A Student Drowning in AI Reviews the Magnifica Humanitas

If you're a student today then it's no surprise that AI is everywhere you look - even if you try to avoid it. This episode dives into the Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo's May 2026 encyclical that looks at AI, its impact on humanity and the common good in society. We're all asking - how do we live with this new tool with integrity? This episode has all the answers (psych!) But it does try to invite you to wrestle through it with me. Let's do this.

Not/So My Ministry segment:

- Moving

- Shaw University

Referenced in this episode (full notes on Substack):

John Nosta article (please note I read an updated version in the August 2026 edition of Psychology Today - highly recommended, but this version also has the quotes cited within the podcast episode)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-digital-self/202603/what-thunders-behind-ais-words

Holy See - Magnifica Humanitas:

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html#Truth_as_a_common_good

Video/Audio recording on YouTube: Magnifica Humanitas | Pope Leo XIV (FULL audiobook) — REAL human voice!

Shaw University Doctor of Education in AI and Moral Agency: https://www.shawu.edu/shaw-university-launches-nations-first-hbcu-doctor-of-education-in-artificial-intelligence-and-moral-agency/

About Faithfully Uncool:

Substack: https://substack.com/@jasmyneharper 

IG: https://www.instagram.com/faithfullyuncool_podcast/

Site: https://www.faithfullyuncool.com/

Email: faithfullyuncool@gmail.com

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Welcome and Why AI Matters

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hi everyone, I'm Jasmine. Welcome to Faithfully Uncool, a space where we talk about Christianity, spirituality, and life. Whether you're Christian, another tradition, or none at all, come on in, have a tea, and let's learn something new about faith and everything in between. Hey y'all. So today we're gonna be looking at a topic that's been on a lot of timelines. Type it into YouTube or Google, and tons of videos will come up. Think pieces on Substack all over the place. It's it's not going anywhere anytime soon. And that's AI, specifically through the Pope's encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, that came out around May this year. It's been out for a few months. It feels so surreal that summer is almost over. But I took some time to look into the Magnifica Humanitas. I I listened to the entire thing. Great video on YouTube by a guy who read the whole thing. I'll share in the show notes. But found it really interesting. And while I am not Catholic, I actually do enjoy reading the different popes encyclicals, not all the time, right? It's not, you know, I can't quote them or pull them up like that. I don't have a copious amounts of history reading them. But whenever I do get the chance to read them, either directly through my schoolwork at the Divinity School or just because I'm curious, like in the case of Magnifica Imanitas, I find that I really find the practice of the encyclical quite fascinating, actually. And even as someone coming from outside of the Catholic tradition, I just find it a little refreshing, I guess, to see this layout of how a tradition generally approaches different social topics. I don't know. I just like really enjoy that. Obviously, different faiths and different Christian domin denominations do this in their own way, but I just find that system of the way that the Catholic faith does it really fascinating and intriguing, honestly, and just great for looking back throughout history and seeing what different popes have said. Speaking of popes, I really do like Pope Leo for however much that counts, which is probably not a lot. But when I have seen him on my timeline, usually he's doing something that even if I'm not a hundred percent understanding or a hundred percent behind, I'm like, oh, okay, like you seem, you seem like a nice person. I don't know. Maybe that doesn't really matter, but in any case, that's that's my two cents on on the issue. Um, but I really wanted to dive into how AI was being approached through the Magnificae Manitas. For me, as someone who is currently getting my master's degree, but when I got my undergrad degree, I finished in 2016. So I was in school 2012 to 2016, and that was before the big AI boom. So I remember remembering very late in the day, one time, my junior year, that I had a paper due at 4 p.m. And I remembered maybe around 2 30 at best, I ended up writing that paper in an hour and turning it in. And I got like a low B on it, like an 82, 84, 80, whatever it was. And I just felt on top of the world because it was almost a zero. So uh compared with those odds, I did pretty damn well. But now as a student, this is the first time that there are just tools constantly around me that are essentially offering to do what I came to school to do, which is write papers. Um, obviously, I came to school to study and research and all of these things, but a big chunk of a lot of degree programs, especially if you're gonna study something like Divinity, which I affectionately call a thinky-feely program, you're gonna be writing papers. And so this idea that there is now a tool that exists that I can type in the prompt and it will literally give me back a paper, is actually pretty insane. Now, will the paper be trash, of course, but it is still very insane to think about. So I wanted to dive into the Magnificai Manitas because I think that it's so interesting that we are getting to the point where AI is so constantly around us that we're now really starting to tackle it as an ethical issue. Now, one thing I found really interesting and also kind of a bit funny, if I'm being honest, about the Magnifica Homenitas is that for an encyclical on AI, Pope Leo really does take a while to speak directly about artificial intelligence. And so while I'm listening to it, and also when I went back to sort of skim through what I had already listened to and sort of follow along, I found it interesting just the structure of this encyclical that he chose to do. You obviously know that he's going to arrive at discussing AI outright. So while this letter is five chapters total, he spends a lot of the beginning. I'm thinking of in the introduction in chapter one specifically, sort of laying the framework and the groundwork for what it is, what it's about, and what it is not. And for me, I guess there was this tone of trying to speak to those who would be wary about approaching the topic of AI and approaching the ethics of it from the point of view of the Catholic Church or maybe Christianity. That's just my personal take. I felt that Pope Leo did a lot of grounding and sort of saying, you know, the church has a right to speak in this conversation. Some

