Pope Leo quoted Gandalf in 'Magnifica Humanitas' — are we listening?
As we witness the rise of AI and the spread of violence and hatred across the globe, we can draw wisdom from both a fictional wizard and a very real pope.,As we witness the rise of AI and the spread of violence and hatred across the globe, we can draw wisdom from both a fictional wizard and a very real pope.
4 months ago
Pope Leo’s recent encyclical Magnifica Humanitas includes an unexpected quotation from Gandalf, the wizard of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle‑earth, prompting discussion about the Pope’s engagement with contemporary culture and the relevance of such references for modern believers 1.
The encyclical cites Gandalf’s words on hope and moral courage, linking them to the Church’s call for human dignity and solidarity.
Commentators note that the reference aims to bridge literary imagination with theological teaching, suggesting a pastoral strategy to reach wider audiences.
The inclusion signals Pope Leo’s willingness to draw from popular culture to illustrate timeless Christian values, inviting the faithful to consider how secular narratives can echo spiritual truths.*
How does Pope Leo’s use of literary allusion reflect Catholic doctrinal continuity?
Pope Leo XIV’s use of literary (especially biblical and classical) allusion reflects doctrinal continuity when the allusions function as a hermeneutical bridge—a way of making perennial Catholic truth intelligible in a new historical situation—rather than as a source of new doctrine. In Catholic teaching, continuity is safeguarded by fidelity to apostolic Tradition, and by the Magisterium’s discernment of whether diverse cultural/literary expressions remain faithful to the apostolic faith.
Catholic doctrinal continuity is not primarily measured by style, but by whether teaching remains within the apostolic communion in faith and sacraments, a communion “signified and guaranteed by apostolic succession.”
So when Pope Leo XIV alludes to texts (Scripture, Augustine, conciliar language, etc.), the doctrinal question becomes: Does the allusion preserve the link to apostolic faith, or does it detach from it? Catholic teaching explicitly grounds unity amid diversity in fidelity to apostolic Tradition, and likewise treats language in prayer as something the Church must evaluate for fidelity to apostolic faith.
In that light, literary allusion is doctrinally continuous when it is:
The Catechism’s account of prayer makes this ecclesial logic explicit: the Magisterium discerns the fidelity of “ways of praying” to apostolic faith, and pastors/catechists explain meaning “always in relation to Jesus Christ.”
Allusion also functions within the Church’s broader method of inculturation—the Gospel’s penetration into real cultures, without reducing doctrine to local color. The International Theological Commission frames inculturation as bringing the Gospel into cultures in a way that makes it grow in Christian faith, hope, and charity (not merely touching culture superficially).
That same logic appears in Church teaching about cultural communication: the pastoral use of media should be serious evangelization, and Catholic participation in communication is meant to avoid pitfalls and challenges, implying discernment rather than uncritical adoption of cultural forms.
Therefore, Pope Leo XIV’s literary allusion is doctrinally continuous when it:
In fact, in his encyclical Leo XIV describes social teaching as “founded on Sacred Scripture and Tradition” and emphasizes it is “not an inert set of concepts, but a living corpus of truth.”
In Magnifica Humanitas Pope Leo XIV repeatedly uses vivid “literary” biblical scenes—especially the Tower of Babel and Nehemiah’s rebuilding—to interpret the modern problem of AI and technological power.
This shows continuity at several levels:
He explicitly sets the direction of discernment by pairing the Genesis Babel narrative with Nehemiah’s rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls, then draws out a moral-theological contrast: Babel represents a project “conceived without reference to God,” choosing “homogenization over communion,” whereas Nehemiah’s way is collaborative rebuilding “with God at the center,” in which relationships are rebuilt “before rebuilding with stones.”
This is not a new theory of God or man; it is a canonical reading of Scripture applied to a new “change of era.” He even describes modern technology as not inherently evil in itself, while insisting it is “never neutral” because it takes on the characteristics of who devises, finances, regulates, and uses it—an explicitly moral judgment aligned with the Church’s perennial anthropology.
Doctrinal continuity also appears in how Leo XIV operationalizes the biblical imagery through clear norms: he calls for discernment by standards such as the dignity of the human person, the universal destination of goods, the preferential option for the poor, care for creation, and peace—then translates them into practices.
So the “literary” Babel/Jerusalem contrast does not float free; it is disciplined by substantive moral doctrine and social principles. That is exactly what would be expected if the Church’s unity criterion is fidelity to apostolic Tradition rather than rhetorical originality.
Leo XIV’s encyclical explicitly connects his anthropology and social reflection to the Second Vatican Council (e.g., Gaudium et Spes) and also presents the Church’s vocation to dialogue as constitutive: the Church is “a sacrament… of communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race” (Lumen Gentium), and she recognizes history as where the Gospel challenges and directs human experience.
That matters for your question: literary allusion here signals continuity because it places modern questions inside the Church’s received interpretive framework (Scripture + Council + Magisterium), rather than treating modernity as a blank slate.
Pope Leo XIV’s approach also fits a recognized papal method: other popes have used literature/poetry to reach truth accessible to many, because beauty can make truth “accessible” without being truth itself.
A pertinent example is the way Pope Francis (in Candor Lucis aeternae) describes Paul VI’s and John Paul II’s engagement with Dante: theology is “intrinsically related to beauty,” and beauty becomes “the handmaid of goodness and truth,” helping people come to “the light of truth.”
That same passage stresses that Dante’s aim is “primarily practical and transformative,” leading from sin to holiness and from confusion to wisdom—i.e., literature as a servant of moral and theological formation.
Thus, when Pope Leo XIV alludes to the Tower of Babel and Jerusalem’s rebuilding, the implicit method is consistent: literary images are used as “vesture” for teachings already given (in Leo’s case, given through Scripture, Tradition, conciliar teaching, and Catholic social doctrine), rather than as an alternative source of doctrine.
Catholic continuity is not guaranteed automatically by citing Scripture; it depends on the interpretive function of the allusion.
If an allusion were used to:
Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical itself guards against that by explicitly grounding discernment in doctrinal standards and by translating the biblical contrasts into concrete ethical and policy-oriented norms.
Pope Leo XIV’s literary allusion reflects Catholic doctrinal continuity because it operates within the Church’s established criteria: unity and fidelity to apostolic Tradition, disciplined discernment by the Magisterium, and inculturation that penetrates and transforms rather than merely decorates. In Magnifica Humanitas, Babel and Nehemiah function as interpretive keys that apply Scripture’s perennial moral-theological vision to AI and technological power—while remaining explicitly governed by Catholic doctrinal standards and conciliar/magisterial continuity.