What Is Man That Thou Art Mindful of Him?
Catholic Social Teaching's Anthropological Response to Artificial Intelligence
This is the term paper that I wrote for the “Documents of Vatican II” class I took this past summer semester through the Byzantine Catholic Seminary of Saints Cyril and Methodius. You can download the pdf version of it here:
Introduction
"What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: And hast set him over the works of thy hands."1
Artificial intelligence represents both a dramatic culmination of human technological progress and a remarkable challenge to Christian theological anthropology. As machines increasingly perform tasks once considered uniquely human, the Church faces the urgent task of articulating what remains irreducibly human. This paper argues that Catholic Social Teaching provides the necessary anthropological framework for this process of discernment. Through the examination of intelligence as the unique gift of God to man, human work as the act of co-creation with God, human relationships as imaging the Trinity, freedom as only being possible through true moral agency, and dignity as being inherent to the human person, this paper shows how the Church's understanding of man—grounded in the Incarnation and oriented toward theosis—offers both a critique of reductionist approaches to AI and positive guidance for authentic human flourishing in the digital age.
The Image of God in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence forces humanity to confront the most basic question of its existence with an increasing sense of discomfort. Gaudium et Spes lays out this eternal question brilliantly: "What is man? What is this sense of sorrow, of evil, of death, which continues to exist despite so much progress?"2 The Council Fathers could not have foreseen machines that would compose symphonies, diagnose diseases, or engage in seemingly intelligent conversation, yet their insight proves prophetic. Technological advances intensify, rather than resolve, the mystery of human existence. Each new capability demonstrated by AI, from surpassing human performance in complex games to generating convincing human-like text, compels us to examine who man truly is. The Council understood that progress paradoxically deepens our need to understand "the place and role of man in the universe, [and] the meaning of its individual and collective strivings."3 Against the dual temptations of a technocratic hubris that would "exalt [man] as the absolute measure of all things” and the draw of a nihilism that “debases [him] to the point of despair," the Church maintains that human dignity transcends mere instrumentality.4 This theological anthropology provides the necessary foundation for engaging with AI's challenge to human self-understanding.
Catholic teaching provides the essential framework for understanding what artificial intelligence cannot replicate: the human person as the only creature "God willed for itself," endowed with "an eternal seed which cannot be reduced to sheer matter."5 This principle from Gaudium et Spes directly counters any reductionist account that would equate human cognition with computational processes. The Magisterium has explicitly engaged this challenge, with Antiqua et Nova affirming that "the Christian tradition regards the gift of intelligence as an essential aspect of how humans are created 'in the image of God'."6 This means human intelligence cannot be understood apart from its source and end in God. It is fundamentally a spiritual capacity that transcends material processes. While machines process data according to programmed processes, human intelligence participates in divine wisdom, seeking not just information but meaning, not just patterns but purpose.
The technological power that artificial intelligence represents exposes a fundamental weakness in contemporary civilization, as Pope Francis, in his encyclical Laudato Si, indicates that "contemporary man has not been trained to use power well" because technological development hasn't been "accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience."7 This confusion manifests in what he calls a "constant schizophrenia" between two extremes: the technocratic mindset that sees "no intrinsic value in lesser beings" and the anti-human ideology that sees "no special value in human beings."8 Artificial intelligence intensifies this schizophrenia by appearing to bridge the gap between human and machine intelligence, suggesting that what we thought made us special can be replicated in silicon. The Church's theological anthropology becomes essential precisely because it refuses both of these reductionistic tendencies, insisting that human dignity rests neither on computational superiority nor on material equality with other beings, but on our unique calling to participate in divine life.
The Nature of Human Intelligence
The distinction between human and artificial intelligence begins with understanding intelligence itself as more than the capacity to execute logical formulas. Antiqua et Nova provides an essential clarification when it makes the distinction between "intellectus [which] refers to the intuitive grasp of the truth,” and “ratio [which] pertains to reasoning proper."9 This distinction reveals that AI fundamentally lacks the capacity for intellectual intuition that grasps truth beyond what can be derived logically. The document emphasizes that human intelligence is ultimately "God's gift fashioned for the assimilation of truth" with the ability to go "beyond what it has already achieved."10 This transcendent quality of human intelligence stands against contemporary attempts to reduce it to "the mere acquisition of facts or the ability to perform specific tasks."11 While artificial intelligence excels at ratio, the systematic processing of information according to logical rules, it lacks intellectus, the spiritual capacity to apprehend meaning, purpose, and truth that transcends empirical data. Human intelligence thus operates on two levels that cannot be separated: the rational processing that AI can simulate and the intellectual intuition that remains uniquely human.