Church, State, And Christian Nationalism

SPEAKER_00 6:29

parts that really stuck out to me were in paragraph 20, where it's written that the church, capital C, the church, thus stands alongside the world without overpowering it, so that the promise of justice and peace that the Holy Spirit continues to sustain in the heart of humanity may come to fruition in every endeavor. So pretty soon, Pope Leo starts describing that the church isn't trying to actually stand in absolute opposition to technological to technological advances or human progress, but does see its role as significant in steering humanity in the right direction, so to speak, or alerting us of when the path may be detrimental to our well-being. And then next, in paragraph 21, he goes on to say the church does not claim to assume the functions belonging to the state. On the contrary, she esteems those who serve the common good, and she firmly acknowledges the responsibility that civil institutions hold within society. And that comment may seem like, yeah, duh, but for me, as an American reading this encyclical, I pause here and I think, okay, I'm I'm with you, Pope Leo. I'm tracking. The church does not claim to assume the functions belonging to the state, because if you're paying attention as a U.S. citizen right now, we are struggling with that a little bit, with this idea of the separation of church and state. We are dealing with rampant Christian nationalism. We have people that appeal to their faith when they're running for office, which I don't think is necessarily bad. But I do think that we have to recognize that there are people that will read the church does not claim to assume the functions belonging to the state and go, hmm, debatable. Okay. And they won't all be cynics. They'll be people who really want to see America as a Christian nation and have real prejudices against people who are not Christian or who do not fit the bill for what they consider a quote-unquote American who belongs. And so when we look at rampant anti-immigration language, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, we have to understand that this idea that the church does not claim to assume the functions belonging to the state is simple and basic, but it is also something that in the US is not always taken at its face value. When we look at Christian nationalism, which is so rampant on the right, we have to understand that we are looking at a system that ultimately understands America as a Christian, holy nation that is romanticizing its past that we need to get back to or get great again. And so when I read lines throughout this encyclical, like paragraph 21 and others, I see Pope Leo, someone who has been criticized by President Trump and the Trump administration as he gets involved in anti-war and tries to hold the U.S. accountable to what he sees as egregious laws and crimes and behaviors against humanity. There have been many times when people have held this administration to account. We see James Tallerico in Texas kind of having a different frame for how he brings his faith into politics than some others on the right do. We see Marion Booty actually at the beginning of Trump's administration in that famous Washington National Cathedral address talk about how with his election, with his winning of the presidency, there were some that were fearful. So we've seen people within church settings respond to, including the Pope, respond to the actions of this administration. What I find and appreciate and respect here is that throughout this encyclical, Pope Leo really makes it clear that the church is not trying to be a pseudo-state of its own. It's not trying to stand in or stand over the state. What it is trying to do is chime in and have its own place that is relevant within this conversation. But there is a self-awareness here that I appreciate, which says that there is an understanding that there are some people who may not want the church's points of view on an ethical matter. And so it looks like before beginning, Pope Leo understands I need to make sure you know what the church, at least in this particular instance, in this letter, is not before I dive in to tell you all of my good ideas and the position that the Catholic Church holds and go into the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, etc., let me set the stage for those who would side-eye why I am even joining the conversation. I I think that that's a interesting and good way, if I'm being honest, to begin this encyclical, and that's what I got out of its beginning. Then

