Peter C. Phan: MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS – Reflections from an Asian Perspective
The ACP is grateful to Peter C Phan for permission to publish his article on Magnifica Humanitas. This is a link to all articles posted on the ACP site dealing with Magnifica Humanitas to date: https://associationofcatholicpriests.ie/?s=Magnifica+Humanitas+
Peter C. Phan, who has earned three doctorates, is the inaugural holder of the Ignacio Ellacuría Chair of Catholic Social Thought at Georgetown University, USA. His research deals with the theology of the icon in Orthodox theology, patristic theology, eschatology, the history of Christian missions in Asia, liberation, inculturation, and interreligious dialogue. He is the author and editor of over 40 books and has published over 300 essays. His writings have been translated into Arabic, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Serbian, Spanish, Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, and Vietnamese, and have received many awards from learned societies. He is the first non-Anglo to be elected President of the Catholic Theological Society of America and President of the American Theological Society. In 2010, he received the John Courtney Murray Award, the highest honor bestowed by the Catholic Theological Society of America for outstanding achievement in theology. He has also been awarded four honorary doctorates.
Peter C. Phan: MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS – Reflections from an Asian Perspective
A pope’s first encyclical is often an inaugural address that sets forth the doctrinal positions and pastoral programs that will shape his pontificate. The title of Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical is Magnifica Humanitas (henceforth, MH); it can be rendered literally as “Magnificent Humanity” or, more poetically, “The Grandeur of Humanity.” In classical Latin, humanitas can refer not only to humanity as a whole but also to education, culture, compassion, and full human flourishing, all of which are treated at length in the encyclical. Its official issuance date, May 15, 2026, was intended to coincide with the 135th anniversary of the publication of Rerum Novarum (1891), Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical that launched what Pope Pius XII termed the “Social Doctrine of the Church” in 1950.
MH’s subtitle captures its contents well: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. It is safe to assume that the focus of Leo’s pontificate will be the church’s social doctrine, especially regarding the dignity of the human person. That Leo places great importance on this theme and on the church’s social doctrine in general, which he says is close to his heart (no. 86), is evidenced not only by his adoption of “Leo” as his eponym, in honor of Leo XIII, but also by his decision to personally present his encyclical on May 25, 2026, a function usually assigned to a cardinal.
MH is 42,300 words and 48 pages long, divided into 245 paragraphs and five chapters, plus an introduction, a conclusion, and 224 footnotes. It is remarkably readable compared with the encyclicals of John Paul II and Benedict XVI and commendable for its inclusive language in the English version. Even so, it is highly unlikely that Asian Catholics, especially laypeople, will read it from cover to cover, given their linguistic limitations and the document’s forbidding length and numbing repetitiveness. Fortunately, helpful summaries and accessible presentations of MH are widely available on the Internet; a search on June 12, 2026, returned 65,000 results, which will have increased exponentially by the time this piece goes to print, one of AI’s many benefits and bales! Scholarly commentaries, conferences, and symposia on it will no doubt soon become a cottage industry. So far, the reception of the encyclical in religious and secular media has been largely positive, but doubts have been expressed about its possible impact on the people most responsible for the development, governance, and regulation of AI.
My purpose here is not to provide a comprehensive discussion of MH, which would require a book-length commentary. Rather, I will examine three questions: first, which aspects of MH will be of particular interest to Asian Catholics in their economic, political, and cultural contexts; second, what an encyclical on the challenges of AI would look like if written from and with an Asian perspective; and third, what contributions Asian Catholicism can make to Leo’s papal ministry in the age of AI.
Magnifica Humanitas for Asia?
Pope Leo presents his defense of the human person against the possible misuse of AI in near-apocalyptic terms. With the spread of AI, he says, we are living not only in the “era of change” but also in the “change of era” (no. 6), in which a radical choice must be made between two opposing modes of acting and living. Leo symbolizes them with two biblical architectural images, the building of the Tower of Babel, narrated in Genesis 11:1-9, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its walls under Nehemiah’s leadership, recounted in Nehemiah 2-3 (nos. 7-10). The Tower of Babel, though not a historical artifact, stands as a religious symbol of human pride and arrogance, an attempt to build humanity’s unity without God, and technological hubris. It leads to the multiplicity of languages, a breakdown in communication, division among people and nations, and dispersal throughout the earth. In contrast, the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah’s leadership, which took place in only 52 days in 445 BCE and was accompanied by national repentance, renewal of the covenant, and liturgical worship, symbolizes the realization of the common good of the community, strategic planning, skillful administration, national cooperation, and persistence under external attacks.
According to Leo, the choice in the age of AI is between the “Babel syndrome” and the “way of Nehemiah” (no. 10). Both are fundamentally about power, which Leo argues is the central issue in the use of AI. The former exercises power solely for dominance and profit, while the latter uses it in service to preserve humanity’s plurality, diversity, communion, the dignity of the human person, and the common good.