Despite its impressive capabilities, artificial intelligence remains fundamentally limited in ways that reveal the poverty of purely computational approaches to intelligence. Antiqua et Nova states the issue plainly: “AI's advanced features give it sophisticated abilities to perform tasks, but not the ability to think."12 Most significantly, "AI cannot currently replicate moral discernment or the ability to establish authentic relationships," which are capacities that flow out of intelligence as a spiritual faculty rather than a computational process.13 The poverty of machine intelligence lies not in its limited processing power, which may exceed human capacity, but in its categorical inability to transcend the material processes that constitute it.
The Embodied Nature of Human Knowing
The Church's insistence on the embodied nature of human intelligence counters any attempt to reduce human cognition to disembodied information processing. Gaudium et Spes that "though made of body and soul, man is one" and through his body "raises voice in free praise of the Creator."14 This unity means human intelligence cannot be abstracted from "embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions."15 The temptation to see intelligence as pure computation represents a new form of the ancient Gnostic heresy that "despised the body, matter and the things of the world."16 Against this hatred for the creation, Catholic teaching maintains that human knowing is irreducibly embodied. Our intelligence develops through physical interaction with the world, is shaped by our mortality, and finds expression through our bodily presence to others. Artificial intelligence, lacking genuine embodiment, processes information without the lived, physical experience that gives human knowledge its depth and meaning.
Human intelligence acquires its distinctive character precisely through the limitations that AI cannot experience. Gaudium et Spes recognizes that "in the face of death...the riddle of human existence grows most acute" yet in this confrontation "man rebels against death because he bears in himself an eternal seed."17 This paradox, finite beings aware of the infinite, shapes human intelligence in ways that transcend computation. As Pope Leo XIII observes in his encyclical Rerum Novarum, "to suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity" and no technology will "succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it."18 These limitations are not merely obstacles to be overcome, but formative experiences that shape the fruit of human wisdom. Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Laborem Exercens, adds that "sweat and toil...present the Christian...with the possibility of sharing lovingly in the work that Christ came to do."19 Suffering and limitation thus become paths to a deeper understanding of the nature of reality, which is something that no algorithm, no matter how sophisticated, can replicate.
The Theology of Human Labor
Human work possesses theological significance that no machine automation can replicate. Pope John Paul II establishes the foundation for this insight when he states that "man is the image of God partly through the mandate received from his Creator to subdue, to dominate, the earth."20 Through labor, "a man ordinarily supports himself and his family, is joined to his fellow men and serves them."21 Work thus serves multiple purposes simultaneously: material sustenance, social connection, and spiritual participation in divine activity. Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Populorum Progressio, emphasizes that "every worker is, to some extent, a creator—be he artist, craftsman, executive, laborer or farmer."22 This creative dimension of work flows from the human person being made in the image and likeness of God the Creator, making work an expression of human dignity rather than merely a means to economic ends.
The Church's social teaching consistently maintains that work exists for the person, not the person for work. Pope John Paul II articulates this principle clearly: "The primary basis of the value of work is man himself, who is its subject" and therefore work is "for man," not man "for work."23 This subjective dimension of work, that it proceeds from and shapes the human person, cannot be a feature of machine production. Gaudium et Spes reinforces this personalist understanding of work: "Human labor...is superior to the other elements of economic life, for the latter have only the nature of tools."24 When work is properly understood, it serves human development rather than reducing workers to "mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons."25 This principle becomes crucial when evaluating AI's role in the workplace. Technology must enhance rather than replace the subjective dimension of human work.
AI and the Crisis of Human Purpose
The increasing ability of AI to outperform humans in a variety of tasks creates a crisis of meaning for human work. Pope John Paul II addresses this conundrum when he states that "while it may seem that in the industrial process it is the machine that 'works'...the proper subject of work continues to be man."26 Yet when machines surpass human performance, this distinction becomes harder to maintain. The encyclical warns that "technology can cease to be man's ally and become almost his enemy...when it deprives many workers of their previous employment."27 This enmity manifests not just in unemployment but in the degradation of human dignity. As Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, observed about industrial labor: "Bodily labor...is in many instances changed into an instrument of perversion; for from the factory dead matter goes out improved, whereas men there are corrupted and degraded."28
The prospect of widespread technological unemployment through AI automation threatens not just economic stability, but human dignity itself. Pope Francis notes that "the goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity."29 Pope Pius XI emphasizes that "the opportunity to work be provided to those who are able and willing to work" because unemployment causes workers to be "plunged into misery and temptations."30 Man is made for work, and meaningful work should be provided for him as his natural right. Antiqua et Nova specifically addresses AI's impact on human labor: "If AI is used to replace human workers rather than complement them, there is a 'substantial risk of disproportionate benefit for the few.'"31 The concentration of wealth and power that results from automation, without consideration for displaced workers, violates the principle of the common good that underlies Catholic social teaching.