Focus on the Common Good

SPEAKER_00 11:56

Pope Leo continues on within chapter one and leading into chapter two on the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. And I also found this part that really stands out to me because he starts talking about the equal dignity of all human beings and especially the principle of the common good, which he describes in paragraph 60 as not the sum total of individual benefits, nor the intersection of their particular interests. It, the common good, is a greater good that belongs to everyone, and it can only be achieved, nurtured, and protected by our collective efforts. So this principle of common good and other principles outlined throughout chapter two, a part of the social doctrine, recur throughout the encyclical, which is important to hold on to as we get to this point of him setting the stage, because the overarching question then is going to be: how does AI challenge or promote the common good? And so for me at least, when I recognize that that is how to consider this encyclical, it helps since Pope Leo does touch on several different topics throughout the entire piece.

Truth, Misinformation, and Education

SPEAKER_00 13:04

And so with that in mind, I wanted to look at this idea of something that Pope Leo outlines as truth as a common good and the ecology of communication. So these themes are explored in chapter four. And I don't know if it's odd to say you have a favorite part of an encyclical, but I'm an Episcopalian, so it doesn't matter anyway. But if I had one, it would be chapter four of the Magnifica Humanitas, is my favorite part. To be quite honest, if you're short on time, I actually recommend starting the letter at chapter four through the conclusion, because this is where, to me at least, we get to the meat and potatoes of what it's all about. And it really resonated with me. So there are a couple really great lines, I think, throughout this chapter that stand out to me, depending on your industry, what you do for work, what you study, what your skills are skill set is in, et cetera, you might be looking at the rise of AI or the use of AI differently. For me, just kind of honing in, I'm thinking about how AI affects me as a student and as a creative person who likes to make things. And some quotes that really stuck out to me throughout this part of the encyclical, where paragraph 134, indifference to the truth leads slowly but surely to a descent into totalitarianism. As someone who's currently getting my graduate degree, I think that I see anti-intellectualism all around me. And it can be kind of depressing and a bit dystopian. We see this when we look at literacy rates and just the wild amount of misinformation that exists. But then later on, he says a part that I think is one of the most important pieces of the encyclical when it comes to at least how you're thinking about this, maybe in an educational context, but in a lot of other contexts. Paragraph 139. In an era when truth is often distorted in order to serve particular interests and communication strategies, the field of education assumes decisive importance. Yet rapid technological transformations reveal just how unprepared we are on the educational level. The pervasiveness of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper stimulation, which gives rise to fatigue, boredom, and apathy concerning the effort required for seeking the truth. Paragraph 140, educating people about the use of AI then involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used. And it's that last line in 139 that sticks with me a lot. The pervasiveness of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper stimulation which gives rise to fatigue, boredom, and apathy concerning the effort required for seeking the truth. This part is so significant to me because I think that there is something to be said for the amount of time and attention that hard things can take. And there's this really like like famous quote. I guess I don't know if it's really a quote, it's just maybe more of a saying in general that I always think of, which is basically choose your hard. And to me, coming to grad school was a kind of choosing a certain hard. I was grieving a major loss with my mom. And the next year I really flipped my entire life upside down by pursuing my education. And so when I read this, I think about that way that we have gotten really used to easy answers and quick answers. And sometimes that takes away the rigor required to actually dig deep and reflect and have thoughts that are very articulate and well-founded and step by step, because the amount of time that it takes to get to our conclusion is shrinking and shrieking. But that time is so impactful for the conclusions that we land on in the first place. When we remove the process of what it takes to research, when we remove the skills that we used when we were reading different books and analyzing different things, we sort of get into this mindset where we want answers that are quick and easy, and those are the answers that are best, which obviously we know not just in education, but in a lot of aspects of life are not always the case. Sometimes the best conversations you'll have are the hardest ones to bring up, right? Like we understand that just because something is hard does not mean that it is not worth doing. I'm also not here trying to say that we should worship difficulty at every single turn, that as soon as a technological tool or advancement makes something a bit easier for ourselves, that we should automatically demonize it. That's not the point here at all. More so, it's that this idea that everything it takes to research and to write and to explain our thoughts can be done at the blink of an eye at the press of the enter button after we put a prompt into a chat bot or a chat box, is really kind of insane when we think about it. And I don't think that it's the best of ourselves. And something that the encyclical brings up is this idea that AI can promise of self-transcendence and being above the human. And so when I do get the sense that Pope Leo was talking about not making AI an idol, I also get the sense that there's almost this reminder to humanity to remember what makes humankind in and of itself unique and precious and dignified. That it's not just about what we produce and how we produce, but also about the fact that we exist. And there's something particularly special about our existence, in and of itself, that should not be so commodified that it can be given away and devalued effortlessly. From my

