the EWTN interview that in our time, some people think that « any mention of religion in a public context is an establishment of religion. » Barron added that the phrase « Christian nationalism » is « a slippery term … I don’t even know what it means. » I agree with him about the slippery quality of the term « Christian nationalism, » but the bishop’s comments about religious establishments seemed premised on another historical misunderstanding. He said that the founders opposed religious establishments because, under Britain, they had experienced an establishment. Actually, several founders wanted an establishment, only at the state level, not the federal. In Virginia, Patrick Henry lost his struggle to have the Anglican church established in his state, but in New England, religious establishments continued into the mid-19th century.

My frustration with Barron is always the same: He is very smart, capable of discussing complex historical and ideological realities, but he too often reverts to bumper sticker slogans that are false and, worse, unhelpful. He can do better, but doesn’t. 

Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas makes several key theological and moral claims that have significant implications for human flourishing in the age of artificial intelligence.

According to Leo, humans flourish when they enjoy personal health and well-being, practice the virtues, engage in dignified work, enjoy leisure and cultivate friendship with God and neighbor. This vision contrasts with the technocratic paradigm, which views technology as the source of all human goods. The contrast becomes especially clear when Leo’s vision is set alongside the hopes that animate many of today’s most enthusiastic advocates of AI.

Techno-optimists like Ray Kurzweil yearn for a posthuman future involving the complete digitization of the person’s essence, which is nothing more than one’s ideas and information. Kurzweil argues that AI can free the person from biology and the inevitable decline and death that organic beings suffer. Only when the person’s information is captured in silicone will they be optimized and achieve the technological divinization that AI promises to inaugurate.

While transhumanism and posthumanism see a person’s humanity as a problem to overcome, Leo’s vision affirms the creatureliness and finitude of human personhood. He teaches that finitude opens us to relationship with God and others. Because humans are finite and dependent on others, no one can journey through life alone. In God’s great providence, God creates human beings with limitations that drive them to need, and hopefully care for, one another. 

The embodied person, with all their limits and sufferings, is not to be surpassed through technological interventions, but an intrinsically valuable creature of God, who « flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them. » Consider that paradigmatic acts of flourishing involve meeting others’ needs. Doctors and nurses flourish in caring for patients, while parents flourish when caring for children. We all flourish when we forgive those who have sinned against us, feed the hungry, accompany the dying and help a neighbor in need. We flourish not only by performing these acts, but by being recipients of them. Being cared for, forgiven, fed, accompanied and helped are also instances of flourishing because humans are fulfilled in relationships of mutuality.

Giving and receiving care for the imperfections that mark the human condition is at the core of human flourishing. Aristotle reminds us that the flourishing of a creature is related to its nature. The conditions for a dog’s flourishing are not the same as those for a dogwood tree. Human beings, as finite and flawed creatures, flourish by loving God, self and neighbor in light of their limitations because these are indelible aspects of human nature. 

Because posthumanists aim to free the person from their mortal coil, their target is not human flourishing, but rather, the optimization of a disembodied human consciousness. Posthumanism does not promise the enhancement of human persons, but rather, their annihilation. 

Leo recognizes that the longings for flourishing and transcendence embedded in the thought of AI-utopians like Kurzweil speak to the universal human desire for more than this life can offer. However, instead of a technological divinization, Leo contends that grace is the answer to the yearning for more. Echoing St. Thomas Aquinas, he writes, « When we embrace the possibility of transcending ourselves through God’s grace, we do not deny our nature, nor do we become less human. » Human beings are fulfilled by being drawn out of themselves, by God, to befriend God and others. Leo’s spiritual father, St. Augustine, recognized that happiness is a relational reality when he wrote in Confessions, « You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you. » Humans flourish with God, not alone.

AI, inequality and flourishing

Leo also invites us to ask: who will flourish in the age of AI? Will AI reduce or exacerbate the scandalous levels of poverty and inequality in the world? In one of the most important passages of the encyclical, Leo rejects the techno-optimist dogma that AI will produce a rising tide that lifts all boats. He writes: 

While some regions spend heavily on superfluous interventions or dreams of individual enhancement accessible only to a select few, other parts of the world lack the essential equipment needed to save millions of human lives. To think that new technologies will automatically benefit everyone is to ignore the evidence. Unless transformations at the design stage prioritize the prevention of new and further disparities, technological progress will inevitably produce structural inequalities.

It is a profound injustice that while the privileged leverage AI for human enhancements and even a posthuman future, others starve, die of preventable and curable diseases, and live stunted and diminished lives. Magnifica Humanitas underscores that God intends the goods of the earth and cultural products to support the health and well-being of every person. The universal destination of goods extends to AI, which should be developed and distributed to promote the flourishing of every person, especially those whose basic needs are unmet. AI is not exempt from this moral guideline and must be evaluated in light of it. 

AI, work and flourishing 

As expected, Magnifica Humanitas considers how AI transforms human work. The encyclical emphasizes that human beings can flourish through their work. Leo does not present an idealized portrait of work, recognizing that work is often oppressive and that « new forms of slavery » have emerged in relation to digital supply chains. 

However, following St. John Paul II, Leo notes that work is a necessary part of a fulfilling life. People develop skills, discover interests, exercise and extend capacities, cultivate moral virtues, and foster friendships through their work. It is through work that human beings contribute to the common good. 

Leo’s intervention here is important, as AI developers such as Elon Musk claim that work will be « optional » in the coming decades. Bill Gates predicts that by 2035, human physicians will be obsolete due to AI-powered robots. Because labor is a necessary part of a flourishing life, a world without work is not a utopia; it is a nightmare. 

Some AI commentators have suggested that AI-related job displacement will create post-work societies, which will need to institute a universal basic income for residents. Although Leo is in favor of « financial assistance to the poor … in emergencies, » he rejects the claim that such assistance should be the normal mode by which people provide for themselves and their families. Earning a wage that enables oneself and one’s children to develop produces a healthy sense of accomplishment and self-esteem. In addition, many people experience work as an act of love for others. Why do we work? In part, we work for our children and all those who depend on us for their own flourishing. A society that fails to provide individuals opportunities to work is impoverished on multiple levels.

Pope Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas invites readers to reflect on how AI can both contribute to and threaten human flourishing. The pope surfaces important moral values and personal and social realities that the human community considers as it discerns the role of AI in society.