This way of distinguishing between two ways of abusing and using AI, either by obliterating differences for control, dominance, and profit or by fostering plurality and diversity to promote the common good, has great appeal to Asians, given their vast linguistic, social, cultural, and religious diversity and the threat of its gradual disappearance due to AI. For example, in terms of language, people who try to learn a foreign language, say, Mandarin Chinese, will be distressed to find that, in China, their ability to communicate in Mandarin is limited, as there are about ten major Chinese language groups and 200 to 300 distinct spoken varieties, many of which are mutually unintelligible. This count refers only to Chinese (Sinitic) languages, excluding more than 40 non-Chinese minority languages that belong to entirely separate language families. In India, linguistic diversity is even more pronounced: There are 22 officially recognized (Scheduled) languages, 121 languages recorded by the Indian Census, and more than 800 languages if all regional and tribal languages and dialects are included.
Perhaps this linguistic diversity in China and India is to be expected, given that each country has a population of over 1.3 billion. But even smaller Asian countries are linguistically diverse. The Philippines, an archipelago of 7641 islands, has Tagalog and English as official languages, along with eight major regional languages and 183 living languages. Indonesia, an archipelago of more than 17,000 islands, recognizes Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) as the national language and uses it in government, education, and the media. However, it has more than 700 living languages, along with hundreds of regional and local languages. Along with linguistic diversity, there is a bewildering variety of cultures and religions in Asia. AI can analyze, categorize, and classify these realities to help Asians better understand them, but it can also erase them in the name of efficiency, uniformity, and national unity. Consequently, Asians deeply appreciate Leo’s vigorous defense of cultural and religious diversity against AI’s homogenizing tendencies.
Leo synthesizes the church’s social teaching, as articulated by recent popes from Leo XIII to Francis, in response to the specific challenges of their times (nos. 17-45), and highlights its threefold foundation: the human person as image of the Triune God, the infinite dignity of each and every human being, and the inviolable rights of all. While non-Christian Asians understandably do not subscribe to Pope Leo’s view that the ontological dignity of human beings is grounded in the Trinity, they welcome his acknowledgment that we still have a long way to go in promoting the human rights of all, especially those of minorities and women, who experience exclusion, oppression, discrimination, and violence most acutely in Asia.
Leo then elaborates on the five principles of Catholic social doctrine: the principle of the common good (“the sum total of social conditions which allow people either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” [no. 59]), the principle of the universal destination of goods, the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of solidarity, and the principle of social justice (nos. 59-81). These five principles form the building blocks that resist AI’s attacks on human dignity and contribute to achieving “integral human development” and “integral ecology” (no. 82-84). Of these five principles, perhaps the one that speaks most powerfully to Asians, especially women and migrants, who are frequently victims of abuse and exclusion, is the principle of the universal destination of goods. Too often, goods are thought of as earthly goods such as air, water, soil, and oil. Pope Leo expands the concept of goods to include new forms of property, such as “patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure, and data” (no. 65). It is precisely these non-material and cultural goods, the source of new wealth, that owners of AI monopolize for themselves and exclude the less educated from access to them.
Pope Leo’s teaching on AI’s challenges is especially relevant to Asians because, unlike Africa and Latin America, Asia is building a global AI powerhouse, parallel to that of the U.S., with Asian countries developing their own AI models and systems. The Asia-Pacific region is the fastest-growing AI market, thanks to digital transformation, data availability, government support, talent development, a focus on practical applications, and large populations. Asian countries leading this AI ecosystem include China, India, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan, each with its own specialization: China in research and patents, smart manufacturing, and heavy government investment and long-term strategy; India in IT services, fintech, and high enterprise adoption; Singapore in high AI adoption and strong governance frameworks; and South Korea and Japan in robotics, manufacturing, and research. Other countries that have recently launched national AI strategies include Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. On June 16, 2026, the New York Times reported that the A.I. boom has ignited Asia’s chip companies, including Nvidia. Chips are the brains of A.I. systems that process huge amounts of information. The most advanced memory comes overwhelmingly from South Korea and Taiwan, and soaring prices driven by supply constraints are piling new wealth into the two Asian countries.
AI is increasingly used in e-commerce and retail, fintech (banking, credit assessment, fraud detection, and customer service), healthcare (medical image analysis, telemedicine, disease prognosis, and drug manufacturing), industry and manufacturing (factory equipment maintenance, product quality control, warehouse automation, robotics, logistics, and supply-chain optimization), urban management (traffic and public transportation management, energy consumption monitoring, and public safety), agriculture (crop monitoring, pest and disease detection, irrigation optimization, and yield forecasting), and education (tools that support teaching and learning).