How AI Keeps You Afraid to be Seen

SPEAKER_00 19:47

own self and my own life as a student, I also think it's important to analyze why someone would use AI. Like I said, in my previous years, I didn't use AI because it wasn't an option for me. But coming to grad school, it is. It's not one that I use, but it exists. And so I think that we have to be honest about why someone would use AI. And I think that there is something to be said for the lack of confidence AI and digital media can give us in our own voices. It's so interesting because right now I'm on a journey to create more content and share more content on Instagram and maybe start doing YouTube again, all of these things. And in a world where it's so easy to be seen, you know, we can snap a photo and tons of strangers will see it if we post it online and people make money that way. And I think it's great to show off your creativity that way and celebrate the things that make you happy in your day. I think all that's fine. But it's so interesting because posting can actually give me a lot of anxiety. And so I have to work over the fear I have of being seen, right? It's so weird. Like we have a world where there's so many different ways for us to be perceived and seen by other people, even people that we don't know. But we have to kind of get over that fear of thinking that we don't matter or that we're not worth seeing in this odd way. If you're someone like me and you have a lot of negative voices in your head, maybe you can relate. If you don't relate, then hey, I think you're awesome for being a confident queen or king and you should keep doing your thing. But I think that that becomes so common is this idea that there's an easy answer that I'm missing. There's easy advice that I'm missing, there's an easy process right in front of me. And I need something else to point it out to me. If I just have the right prompt. The right AI, the right tool, I can immediately make this process simpler. And sometimes that's true, right? Sometimes we're making something, a task, more like harder than it needs to be, sure. But other times the hard, so to speak, is a part of the entire point of getting good at what you are working on. Case in point is doing something that I have to do often lately, and that is writing essays. Interesting enough, Pope Leo and I have a similar concern. In paragraph 140, he says, we must learn then how to exercise restraint in the use of AI, and to protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed. End quote. And I think that one of the subtle temptations that come up is when people are in the middle of doing writing assignments. Now, pause, okay? Pause. Imagine a big yield sign in your head. All right, we're gonna pause here. Please know that nothing I'm saying in this podcast episode has anything to do with anything that Harvard does or other institutions do when it comes to AI or any recommendations that I'm giving for any students listening. My recommendation is that you write your own work. That's my recommendation. That's it. If you are curious or unsure about what parts of an assignment you are allowed to seek AI help with, I suggest that you go to the professor themselves. So I think that that's really important. So please do not take any of my words out of context to mean anything or say anything about anything other than me and my personal experience and my personal life. And that is all. I am not speaking on the behalf of any institutions, any other people, any professors, any anything like that. All right. I want to make that 100% crystal clear. Now, that said, I'm gonna share a tip for those who have trouble when it comes to trusting their own human thought. Because I realize I had to really think about this. Growing up, I really approached writing as an art form. I love to write and I love to creatively write. I like poetry and I like writing fantasy. And my head was always buzzing with ideas, all of the time, all of the time. That's not an exaggeration. I was always buzzing with ideas. I had scenes that would play in my head. I had a crazy hyperactive imagination as a kid, as a teen, as an adult, even. I'm always writing down story ideas. I don't have time to really dedicate to creative writing the way I used to, but it's always been a part of my life. And when I think of little Jasmine who would take her creative writing notebooks from class to class in high school and was just known as the girl who wrote all the time, I don't think AI would have helped her at all. I don't think AI would have helped her understand how to write a play in drama class when she got the chance. I don't think AI would have helped her to finish her first novel. I don't think AI would have helped her to get all of the A's that she did on all of the essays that she wrote, even the ones that she didn't feel in the mood to write. I don't think another tool to second guess myself as a young girl in school would have done me any good. That's my honest opinion. And so when I look back at my life now, you know, being 32, I'm not that old. But when I look back at just that time, I'm like, yeah, I understand how people find it useful. But I don't think that that would have helped me much. I don't think that would have been good for my mental, if I'm being real with you. So when it comes to coming to school again and trusting my voice and getting words down on the page, I will say that the blank page is one of the most intimidating things you can ever come across. And I've felt this way my whole life. However, sometimes when you are surrounded by ways to take the elevator, so to speak, instead of the stairs, you realize that you have to take it back to the basics a bit. And so for me, this looked like, yeah, maybe AI can be a ramp for some people. It can bridge the gap for some people if they truly need it. And if for whatever reason they're in a class or with a professor that allows it in some in some capacity, okay, it is what it is. But for me, I realized that I had to take it back old school. And that meant writing my papers by hand. Yes, you heard me by hand. And I know some people are like, goodbye, but I really do mean this. I really, really do. Number one, it helps you to think better and think longer. Number two, it doesn't have to be your entire paper. But even though you can't turn them in this way, I would never turn in a paper by hand today. I do 80% of the time, nine times out of 10, start my paper by hand. The exception, the exception is when I am so in the flow. I have taken a class that is just so right for me. I am absolutely in my lane, top of my game, taking a class where we are reading books and studying and talking about things that I do for fun, basically. You know, I wake up and I eat, breathe, sleep, what that class's topic is about. There are some classes where like the words just flow out of me. I don't need to write it by hand. I can really go straight to Microsoft Word and start typing, and it's glorious. Obviously, you know, all papers have various revisions. So I'm not talking about your first draft of anything being turned in. That hopefully you're not turning in first drafts. But when I say write by hand, typically my first drafts, eight out of 10 times, usually part of that first draft, if not the entire thing, was written by hand. And the reason being is because I need the right to not

