From Mirari vos (1832) to Magnifica humanitas (2026): The Development of Catholic Teaching on Communication, Technology, and Human Dignity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper compellingly situates Magnifica Humanitas in the context of Roman Catholic teaching around mass media and offers a novel periodization of these teachings which further underscores the significance of the most recent encyclical for a broader scholarly audience interested in religion and communication. It is obviously original on account of the novelty of the most recent text, and it stands to set a solid foundation for how scholars study the encyclical, not merely as a "reaction" to artificial intelligence but rather as a development of Roman Catholic systematic critique of the dehumanizing capacity of unregulated mass media.

Three issues must be resolved to make this paper fit for publication:

First and most importantly, the current article is not contextualized well enough in the secondary academic literature. There is practically no literature review in the article as it stands, and very few citations and references. As a result, the article often reads as if it is merely explaining the encyclical and other texts rather than responding to a particular academic discourse using the texts and the developed historical periodization. Some of the discourses that came to my mind to which the author might consider responding include the extent to which the church teaches that mass media may truly mediate sacramental life (see Theng 2026 in Church, Communication, and Culture, in light of your analysis of media evangelism in Aetatis Novae or the stuff about the modern-day pulpit), or weighing in on the mediation vs. social shaping of technology vs. critical-cultural approaches to the study of religion and media (see Peterson 2020 in Sociology Compass). Without a clear intervention into a scholarly discourse, I fear that the article reads more like an explainer than an intervention for researchers of religion and media.

Second, the methodology section could be reorganized to be more succinct and clear, and more citations are needed to justify the approach. From where did you get this uniform analytical framework, why does it include the themes that it does, what is excluded and why? How do you distinguish between theological-anthropological foundations and normative orientations? Who are your authors of reference for making these categories or for the way that you conduct discourse analysis? I would rewrite this section to contextualize your method first before discussing your sampling techniques, which are otherwise very clear.

Third, more explanation of certain analytical decisions would be helpful. In part due to the issues above, I am left scratching my head about certain framing choices - which does not mean they are wrong, but they do warrant contextualization so they are not assumed to be the only possible starting points for this work. For example, I am curious about the decision to start the historical analysis in the 19th century as opposed to, for example, the Council of Trent's dealings with the rise of printing in the counter-reformation. This would seem to support the implicit point made about how media policies respond to political crises and (at least in this epoch) mainly serve to reinforce church authority. I would also like to hear more about the contemporary critiques of IM (page 5) and how they might have prefigured the more substantive documents to come.

I hope these comments are helpful!

Author Response

I sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript, the positive assessment of its originality and historical periodisation, and the detailed recommendations for revision. The comments were particularly helpful in clarifying the article’s intervention in the academic literature, strengthening its methodological foundations, and explaining its principal historical and analytical decisions. I have substantially revised the manuscript in response to all three points.

Comment 1

The article is not sufficiently contextualised within the secondary academic literature and risks reading as an explanation of ecclesial documents rather than as an intervention in research on religion and media. The reviewer recommends engagement with debates concerning sacramental mediation, the social shaping of technology, and critical-cultural approaches to religion and media, particularly the work of Theng and Peterson.

Response

I agree and have substantially expanded the article’s engagement with the relevant secondary literature.

The revised Introduction now situates the study within several interconnected fields of research. It first reviews scholarship on the historical development of Catholic media teaching, including studies of twentieth-century social communication, digital media, and recent Catholic engagement with artificial intelligence. It then places these debates within the broader interdisciplinary fields of religion and media, mediation and mediatisation, digital religion, digital ecclesiology, theological anthropology, AI ethics, and algorithmic governance.

The revised manuscript now engages, among others, with the work of Hoover, Hjarvard, Lövheim, Campbell, Hutchings, Campbell and Tsuria, Peterson, Herzfeld, Dorobantu, Jobin, Ienca and Vayena, and Fukuda-Parr and Gibbons. These studies make it possible to move beyond an understanding of media as merely neutral instruments employed by religious institutions. Media are instead treated as environments and cultural forms that participate in shaping religious authority, community, practice, and public visibility.