This rapid pace of AI adoption brings undeniable progress to Asia’s technological development, but it also raises concerns and problems, for which Pope Leo’s warnings against the abuse of human dignity and rights by AI are highly timely. Many Asian economies rely on manufacturing and services. AI-driven automation in these sectors has detrimental side effects, including job loss, income inequality, and workforce retraining. Furthermore, access to AI technologies is uneven across urban and rural regions, large corporations and small businesses, and rich and poor countries.
AI’s innovation and adoption in Asia are not merely technological developments; they also raise serious anthropological and ethical issues. Leo is not anti-technology. On the contrary, he acknowledges AI’s many great benefits. But he warns us against adopting the “technocratic paradigm” and against letting its “logic of efficiency, control, and profit alone shape personal, social, and economic decisions” (no. 92). He insists that “this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships, and do not know from within what love, work, friendship, or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences” (no. 99).
For Asia and elsewhere, the core question about AI is anthropological and ethical: What kind of human beings do people want to create with AI? Different countries offer different answers and adopt different approaches. The U.S. places innovation above governance. Its model is largely procedural and pragmatic: federal and state laws primarily address competition, proficiency, and national security to ensure America’s victory in the AI race. The European Union focuses on protecting human rights in the use of AI. Its model is risk-based, declaring some practices incompatible with human dignity and others legal, depending on the risk they pose to transparency, accuracy, data control, human oversight, and cybersecurity. Like the U.S., the United Kingdom favors innovation and growth, the adoption of AI infrastructure, the development of technical skills, and national competitiveness.
In Asia, there are also various strategies for managing AI. For instance, China’s approach is interventionist, aimed at safeguarding state power, public interest, and social order. It treats AI as a state asset to be centrally controlled and strictly regulated to prevent it from becoming a threat to the Party’s authority. Japan and South Korea pursue a middle path, balancing prohibition and deregulation, as well as state interests and business profitability. All the above governmental policies in the West and Asia aim to promote safety, competitiveness, transparency, and accountability.
While acknowledging the validity of these concerns, Leo insists that we must adopt an ethical framework for AI informed by the five principles of Catholic social doctrine he listed above before working toward compliance with privacy laws, employment laws, product liability, civil rights, national security, and cybersecurity. AI is not a morally neutral tool to be used wisely after it has been created without a prior moral framework. The pope notes that “AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise, and access to data …. Small but highly influential groups can shape information and consumption patterns, influence democratic processes, and steer economic dynamics to their own advantage, undermining social justice and solidarity among peoples” (no. 108). Leo’s warning is especially applicable to Asia, where the number of Asians who can take an active role in determining AI’s ethics is minuscule compared with the number of AI’s owners.
AI fuels the race for more powerful algorithms and larger data sets to secure global geopolitical and commercial dominance. This “lust for power” (Augustine’s celebrated libido dominandi and its consequent incurvatus in se) is certainly the driving force behind AI development in China and India. One way to decouple AI from power is what the pope calls “disarming,” a concept he says is very close to his heart (no. 110) and resonates deeply with Asians. By “disarming” AI, he means “freeing it from the mentality of ‘armed’ competition, which today is not limited simply to the military context but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon” (no. 110). Merely regulating AI’s use is insufficient; it must be “disarmed.”
The pope mentions two other concepts underlying the AI project that undermine human dignity. They are transhumanism and posthumanism. The former envisions transcending the limits of being human and enhancing humanity’s capacities and performance through technology; the latter imagines a new evolutionary stage in which humans, machines, and the environment are hybridized to create a new future. Both ideologies share a common idea: humans must reject their limits and inherent sufferings. In response, Leo states that the “grandeur of the human person” does not negate limitations such as “incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability” (no. 118): “Even when limitations are experienced as inner suffering, human wisdom teaches us not to deny or suppress it, but to integrate it. To eliminate suffering would mean, in the end, extinguishing love and desire as well” (no. 120). The temptation to deny human limits is perhaps more prevalent in the West, as exemplified by atheistic humanism and scientism. In Asia, it is mitigated by religious traditions such as Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism, in which human limitations and sufferings are recognized and accepted, as will be seen below.