Back to the Basics: Write By Hand

SPEAKER_00 28:34

have everything figured out. And something about writing it by hand just helps me to not stop and start and panic and worry and get in my head about the page count all the time. And then when I type it up, it's a chance for me to look at my work again. And that's been extremely, extremely helpful of a method. Because by writing it by hand, I essentially automatically am typing up draft two, because I have to review my own handwritten notes, my own handwritten paragraphs and the way I was thinking about things when I am typing it up. And sometimes I'm typing it up and I'm like, okay, you know, the first draft wasn't so bad, but this point needs to be fleshed out more. This point needs to just be deleted because it doesn't make any sense. This is my actual thesis, and I think I argued for it really good here and argued for it pretty weakly in this other area, et cetera. But writing by hand has been so, so helpful for me to get out of my anxious head. I really do think that for a lot of people, they don't go to AI because they're lazy. They go to AI because they genuinely don't know how to trust their own voice or how to write something that they want. And so to me, it's like, write it badly. Just write it badly. And I find that that is easier to do when I write it by hand. That's just the honest to goodness truth. One class I took was absolutely so refreshing and helpful for me as someone who does this method. And it was a class in my spring semester on early Christianity. And in the class, we had an assignment where you would have to write a paper on a book that we had read. And so we would look a lot about the Gnostic Gospels within the Christian tradition. And so this could be the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary. It could be something like the secret book of John. So for those of you who are familiar with early Christian history, Gnostic texts, this is the kind of stuff that we were reading in the course. And there was an assignment to write a paper, but you had to turn it in before the lecture about that particular text happened. So these were all papers that you had to write, and you could not use any outside resources. And you also did not have the lecture to pull from either, because it had to be due the day of the lecture, if not before the lecture. So you did not have the benefit of the lecture to go through. It was just you and the text and your analysis of that text and your own words. And that assignment was difficult and absolutely so refreshing. Weirdly enough, it was one of the my favorite things I've ever been assigned to write. And the reason is very simple. The reason is very simple. It is because I had permission to be wrong. In a world of AI and in a world of easy answers, there's a double-edged sword. There is the rampant misinformation that you get, and the immense judgment that you may feel, even if it is primarily self-judgment, for being wrong or mistaken about something. We live in a world that is very happy to see you at your worst and have sometimes a hard time celebrating you at your best. And I think what AI kind of appeals back the layers on is this idea that if you already put pressure on yourself, what makes you go to something like Chat GPT or a Claude or whatever they make isn't always that you're trying to do something faster. Sometimes it's that you don't actually understand that you are capable of what you want to accomplish. And I think that that's important to sit with, especially because AI and digital media tools, in my opinion, can be very addictive. So I think it is important to recognize like why people find them rewarding. And I don't think saying because people are super evil and the whole world is gonna end and die is enough of a reason. Like I think people are more nuanced than that, and not everyone has these terrible intentions. Most people don't. So you have to kind of sit with, okay, realistically, why would somebody consider this tool? And I think that lack of confidence or trust in one's voice is a huge deal. Especially when we start talking about parts of life that are discussed in chapter four, like education. So make no mistake, eventually we had a final essay in this class, and it had to be well researched and well constructed and defend a thesis and all that jazz. But these mini papers, these short papers in the beginning, were really a way for you to just sit with a text and examine it for what it is and not need a bunch of co-signers on the page. Okay? Scholarly resources, completely important. But it's interesting in this assignment that the purpose of it was for it to be its own exegetical paper, its own paper where we are talking about what we are getting out of this text, what the text is actually saying to us or expressing in light of other things that we might know based on other classes that we've had or other lectures that we may have had, but really coming to this text and being like, okay, what's your best guess? You know? What do you think about the tone? What do you think about the language? What do you think about what is being expressed here and why? What's the author arguing or saying? You don't need ChatGPT for everything, and you don't need ChatGPT for that. A lot of work, a lot of rigorous schoolwork is asking you to sit with material for its own benefit, for its own sake. And there's something really special about that. And I think that when you sit down with a tool like AI, the point is to be right. But when you sit down with yourself and you're trying to construct an argument, the point is to reflect

