Summary: Posthumanism appears to have been significantly misunderstood, and thus misrepresented, in Magnifica Humanitas. While the Encyclical contains many thoughtful and important reflections, several passages appear to conflate posthumanism with transhumanism, including the statement in paragraph 172 suggesting that some posthumanist currents envision “second-class” human beings serving elitist interests, as it states: “Some post-humanist currents even go so far as to envision ‘second-class’ human beings, subordinate to the interests of elites who consider themselves superior.” Posthumanist thinkers have consistently argued the opposite: that no human being is “more human” than another, and that dignity cannot be measured according to ability, productivity, enhancement, wealth, or conformity to dominant norms. For this reason, we – the undersigned posthumanist researchers within a broad international and interdisciplinary community – are requesting a meeting with Pope Leo XIV for an open dialogue aimed at clarifying the posthumanist position and fostering constructive exchange.

Respectful Request for Dialogue with Pope Leo XIV on Posthumanism and Its Misrepresentation in Magnifica Humanitas

Your Holiness Pope Leo XIV,

We – the undersigned posthumanist scholars and researchers engaged in posthumanist discourses as part of a broad international and interdisciplinary community active for more than two decades, with an established academic presence in research, publications, conferences, and university teaching, bringing together participants from across the world and from many religious and cultural backgrounds, including numerous Catholics and members of other Christian denominations – wish first of all to thank You sincerely for addressing with courage and depth the urgent questions raised by artificial intelligence, technological power, human dignity, and the future of our common planet in Magnifica Humanitas. 

We also wish to emphasize at the outset that posthumanism and transhumanism are distinct intellectual traditions, and should not be conflated, as they differ significantly in their philosophical foundations and ethical orientations.

We recognize in your Encyclical a profound pastoral concern for humanity, and we write to You in a spirit of dialogue, grounded in a shared concern: that no human being should ever be reduced to an instrument, abandoned in the name of efficiency, or considered less worthy because of vulnerability, limitation, difference, or lack of power. We deeply appreciate your warning against technological ideologies that promote domination, exclusion, or the concentration of power in the hands of elites.

It is precisely because we share these concerns that many within the posthumanist community — including Catholic and Christian posthumanists — felt saddened and misunderstood by certain passages of the Encyclical, which appear to rely on a false identification between posthumanism and transhumanism. This has generated great concern insofar as it does not reflect the core tenets of posthumanist thought.

The Encyclical rightly criticizes visions of technological domination, elitism, and forms of enhancement that risk creating inequality, exclusion, or the illusion that some human beings are “more human” than others. We fully share these concerns. Indeed, many posthumanist thinkers have spent decades criticizing precisely these tendencies. For this reason, the following passage (172) has been particularly painful for many readers:

“At the root of these problems lies a technocratic and post-humanist mentality that tends to regard the human person as an object to be manipulated or a resource to be optimized, removing all safeguards against the unchecked pursuit of profit. What prevails is efficiency, rather than respect for freedom and human dignity. Some post-humanist currents even go so far as to envision ‘second-class’ human beings, subordinate to the interests of elites who consider themselves superior.”

The posthumanist traditions with which many of us identify have consistently argued the opposite: that no human being is more human than another, and that dignity cannot be measured according to ability, productivity, intelligence, enhancement, wealth, or conformity to a dominant norm. There are no beings of greater or lesser worth, since all who exist possess an existential dignity that is shared and indivisible.

At its best, posthumanism is not an attempt to abolish humanity, but an invitation to overcome systems of hierarchy and exclusion that have historically denied full dignity to many humans and non-human beings alike. It calls us to reflect more deeply on interdependence, relationality, vulnerability, embodiment, ecology, and the ethical responsibility we bear toward one another and toward our shared world.

In this sense, we were profoundly moved by many other parts of the Encyclical, which seem to resonate deeply with posthumanist ethics. Your call to reject domination, to resist technocratic reductionism, to defend the vulnerable, to value relationality over power, and to affirm the interconnectedness of life reflects concerns that many posthumanist scholars, artists, theologians, and activists have long shared.

Particularly meaningful to us is the insistence that human flourishing cannot come through exclusion, control, or supremacy, but only through communion, compassion, and care. We believe this opens an important space for dialogue. Many Catholic posthumanists understand the human being not as an isolated sovereign individual standing at the center of creation, but as a relational creature among creatures—endowed with dignity precisely through relationship, dependence, responsibility, and openness to transcendence.

We therefore kindly request an audience with Your Holiness for a direct dialogue on these topics. We believe such an encounter could help clarify misunderstandings, build bridges, and foster a deeper shared reflection on humanity, technology, and ecology. Our intention is to participate honestly in a common discernment about what it means to be human in a time of profound transformation.

As this request is being endorsed by renowned posthumanist scholars—including authors cited in note 13 of the research document Quo Vadis, Humanitas?, which the Encyclical itself draws upon—we wish to keep it open, allowing posthumanists around the globe who feel represented by its spirit of respectful dialogue and shared ethical concern to support and sign it. 

We sincerely hope to be granted the opportunity for this encounter.

Peace and Blessings