In Chapter 4, HM discusses several values at risk from AI, including truth, democracy, communication, education, work, and freedom (nos. 131-180). AI’s threats to these six values are evident in Asia no less than on other continents. In Asia, threats to democracy and freedom warrant special attention, as communism and military dictatorship rule several of its countries and frequently use AI to control the educational system, spread disinformation, and abolish the press to preserve their power. One observation in Pope Leo’s critique of AI’s ecosystem that resonates deeply with Asians who labor in countless factories is that the digital economy creates new forms of slavery. It largely depends on “the silent work of millions of people engaged in essential yet unseen activities, such as data labeling, model training, and content moderation, often involving disturbing material. In many cases, these workers are young people, predominantly women, working under demanding conditions for minimal wages” (no. 173). Pope Leo frankly acknowledges the church’s past complicity in the practice of slavery and, in the name of the church, humbly begs for pardon (no. 176). The pope also points out that AI engages in new forms of colonialism, not by conquering and occupying foreign lands but by transforming personal data into new “rare earths” to “train predictive models, guide investment strategies, anticipate crises, and, above all, to determine who and what is deemed to matter” (no. 178). These words resonate powerfully with Asians who have suffered Western colonialism for centuries.
MH’s Chapter 5 explores AI’s impact on justice and peace. According to Leo, AI is used to promote a “culture of power” rather than a “civilization of love” (nos. 186-192). AI technology has changed the nature of conflict. In addition to conventional warfare, hybrid forms are being employed, blurring the line between defense and offense. It can also “lower the threshold for the use of force, shield people from responsibility, and foster a culture in which is reduced to a statistic and the victim to ‘collateral damage’” (183). It has been said that with AI, a soldier can launch bombs on the “enemy” from thousands of miles away in an air-conditioned office, killing hundreds of them, whose twisted faces and sundered limbs he or she never sees, in the morning, and then return home to the suburbs in the evening to have a quiet dinner with wife, husband, and children. In this culture of power, Leo makes an astounding remark that the traditional “just war” theory, which has been adduced to justify only the right to self-defense in the strict sense, is now “outdated” in contemporary warfare (no. 192). In Asia, AI has not been widely used to conduct war among small countries. Only three countries with nuclear weapons, India, Pakistan, and China, can be expected to make use of AI for war purposes.
Magnifica Humanitas fromAsia?
So far, I have highlighted aspects of MH that are particularly relevant to Asia. My next task is to explore what MH would look like if it were written from Asia, from an Asian perspective and with Asian resources. As mentioned above, the encyclical has 224 footnotes, and most of the cited sources are disappointingly self-referential, with papal writings occupying the lion’s share. In addition, it cites exclusively Western authors: J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (Book Five); the United Nations Charter; Augustine, Confessions, De Civitate Dei, and Sermons; Thomas Aquinas, Commentaries on Boethius’s De Trinitate; Pierre de Bérulle, Discours de l’état et des grandeurs de Jésus, Discours IV, Unité de Dieu en l’incarnation; Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World; Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning; Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism; and Giorgio La Pira, Reflessioni sul Concilio.
Furthermore, at the public presentation of MH, alongside Pope Leo, speakers included Cardinals Victor Manuel Fernández, Pietro Parolin, and Michael Czerny; theologians Anna Rowlands and Léocadie Lushombo; and Chris Olah, the Canadian machine learning researcher and co-founder of Anthropic. While the presence of women theologians at the presentation is commendable, the absence of Asian theologians, male and/or female, is lamentable. An important voice was sorely missed.
Notably, Pope Leo states that “in rejecting the mindset of violence, interreligious dialogue plays a decisive role, because at the heart of the great spiritual paths lies a message of peace,” and cites Pope John Paul II’s prayer in Assisi with world religious leaders and Pope Francis’s dialogue with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar (no. 223) as models of interreligious encounter. Taking a cue from Leo’s remark on interreligious dialogue, and given the dominant roles of several Asian countries in AI, as detailed above, I will draw on resources from Asian religious traditions to show that MH’s concerns about AI’s threats to human dignity are shared by these traditions and that non-Christian resources can be marshaled to carry out the task of “safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence.”
As noted above, while non-Christian Asians may not agree with Pope Leo’s view that the ontological dignity of human beings is grounded in the Trinity (a position he is fully entitled to hold as a Christian), they can legitimately point to their own religions’ vigorous defense of human dignity and human rights. Although the modern concept of “human rights” was developed largely in the West, many Asian religious traditions contain principles that support human rights. The defense of human rights in Asian religions is often grounded in teachings on human dignity, compassion, justice, and the intrinsic value of all living beings (not just humans). Asian philosophies generally ground human dignity in moral duty, compassion, and social harmony, rather than in the autonomous individual. This creates both tensions and rich complementarities between them and contemporary human rights discourse. Rights concepts entered Asia through colonialism, Christian missions, and modern legal reforms, prompting Asian thinkers to reinterpret their traditions in light of universal rights. For instance, the Chinese Confucian philosopher, diplomat, and human rights activist Peng Chun Chang (1892-1957), who played a key role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), demonstrated that human rights are not a purely Western concept and have deep roots in the Confucian tradition.