What's Lost when Words Aren't Human?

SPEAKER_00 35:25

and draw out analysis that can be, in some ways, uniquely human because it is shaped by your life and your experiences and your worldview and your culture. You are always at the desk when you are reading or writing about anything. In the August 2026 issue of the magazine Psychology Today, there's a really interesting article that I recommend you all read if you're into this topic by John Nosta or Nosta, apologies if I'm mispronouncing his name. And the article is called What Thunders Behind the Words of AI? And in this article, Nosta has this quote that says, The words carry the outer shell of thought while remaining ever detached from the lived interior that once made thought feel human. He also writes, The shock isn't only that a machine can write. We're far past that. It's that writing no longer guarantees what it once seemed to guarantee. A sentence used to imply, if not truth, then at least a speaker whose words were tethered to a life. End quote. This is a really, really great article, and I encourage anyone to read it. But it really does help us to ponder if you're someone who really loves writing and you're interested in how writing and AI intersect, about this understanding that words detached from hum humans or humanity, what that means. And I think that academia asks us to think about that. I've seen posts online about people saying, oh, I figured out a way to tell if my coworkers write me an email with AI, right? And I do find that a bit odd. I'm like, okay, you know, but people are very, you know, devout, I guess you could say, in their commitment to figuring out or debunking when and where AI is being used. And people sometimes take it as an actual affront that you would use AI to speak with them. And so there's all these ethical questions around social behavior too. You know, would you be offended if someone wrote you an email using AI? Would you be offended if someone wrote a condolence letter and had to use Chat GPT to figure out a way to say something? You know? And I think it's so interesting that we look at not only the action, but also the effort and the thought that went into an action. And we grade all of that together to come to how we feel about someone's productivity and someone's work. It's kind of like the old saying, it's the thought that counts. What if the thought wasn't human? So it's something to think about, and I, you know, no pun intended, and I just am so I don't know if I even have the words, oddly enough, to talk about all the complicated emotions around this for me. Because I think that it'd be really, really easy to just demonize AI and say AI terrible, human good, end of episode. But that's not really what the Pope is saying in Magnifica Humanitas, and it's not really what I'm saying either, because it's just not authentic to how I feel. AI is everywhere, and I don't think a world where we are hyper afraid of it is particularly helpful either. There are appropriate uses of it, and there are huge benefits of it, and there are ways and nuances where people use it for different parts of their projects, different parts of their writing processes and not others. So I'm not saying that it has absolutely no place in anyone's life or any student's life. There are things I do for social media or the podcasts where the companies that I have worked with to produce what I want use AI tools. And it is what it is. I'm not here to say that things can never be useful or never have a proper bucket or proper relationship to how they need to be used and have a functionality in your life. But I do think there's great value in knowing when to step back from it in, as Pope Leo says, understanding when it ought not to be used. And so if you're a student, I want to encourage you to write from the beautiful human thought that got you to the institution that you are at. And seek out human editors and human proofreaders to look over your work because at the end of the day, you will be judged by humans. And so you might as well start early with whatever you're producing. And I would say this especially to younger students, you know, undergrad or even high school. One of the things about writing and communicating is that it's one thing when we're using a tool to maybe sound more like ourselves or speak in our own voice, if we're able to do that in some ways. But it's an entirely other thing to not have any idea what our voice is. And so, in order to be ourself, we have to risk sounding like ourself. In order to be known, we have to risk being seen. And so, while AI may be useful, and I'm not discrediting that again, I would say if you're ever afraid to be seen, take the risk. And for the rest of us, if you are double checking your colleagues' emails to make sure that you can't detect one note or one period of AI language within it, then fine, you have found your ministry. However, maybe make sure that when you do see someone's mistake, someone's typo, someone's imperfections, that you have grace for them. Mistakes might be becoming uniquely human. And so may we be a safe place for people to land when they make them. Alright, friends, that brings me to the conclusion of this episode. Its runtime is longer than I expected, so I'm not sure what it'll all be once I edit it and figure out what the end is, but I hope that you enjoyed sitting with me and talking about this, wrestling with this a bit. Again, this isn't me saying that, you know, all AI is terrible or it never has its usefulness in anything that we do. But I do did just want to call attention to how we use it to write and how it comes up, I think, so much because in the Magnifica humanitas, you know, the special attention that the Pope gives to academia and education, I found really, really fascinating and something that I just wanted to make sure I shared my thoughts on and how it's affected my life, etc. I'm still figuring it out like anyone else. The view from my high horse doesn't