As AI assumes more economically productive tasks, the Church's teaching on human dignity becomes increasingly more important. Gaudium et Spes declares: "A man is more precious for what he is than for what he has."32 This principle challenges the productivity-obsessed metrics by which modern society measures the worth of man. Pope John XXIII, in his encyclical Mater et Magistra, extends this reasoning to the act of work itself: "Work, which is the immediate expression of a human personality, must always be rated higher than the possession of external goods."33 This personalist value of human work resists reducing labor to more economic output. He further clarifies that "scientific and technical progress...are essentially instrumental in character. They are not supreme values in themselves."34 In an age where AI may surpass human persons in productive output, these teachings remind us that human worth rests on being rather than doing, and on dignity rather than output.
The Trinitarian Foundation of Human Relationality
Human relationships reflect the Trinitarian nature of God in ways that no artificial system can replicate. Communio et Progressio establishes the foundation for this teaching when it states that "communication is more than the expression of ideas...at its most profound level it is the giving of self in love."35 Antiqua et Nova reinforces this theological understanding of the human person: "Human beings are 'ordered by their very nature to interpersonal communion.'"36 This ordering toward communion reflects our creation in the image and likeness of the Trinity, where three persons exist in perfect, unitary relationship. Human relationships thus possess an ontological depth that transcends functional interactions.
Authentic human encounter requires capacities that remain beyond artificial intelligence's reach. Antiqua et Nova specifies that “true empathy requires the ability to listen, recognize another's irreducible uniqueness."37 This recognition of the other as unique and irreplaceable, not solely as a set of data or pattern of behaviors, defines genuine human relationships. Communio et Progressio raises a prescient question in this age of rapidly advancing technology: "How can one avoid allowing communications made indirectly and through machinery to weaken direct human contact?"38 This concern, voiced in 1971, proves prescient in the age of AI-mediated interactions. Antiqua et Nova highlights that "no AI application can genuinely experience empathy" because emotions "reflect the way a person, as a whole, relates to the world."39 Empathy requires not just processing emotional cues but participating in the full range of human experiences—joy, suffering, hope, and fear—in an embodied way.
The Promises and Perils of Digital Relationship
The proliferation of digital connections through AI-mediated platforms creates an illusion of relationship while often deepening isolation. Laudato Si observes that "when media and the digital world become omnipresent...the great sages of the past run the risk of going unheard amid the noise."40 This noise not only crowds out silence, but replaces meaningful connections with endless superficial interactions. Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Octogesima Adveniens, diagnosed this technologically-induced paradox early on: "Man is experiencing a new loneliness...in an anonymous crowd which surrounds him and in which he feels himself a stranger."41 AI amplifies this loneliness by creating echo chambers, what communication scholars call "narrowcasting," leading to "separation and isolation in society."42
The development of AI companions, from chatbots to social robots, presents a fundamental challenge to human relationality. Antiqua et Nova warns that "while human beings are meant to experience authentic relationships, AI can only simulate them."43 The document continues with a stark warning: "If we replace relationships with God and with others with interactions with technology, we risk replacing authentic relationality with a lifeless image."44 This replacement is particularly dangerous because AI's increasing sophistication makes the simulation more convincing. Yet, no matter how sophisticated the programming, an AI companion cannot offer genuine love, authentic presence, or mutual vulnerability—all of which are elements that make human relationships truly valuable.
The Nature of Human Freedom
Catholic teaching understands freedom not as the mere absence of constraints, but as the capacity for willing and doing the good. Gaudium et Spes states that "only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness."45 This positive conception of freedom establishes human persons as moral agents. Pope Francis warns against a degraded understanding of human freedom when he says that "our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious."46 When we surrender our decision-making to AI, we risk exchanging authentic freedom for the delusion of convenience. This is particularly dangerous given that the capacity for moral judgment distinguishes humans absolutely from artificial intelligence. Antiqua et Nova states this categorically: "Between a machine and a human being, only the latter is truly a moral agent."47 This agency flows from our nature as "a conscious and free subject, that is to say a subject that decides about himself."48 Moral agency requires not just choosing between options but understanding the moral significance of choices, which is a capacity that requires consciousness, intentionality, and responsibility.