Hindu philosophy holds that the innermost essence or true self (atman) of a living being, distinct from its transient personality or bodily existence, is eternal, immutable, and beyond the physical body and mind. Atman is conceptually linked to Brahman, the ultimate, universal reality, and is believed to be ultimately one with Brahman. This concept of atman implies that every person has innate spiritual worth and must be treated with respect. Furthermore, Hinduism promotes ahimsa (nonviolence) and respect for life. Dharma emphasizes moral duty and justice. In the context of human rights, Hinduism upholds human dignity and promotes social responsibility and the ethical treatment of others in the development and use of AI. Modern Hindu thinkers also draw on these concepts to challenge caste discrimination and promote gender equality.
In Buddhism, human dignity is rooted in the concept of the Buddha-nature (buddhatā or tathāgatagarbha) of all beings. This refers to the innate potential of every being to become a Buddha, or to the pure Buddha-essence already present within them. This teaching affirms the inherent worth of all beings and promotes human equality. This concept of Buddha-nature is central to Mahayana Buddhism and emphasizes that enlightenment is not created from scratch but is brought to consciousness by removing ignorance and desire. The doctrine of anatta (no-self) challenges the Western individualist concept of human rights and enriches it by emphasizing interdependence and collective responsibility. Buddhism inculcates compassion (karuṇā) and loving-kindness (mettā) and encourages respect for all beings, including animals. Furthermore, its principle of nonviolence forbids killing, harm, and oppression. In terms of human rights, Buddhism forbids violations of human dignity and advocates peace, social justice, and care for vulnerable beings. Lastly, contemporary Buddhist scholars of the so-called Engaged Buddhism explore rights related to environmental protection, group identity, and AI-era epistemic rights.
According to the Buddha, suffering (dukkha) is an inherent part of life. This includes not only physical pain arising from the biological processes of birth, illness, aging, and death, but also emotional and mental dissatisfaction. Buddhism teaches that the root of suffering is craving (tanha) and attachment. People suffer because of desire; when that desire is unfulfilled, or when what is obtained disappears, suffering occurs. Ignorance of life’s impermanence further fuels desire, perpetuating the cycle of suffering.
Superficially, the Buddhist doctrine of desire, suffering, and the necessity of overcoming them resembles transhumanism and posthumanism, both of which affirm humans’ inherent limitations and seek to transcend them through AI technology. In fact, however, the Buddhist path to ending suffering differs profoundly from AI’s reliance on technology, which, in itself, fuels a ceaseless quest for ever-new, ever-obsolete, and hence forever-suffering-causing means to dominate life. By contrast, the Buddha teaches that suffering arises not from inherent limitations but from craving, attachment, and ignorance, and that the path to transcending suffering lies not in new technologies but in the “Four Noble Truths,” which explain the existence of suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to liberation.
This liberation consists in the extinguishing of desire (nirvana) and is achieved by following the “Noble Eightfold Path” (magga), which includes right understanding, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. This path recalls and goes beyond the Ten Commandments, forming a spirituality not dissimilar to the Christian one. The Buddhist path cuts the AI threat to human dignity at its roots by disabling the very engine that drives it: the desire to dominate and exploit the human person.
Another Buddhist concept that strengthens human solidarity and affirms the dignity of all beings is dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). It teaches that nothing exists independently; everything, including physical objects, mental states, and living beings (humans and animals), arises from multiple, mutually influencing causes and conditions. Dependent origination is a foundational principle for Buddhist meditation, ethical conduct, and wisdom practice. One ethical consequence of this doctrine is that one must not oppress any being, since the suffering of another is one’s own suffering and the suffering of all. The Buddhist figure Avalokiteshvara (the Lord who looks down or the One who hears the cries of the world) embodies this understanding of the interdependence of all beings. Avalokiteshvara, a bodhisattva highly popular in Mahāyāna Buddhism, embodies infinite compassion (mahākaruṇā) for the suffering of all sentient beings and postpones his or her own enlightenment to assist others in achieving liberation from suffering and samsara (the cycle of birth and death).
As noted above, Peng Chun Chang, who played a key role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, argued that human rights have deep roots in the Confucian tradition. Contemporary debate about the relationship between Confucianism and human rights asks whether Confucian values support, conflict with, or offer a complementary foundation for modern human rights. Modern human rights, especially those articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, emphasize individual autonomy, freedom of expression, equality before the law, protection from state abuse, and universal rights possessed by all humans. By contrast, Confucian ethics is built on relational duties—between parent and child, ruler and subject, husband and wife, siblings, and friends. The moral ideal is the junzi, the cultivated person (male or female) who embodies ren (humaneness, benevolence, compassion), yi (righteousness and moral duty), li (proper conduct and social norms), and xiao (filial piety and respect for family). Confucian virtue ethics focuses on moral self-cultivation, social harmony, and good governance through mutual relationships and responsibilities rather than on individual rights. Modern human rights ask, “What is every person entitled to?” By contrast, Confucianism asks, “What responsibilities do we owe one another?” In the late twentieth century, some political leaders in East Asia, including Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, claimed that Confucian culture prioritizes community, order, and economic development over Western-style civil and political rights.