Not My Ministry and So My Ministry

SPEAKER_00 42:40

exist. It is just as confused as everyone else's. But some lasting remarks just in general. I really did appreciate the entirety of the Magnifica Humanitas. Um I think that the Pope really leans into speaking out against colonialism, speaking out against the way that AI can exacerbate inequalities and injustices that already exist. As someone who's even paid light attention to this Pope, I think it's fair to say that the encyclical felt like him. There was something honest in it and an attempt to speak truth to power in a way that was very real to me. He's not saying names, but you know what he's talking about, sort of thing, right? So I felt like this was definitely an appropriate encyclical for the time. I respected it. I felt that some honest and genuine points were made, and he really did try to speak to people across institutions and across concerns, which I do think was ultimately the right choice for this kind of piece. And with that, that's all I have for you about the Magnifica Humanitas. Let's get into not my ministry, so my ministry. Okay, so I'll try to keep it quick. First things first, not my ministry. Not my ministry, guys. Honestly, I can't believe that the summer is ending. So not my ministry is that the summer is ending. And I remember my last the last time the not my ministry was Boston winter. I promise I will try to figure out something that's not seasonal next time I do this. But not my ministry is honestly the end of summer. Oh my gosh, it seems like it just zoomed by. But it's been my first summer in Boston, and I have enjoyed it. So the fact that it ending is not my ministry is a good sign. Also, not my ministry is moving. Oh my goodness. Packing up everything, getting it picked up, all that stuff. Moving can just be so stressful. So I'm grateful that I have family that is assisting with different moving-related issues, but it's just a lot. It's it's all it always feels like a lot. And I have spent the past two summers now moving to different places related to school and all of that. So yeah, moving is just a lot. But blessed to have the means to do so. And then, so my ministry is Shaw

One Request! :)

SPEAKER_00 45:15

University. Shaw University, the first HBCU in the South, which I did not know about until I looked into its history a little bit based on this new press release, is launching its Doctor of Education in Artificial Intelligence and Moral Agency. And I think that is so interesting. So very applicable to this episode that we're having today. Shaw University Divinity School is launching a doctorate of education that will look at artificial intelligence and moral agency and will importantly zone in on this topic of theological ethics and technology and AI. And so it's the first program like this at an HBCU, and it will begin spring 2027. And that is so cool. So go Shaw University, go anyone who is attending Shaw or will be attending Shaw and taking advantage of this new program. I think that's really awesome and amazing and just really shows how necessary these conversations are. So huge congrats to them. And I hope to hear more about it. And I hope that it's a great success for the school and for everyone who is a part of it. And that's all I have for you today, guys. If I can just request something really small, really, really small favor. Um, wherever you are listening to Faithfully Uncool, if you wouldn't mind leaving a thoughtful and pleasant, hopefully five-star review, that'd be so, so great. If you like hearing me yap about the things that are interesting to me, please do let me know. And in a review, wherever you listen or get your podcasts, even if you use AI to write it, I'll get over it. Okay, I will. But you know, I think that your words would be just as beautiful if if not more so, because it would come for your heart. But like, whatever, whatever, whatever. Um, anywho, thank you so so much for listening, and as always, go in peace.