AI and the Threat to Human Agency
Algorithmic decision-making systems increasingly shape human choices in ways that threaten authentic freedom. Antiqua et Nova warns that "the concentration of power over mainstream AI applications...creates the risk that AI could be manipulated" creating "mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences."49 Pope Francis recognizes that "technological products are not neutral" but "create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles."50 When algorithms determine what information we see, what products we're offered, and even what relationships we form, they shape our choices before we make them. This algorithmic mediation of choice represents a new form of soft determinism that preserves the appearance of freedom while undermining its reality.51 This dependence develops gradually as we delegate first simple choices, then increasingly complex ones, to algorithmic systems. Yet Antiqua et Nova insists that "ultimate responsibility for decisions made using AI rests with the human decision-makers."52 We cannot escape moral responsibility by claiming the AI made the choice. To do so would be to surrender our fundamental dignity as moral agents.
The Foundation of Human Dignity
Human dignity precedes and transcends any material capacity or achievement, resting solely on our creation in God's image and likeness. Antiqua et Nova emphasizes that "a person's worth does not depend on possessing specific skills...but on the person's inherent dignity, grounded in being created in the image of God."53 Gaudium et Spes establishes the practical implication of this principle, that "the social order and its development must invariably work to the benefit of the human person."54 Society exists to serve persons, not persons to serve the efficiency of the economy. Pope John Paul II indicates that "even prior to the logic of a fair exchange...there exists something which is due to man because he is man."55 This "something" is the justice that each human person is owed by his very nature.
The Church's insistence on the unconditional, infinite value of human life stands as a scandal to utilitarian logic. Gaudium et Spes condemns "whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions...where men are treated as mere tools for profit."56 This condemnation extends to any system—technological or economic—that reduces persons to their functional value. Pope Francis emphasizes that "we should be particularly indignant at the enormous inequalities in our midst" when some are considered "more worthy than others."57 Yet this is precisely what functionalist approaches to AI imply, that those who remain economically productive deserve more consideration than those whom machines can replace.
AI's Challenge to Human Dignity
Artificial intelligence systems necessarily reduce persons to quantifiable data points, threatening the recognition of human dignity. Antiqua et Nova warns that "drawing an overly close equivalence between human intelligence and AI risks succumbing to a functionalist perspective."58 Pope John Paul II’s critique of socialism applies equally to algorithmic reductionism: "Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism."59 When AI systems make decisions about employment, healthcare, or criminal justice based on statistical profiles, they treat persons as interchangeable units rather than unique beings.
The suggestion that AI makes certain humans obsolete represents a fundamental assault on human dignity. Pope John Paul II warns that when "the mechanization of work 'supplants' him...through exalting the machine, it reduces man to the status of its slave."60 This reduction occurs not just through physical replacement, but through the narrative that some humans no longer have value in an AI-driven economy. Antiqua et Nova counters this narrative directly when it states that "human lives are intrinsically valuable, independent of their economic output."61 The Church consistently rejects any view that "man [be] treated as an instrument of production" rather than as an end in himself.62 The obsolescence narrative reveals the spiritual poverty of purely economic valuations of human worth.
Conclusion
The question "What is man?" posed by Gaudium et Spes resonates with greater urgency in the age of artificial intelligence. Through examining intelligence, work, human relationships, freedom, and dignity, we discover that human distinctiveness lies not in functional capacities but in our fundamental orientation toward and end in God. The Council's answer remains definitive: "Whoever follows after Christ, the perfect man, becomes himself more of a man."63 This Christological key unlocks the mystery of human nature. We understand ourselves only in relation to the God-man who reveals both divine love and the heights of human potential. As Pope John Paul II affirms, the Church receives 'the meaning of man' from Divine Revelation."64 This revealed anthropology provides the only adequate response to the challenge of AI, grounding human worth in its calling to divine union rather than physical or intellectual output.