Critics argue that traditional Confucianism may conflict with the modern concept of human rights because it prioritizes duties over rights, values social harmony over confrontation and dissent, and supports hierarchical relationships (parent-child, ruler-subject, elder-younger). They also point out that historically, it has provided legitimacy for authoritarian political structures in several Asian societies.
In response, many contemporary Confucian scholars, such as Tu Weiming and Joseph Chan (Chen Zuwei), argue that Confucianism can support human rights, including the right to good governance, the right against oppression, and the right to revolt. The Confucian belief that every person possesses moral worth and the capacity for virtue can provide a basis for respecting human dignity. Benevolent government, a core element of Confucian political thought, requires rulers to govern for the people’s welfare. A tyrannical ruler who oppresses citizens loses moral legitimacy (the “Mandate of Heaven”) and could and should be resisted or removed.
Finally, some scholars suggest that Confucianism offers a more relational and communitarian understanding of human rights and, as such, can correct the Western individualistic conception of human rights. Human rights are, of course, important, but they are community-based and embedded in families and communities. Individual flourishing depends on healthy social relationships. Human rights should be reinterpreted through Confucian concepts of relationships, duties, and virtue.
In this respect, Confucian anthropology aligns with the Christian conception of the human person as the image of the Triune God, whose nature is communion (koinonia) and the eternal dance of mutual love (perichoresis) among the three divine Persons. It also aligns with the Catholic eucharistic ecclesiology, which holds that Christians are members of the Body of Christ and achieve full communion with one another by sharing Christ’s body and blood.
Compared with Confucianism, Daoism lacks a theory of human rights. There is no explicit human-rights discourse in classical Daoist texts or in contemporary Daoist thought. Like Confucianism, Daoism emphasizes moral self-cultivation and spiritual transformation. Unlike Confucianism, Daoism does not advocate political action or legal structures as means of achieving this transformation, nor does it articulate rights claims. Whereas human rights frameworks emphasize legal entitlements, autonomy, and claims against the state, Daoism relies on embodied and technical practices such as rituals, meditation, and inner alchemy. Still, Daoism can be construed as endorsing human rights as protections against domination in a world where people often fail to restrain their will to power. Thus, Daoism can support, challenge, and reframe human rights in distinctive ways, especially through its ideal of universal harmony.
The Daodejing, Daoism’s classical text, famously declares that perfect harmony results from the Dao, which gives life to the one (the entire universe), which gives life to the two (yin and yang), which gives life to the three (heaven, earth, and humanity), which gives life to the ten thousand things, which support yin and embrace yang, which in turn fill the universe (chapter 42). This cosmological vision portrays the universe as engaged in a dynamic, ceaseless process of self-generation. Human beings are tempted to control this process and impose their own order on reality by creating laws (as in the School of Legalism) or governmental structures (as in Confucianism) to engineer the desired results. Daoism holds that such interference removes people from the generative process of which they are a part. Instead, humans should attune themselves to the Dao’s constant transformations by practicing spontaneity (ziran), non-coercion (wuwei), and harmony (hexie). The best society is one in which no one needs to assert rights because people act spontaneously in harmony. Legal systems are often signs of social disorder rather than justice. They are, at best, a necessary but provisional tool for protecting people in a world where harmony with the Dao is not yet realized.
In Daoism, water is one of the most popular symbols for understanding how to live in harmony with the Dao. A river does not force its way to the sea; it simply follows its nature. Water is both soft yet powerful, gentle yet unyielding, and, over time, able to wear away stone, showing that spontaneity (ziran) and persistence can be stronger than aggression and violence. It flows around obstacles rather than fighting them directly and adapts its shape to any container, symbolizing the efficacy of practices of non-coercion and non-resistance (wu wei). It naturally flows downhill to low places, thus symbolizing humility and wisdom. Finally, as a symbol of selfless virtue, water benefits all things, nourishing plants, animals, and people without demanding recognition.
This water-like behavior does not mean Daoism condones or tolerates violations of human dignity and human rights. Although it does not ground human rights in natural law, human dignity, individual autonomy, legal norms, or the social contract, Daoism does not counsel passivity or indifference. In the Daoist utopia, no one would violate others; no coercive state would be needed, and rights would be irrelevant. However, in the real world, where not everyone acts in accordance with the Tao, human rights are accepted as valuable defenses against domination and as a means of creating conditions for self-cultivation and non-coercive living in harmony with nature. Daoism can thus be said to support freedom from arbitrary state power, protection from oppression, and limits on government coercion.