I have incorporated the literature suggested by the reviewer directly into the analysis. Peterson’s work is used both in the Introduction and in the Discussion to relate the article’s findings to critical approaches that challenge rigid distinctions between religion, media, and culture. The revised Discussion now argues that Catholic teaching gradually broadened its account of media from predominantly instrumental use toward more relational and socially formative conceptions of communication. At the same time, it acknowledges that dialogical and relational language did not fully displace instrumental understandings, since post-conciliar documents continued to evaluate media in relation to evangelisation, pastoral planning, and institutional effectiveness.

Theng’s study has also been incorporated into the section on The Church and Internet. The statement that “there are no sacraments on the internet” is now interpreted within the broader scholarly debate concerning digital Catholic imagination, mediated ecclesial presence, online participation, and embodied sacramental life. The revised analysis therefore distinguishes between the capacity of digital media to support ecclesial communication and participation and their inability, within the teaching examined, to substitute fully for embodied sacramental presence.

The revised Introduction now concludes with a more precise research gap. Although existing scholarship has examined individual documents, technologies, pontificates, and developments in digital religion, the relationship between canonical communication regulation, pastoral media teaching, digital ecclesial participation, and the recent anthropological and systemic critique of artificial intelligence has rarely been reconstructed within a single historical and juridical-institutional framework.

The article’s contribution is therefore no longer presented merely as a chronological explanation of Catholic documents. It is framed as an intervention in debates concerning the relationship between media, religious authority, institutional practice, embodiment, communication, and technological power.

These revisions are principally reflected in the Introduction, Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.4, and the revised Discussion, especially Section 4.2.

Comment 2

The methodology section should be reorganised and made more concise. More methodological references are needed, and the manuscript should explain the origin of the analytical framework, the selection and exclusion of materials, the distinction between theological-anthropological foundations and normative orientations, and whether the study employs discourse analysis.

Response

I agree and have comprehensively reorganised the Materials and Methods section.

Section 2 is now divided into five subsections:

1. Methodological Approach;
2. Corpus and Selection Criteria;
3. Analytical Framework;
4. Construction of the Historical Periodisation; and
5. Scope and Limitations.

The revised Section 2.1 explains that the study combines historical-hermeneutical reconstruction, comparative qualitative document analysis, and a juridical-institutional reading. The historical-hermeneutical dimension situates the documents within their ecclesial, political, legal, and technological contexts. The comparative dimension identifies recurring concepts, institutional patterns, normative orientations, and significant differences between the texts. The juridical-institutional dimension distinguishes the documents according to genre, issuing authority, normative status, intended addressees, and mode of intervention.

I have also added methodological references. The approach to qualitative document analysis is supported by Prior and Bowen, while the juridical-institutional component draws on Hutchinson and Duncan and Kestemont. The revised text explains that documents are treated as institutionally situated texts whose production, authority, audience, and use contribute to their meaning. It also clarifies that doctrinal legal research is applied particularly to canonical legislation, administrative acts, ecclesiastical competence, and normative authority. It is not used to reduce theological or pastoral texts to legal sources.

The revised methodology explicitly states that the article does not employ discourse analysis in the sense of a formal linguistic, sociological, or computational coding procedure. Instead, it undertakes a qualitative and historically contextualised interpretation of normative and theological documents.

Section 2.2 now explains that the corpus is purposive rather than exhaustive. Documents were included when they fulfilled one or more of the following criteria:

• substantial engagement with media, communication, information technology, or artificial intelligence;
• introduction or consolidation of a significant institutional or normative development;
• evidence of a change in the Church’s understanding or use of a medium;
• discernible influence on later Catholic media or technology reflection; or
• particular relevance to the proposed historical periodisation.