Faced with the transformation of human society by AI technologies, the Church's prophetic mission becomes increasingly vital to the fate of the world. As Pope Benedict XVI, in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate, declares: "The Church must above all protect mankind from self-destruction."65 This protection requires not just warning about future dangers, but proposing a positive vision of authentic human flourishing. Pope John Paul II declares the fundamental truth about any such approach when he says that "Christian anthropology therefore is really a chapter of theology," which makes clear that questions about human nature cannot be answered without reference to God.66
The Church's theological anthropology yields concrete guidance for humanity's relationship with artificial intelligence. Antiqua et Nova provides the fundamental principle for using AI well: "AI should be used only as a tool to complement human intelligence rather than replace its richness."67 This complementarity respects both the legitimate benefits of AI and the irreplaceable nature of human faculties. The document further specifies that "how we incorporate AI 'to include the least of our brothers and sisters...will be the true measure of our humanity.'"68 Our treatment of those whom AI might render economically redundant reveals whether we truly believe in human dignity, or merely pay it lip service. Finally, we must "cultivate those aspects of human life that transcend computation"—prayer, contemplation, genuine relationship, moral discernment, and creative expression—to preserve authentic humanity against digital reductionism.69
The Incarnation stands as God's definitive statement about human worth. Gaudium et Spes declares that "by His incarnation the Father's Word assumed, and sanctified...the whole of man, body and soul."70 This assumption of human nature by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, forever proclaims that humanity possesses a unique dignity among the creatures of the material creation. No artificial intelligence, no matter how sophisticated, can claim this divine affirmation. The human person remains, as Pope John Paul II insists, "the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission."71 Technology must serve this mission rather than subvert it. Ultimately, the answer to "What is man?" in the age of AI is found where it has always been found—in Christ who "reveals man to man himself."72 In Him we discover that we are not biological machines to be replaced by silicon ones, but beloved children called to eternal communion with the most Holy Trinity.
Douay-Rheims Bible (Saint Benedict Press, 2000), Psalm 8:5-7.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” December 7, 1965, sec. 10, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html#.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 3.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 12.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 24.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” January 25, 2025, sec. 1, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250128_antiqua-et-nova_en.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawIGERlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHS8UJlfAABckysjBxV0zVHtgi0INCIB1Nmw8HEkFt-XgbipRSJe8gcmHpA_aem_pU46WDTFmGSkG51qcJcfJA#.
Pope Francis, “Laudato Si,” 2015, sec. 105, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html.
Pope Francis, “Laudato Si,” sec. 118.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 14.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 21.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 29.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 12.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 32.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 14.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 31.
Pope Francis, “Laudato Si,” sec. 98.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 18.
Pope Leo XIII, “Rerum Novarum,” May 15, 1891, sec. 18, https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html.
Pope John Paul II, “Laborem Exercens,” September 14, 1981, sec. 27, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html.
Pope John Paul II, “Laborem Exercens,” sec. 4.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 67.
Pope Paul VI, “Populorum Progressio,” March 26, 1967, sec. 27, https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html.
Pope John Paul II, “Laborem Exercens,” sec. 6.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 67.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 27.
Pope John Paul II, “Laborem Exercens,” sec. 5.
Pope John Paul II, “Laborem Exercens,” sec. 5.
Pope Pius XI, “Quadragesimo Anno,” May 15, 1931, sec. 135, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html.
Pope Francis, “Laudato Si,” sec. 128.
Pope Pius XI, “Quadragesimo Anno,” sec. 74.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 68.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 35.
Pope John XXIII, “Mater et Magistra,” May 15, 1961, sec. 107, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater.html.
Pope John XXIII, “Mater et Magistra,” sec. 175.
Pontifical Council for Social Communications, “Communio et Progressio,” May 23, 1971, sec. 11, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_23051971_communio_en.html.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 18.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 61.
Pontifical Council for Social Communications, “Communio et Progressio,” sec. 21.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 61.
Pope Francis, “Laudato Si,” sec. 47.
Pope Paul VI, “Octogesima Adveniens,” May 14, 1971, sec. 10, http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens.html.
James F Caccamo, “The Message on the Media: Seventy Years of Catholic Social Teaching on Social Communication,” Josephinum Journal of Theology 15, no. 2 (2008): 420.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 63.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 63.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 17.
Pope Francis, “Laudato Si,” sec. 105.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 39.
Pope John Paul II, “Laborem Exercens,” sec. 6.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 53.
Pope Francis, “Laudato Si,” sec. 107.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 46.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 44.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 34.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 26.
Pope John Paul II, “Centesimus Annus,” sec. 34.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 27.
Pope Francis, “Laudato Si,” sec. 90.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 34.
Pope John Paul II, “Centesimus Annus,” sec. 13.
Pope John Paul II, “Laborem Exercens,” sec. 5.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 68.
Pope John Paul II, “Laborem Exercens,” sec. 7.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 41.
Pope John Paul II, “Centesimus Annus,” sec. 55.
Pope Benedict XVI, “Caritas in Veritate,” June 29, 2009, sec. 51, https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html.
Pope John Paul II, “Centesimus Annus,” sec. 51.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 112.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 116.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Antiqua et Nova,” sec. 112.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 41.
Pope John Paul II, “Centesimus Annus,” sec. 53.
Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes,” sec. 22.