My reference to the moral and spiritual values of Asia’s religious traditions does not ignore the fact that they are not honored in several Asian countries. Despite their rich ethical foundation for defending human dignity, widespread human rights violations persist due to political and economic realities. Gender-based violence and child labor are common. Restrictions on freedom of the press, assembly, and dissent are prevalent in countries such as China, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Vietnam. In India, systemic discrimination against religious minorities, Dalits, Indigenous and Tribal peoples, and refugees persists, as the ethno-nationalist political ideology Hindutva seeks to define India’s cultural identity exclusively in terms of Hinduism.
With regard to the use of AI in particular, digital surveillance is widely practiced across many Asian countries. Several governments have expanded CCTV networks integrated with facial recognition and AI analytics, enabling identification, tracking movement, and real-time monitoring of public spaces. Governments increasingly monitor online communications, social media activity, and web traffic. State agencies have acquired systems capable of intercepting phone calls, text messages, and internet traffic. Governments increasingly collect fingerprints, facial images, iris scans, and other biometric identifiers for digital identity systems, border control, welfare programs, and law enforcement. Artificial intelligence is used to automate monitoring, analyze large volumes of data, detect patterns, and flag individuals or behaviors considered suspicious. Newer systems can search video footage using natural-language descriptions and perform predictive analysis.
China is often cited as operating one of the world’s most sophisticated surveillance ecosystems, combining camera networks, digital identity systems, internet controls, and AI-powered monitoring. Recent developments include a centralized digital ID framework that further links online activity to verified identities. India has expanded its digital identity infrastructure and surveillance capabilities. In Pakistan, monitoring and internet filtering capabilities include large-scale interception systems and internet firewalls. Southeastern countries, including Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, and others, have expanded digital monitoring powers alongside broader efforts to regulate online speech and social media platforms.
Supporters of digital surveillance argue that it is necessary to prevent crime and terrorism, improve public safety, manage urban infrastructure, and combat cybercrime and misinformation. Human rights organizations have raised concerns about the use of these tools against journalists, activists, and political opponents. Such surveillance reduces privacy, chills free expression, enables political repression, increases the risk of discrimination and abuse, and creates large databases vulnerable to misuse or breaches.
Given AI’s use and potential misuse in Asia and the serious threats it poses to human dignity and human rights, MH’s warning about safeguarding the human person is timely for Asia as well. But for its message to be favorably received, it needs an “Asian face.” In addition to (not instead of) rights-centered Western models, MH should incorporate a virtue-based ethical framework that privileges duty, community, harmony, and interdependence. By broadening the global human rights dialogue and integrating cross-cultural and interreligious perspectives, MH can effectively challenge the hyper-individualism of the Western human rights approach and support collective rights that protect family integrity, education, welfare, social harmony, and the environment. Thus, it would acquire a more inclusive, globally grounded human rights framework. In this respect, given AI’s enormous threat to human survival, is it too far-fetched to imagine an “encyclical” (a letter addressed to all people of good will) written by representatives of all religious traditions (including, besides Asian religions, Judaism and Islam, and, of course, all Christian denominations), bringing their insights together in defense of the human person?
Contributions of Asian Christianity to Pope Leo’s Ministry
I have shown that MH is an encyclical for Asia, helping Asia reject the “Babel syndrome” and practice the “way of Nehemiah” in its development and use of AI. I have also argued that MH can be an encyclical from Asia by outlining ways it can be enriched by the approaches to human dignity and human rights found in Asian religious traditions, as embodied in Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. I now conclude with reflections on how Asian Catholicism can contribute to Pope Leo’s papal ministry. It may seem presumptuous to speak of Asian Catholicism’s possible contributions to Leo’s papacy and, for that matter, to any papal ministry. After all, isn’t the pope the Universal Teacher and not a Universal Learner? But Leo is reported to have recently said that he was still learning to be pope; of course, no one can begin to learn to be pope until he is actually elected. I hope, then, that Pope Leo will welcome some suggestions offered in the humble spirit of synodality and dialogue.
As pointed out at the beginning of this essay, by choosing the social doctrine of the church as the theme of his first encyclical, Leo seems to make social justice and peace rather than the so-called pelvic issues the defining theme and program of his pontificate. This is much in line with his predecessor Pope Francis. In exploring the contributions that Asian Catholicism can make to Leo’s papacy, I will therefore limit myself to the church’s social teaching on peace and justice.
Perhaps a convenient way to survey the social teaching of Asian Catholicism is to look at the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC), founded in 1970 as a voluntary association of national episcopal conferences in South, Southeast, East, and Central Asia. Its purpose is to foster solidarity and shared responsibility for the welfare of the church and society in Asia. In 2020, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its founding, the FABC issued a document titled “Journeying Together as Peoples of Asia,” which outlines nine emerging realities that the Catholic Church in Asia must take into account.
1. The displacement of migrants, refugees, and Indigenous peoples from their homelands. Asia is the scene of a booming migration industry. Family life is disrupted, children are abandoned, and the social fabric is eroded. There is a brain drain in countries of emigration, which aggravates their underdevelopment. Migrants are subjected to abuse and exploitation and suffer from loneliness and homesickness. Their remittances, often substantial, are not used by the government to invest in programs that benefit migrant workers. Migrants’ welfare must be the church’s utmost concern.
2. Families form the bedrock of Asian societies. Yet their well-being is severely threatened by adverse social, economic, and political forces. The number of interdenominational and interreligious marriages is increasing. While they offer opportunities for ecumenical and interfaith relations, they also pose challenges to the practice of the faith.
3. Although there have been improvements in gender equality across many areas of life, Asian women still face marginalization and oppression within Christianity and in society, especially in rural areas, due to a patriarchal mindset, taboos, and notions of purity deeply ingrained in Asian religious traditions. The church is called to defend and promote equality for women in society and to open opportunities for leadership, both ordained and nonordained, for women at all levels of church life.
4. Gender issues are widely debated. LGBTQ+ people remain marginalized and oppressed. In several Asian countries, same-sex marriage is forbidden, and homosexual acts are punishable by death. The church is called to defend the human rights of gay and transgender people, protect them from violence, bullying, and discrimination, and revise its sexual ethics on homosexuality and gender roles.
5. There has recently been a “youth bulge” in Asia, defined as a situation in which twenty percent or more of a population falls within the fifteen- to twenty-four-year age group. Currently, more than 1.1 billion young people live in Asia and the Pacific, representing more than 25 percent of the population. While today’s Asian youth are better educated and more prepared to participate actively in local, national, and regional affairs, they are also more exposed to unemployment and risky behaviors, including extramarital sex, smoking, drinking, and drug use. The church is challenged to reach out to them in a meaningful way and to channel their idealism and energy toward worthwhile causes.
6. Connected to the youth bulge is the impact of digital technology on Asian culture and society, both positive and negative. While it has facilitated instant communication worldwide and universal access to Internet-based resources in education, finance, technology, politics, and even religion, it has also caused depersonalization, social disconnect, emotional loneliness, diminished social empathy, misinformation, the proliferation of fake news, and the loss of serious reading and critical thinking, especially when social media is controlled by the government to exert power and by business corporations to promote consumerism. MH is a landmark document addressing the use and misuse of AI.
7. Globalization, understood generically as the increasing planetary connectivity of the people of Earth (“global connectivity”) and the accompanying growth in the planetary consciousness of global humanity (“global consciousness”), has affected Asia no less than the other two continents of the so-called Global South (Africa and Latin America). On the one hand, economic and technological globalization has greatly improved the standard of living in several Asian countries; on the other hand, it has also widened the gap between the rich and the poor. Furthermore, cultural globalization, aided by digitalization, has homogenized Asian cultures and threatened the traditional cultural values that have sustained Asian ways of life for centuries. The church must call attention to the ill effects of globalization on Asian cultures and the poor of Asia and urge governments to ensure that its benefits are not limited to the “creamy layer” of society who control science, technology, finance, social communication, the healthcare system, and the planet’s resources, but also reach the poorest of the poor.
8. A deleterious effect of the technological paradigm of globalization is the destruction of the ecological system and a threat to Earth’s survival, our “common home” (Pope Francis). Countless people in Asia have suffered from human-caused climate change, which has led to extreme weather, floods, typhoons, droughts, deforestation, rising sea levels, food shortages, conflicts over water use, soil and air pollution, and viral epidemics. The church must promote what Pope Francis calls “ecological conversion”: an awareness of the deep interconnections between humanity and every living organism on Earth, of the current ecological crisis, and of a corresponding change in behavior, especially the rejection of the throwaway mentality. The church must help Asians heed the cry of Earth and the poor together, as the poor are the first and most vulnerable victims of environmental destruction.
9. Given the enormity and multiplicity of the challenges facing Asia, Christianity alone cannot meet them and bring about peace and harmony on the continent. Christians must work together with followers of Asian religions, which the Korean Catholic bishops characterize as “neighbor religions” rather than “non-Christian” or “other” religions, by sharing a common life, collaborating in social activities, engaging in interreligious dialogue, and sharing spiritual experiences.
Migration, family, women, gender, youth, digital technology, globalization, ecology, and interreligious dialogue—these are social justice issues that Asian Catholicism would like Pope Leo to focus on. As long as they remain unattended and unresolved, there will be no peace.