The revised Scope and Limitations section also identifies what is excluded. The study does not attempt to analyse every Catholic statement concerning media and technology, nor does it systematically examine local reception, informal speeches and interviews, internal drafting processes, or the practical implementation of the selected documents by dioceses, episcopal conferences, religious communities, or Catholic media institutions.

Section 2.3 now explains the origin and purpose of the four analytical dimensions. The framework was not adopted from a single pre-existing typology and was not imposed as a rigid coding scheme. It was developed iteratively through the research questions, the institutional characteristics of the corpus, and recurring themes identified during close reading.

The four dimensions are:

1. institutional context and document character;
2. theological-anthropological foundations;
3. thematic emphases and normative orientations; and
4. relationship to Catholic media and social teaching.

The distinction between theological-anthropological foundations and normative orientations has also been clarified. The former concerns the underlying conception of the human person through which media and technology are evaluated, including dignity, embodiment, relationality, freedom, responsibility, vulnerability, work, and integral human development. Normative orientations concern the duties, rights, prohibitions, institutional responsibilities, governance expectations, and regulatory conclusions derived from those foundations.

Section 2.4 now explains how the three-phase periodisation was constructed. The phases were identified through comparison of changes in institutional posture, dominant normative mode, the underlying conception of media or technology, and the anthropological vocabulary employed by the documents. The revised text also emphasises that the phases are heuristic and overlapping rather than mutually exclusive stages in a linear development.

Finally, I have added three explicit research questions to the Introduction:

1. How has Catholic teaching at the universal level responded to changing media and communication technologies since the nineteenth century?
2. Which institutional, theological-anthropological, thematic, and normative transformations can be identified across the selected documents?
3. To what extent can an anthropological continuity be identified across the historical phases, and how has the conceptual vocabulary through which this concern is expressed changed over time?

Comment 3

The principal framing decisions require further explanation. In particular, the reviewer asks why the historical analysis begins in the nineteenth century rather than with the Council of Trent and recommends a fuller treatment of contemporary criticism of Inter mirifica and its relationship to the more substantive documents that followed.

Response

I agree that these framing decisions required more explicit justification.

The revised Introduction now includes a substantially expanded historical prehistory of Catholic communication practices. It discusses the role of epistolary communication in early Christianity, the relationship between manuscript transmission and canonical ordering, the transformation brought about by printing, episcopal uses of print before the Reformation, the Fifth Lateran Council’s decree on printed books, and the Council of Trent’s regulation of Scripture and authorised Catholic publications.

The manuscript therefore no longer implies that Catholic reflection on communication began in the nineteenth century. Instead, it explains that the regulation and appropriation of printing constitute an indispensable prehistory of modern Catholic media teaching.

The article nevertheless retains Mirari vos as its principal starting point because the encyclical represents a distinctive confrontation with the conditions of modern mass communication: the expansion of the periodical press, liberal claims to freedom of expression, the formation of public opinion, and the increasing contestation of ecclesiastical authority within the modern public sphere. The decision to begin in 1832 is therefore analytical rather than absolute. It marks the beginning of the particular modern trajectory examined in the article, not the origin of Catholic engagement with communication.

The discussion of Inter mirifica has also been revised and expanded. The manuscript now addresses criticism of the decree’s limited theological elaboration, its insufficient engagement with the communication and media studies of its time, its predominantly clerical framing, and its subordinate treatment of the role of the laity.

At the same time, the revised text explains the decree’s continuing historical importance. Inter mirifica established social communication as an explicit object of conciliar teaching, recognised the responsibilities of media users and producers, addressed freedom of information, and called for the active pastoral use of modern media.

A new transition has been added at the end of Section 3.2.1 to connect these limitations with the later development of Catholic communication teaching. The revised manuscript now explains that the document’s limited theological elaboration, insufficient engagement with contemporary media studies, and clerical framing—together with the Council’s own call for further pastoral elaboration in no. 23—created the need for the more comprehensive treatment subsequently provided by Communio et progressio.

The later instruction is therefore presented not merely as the next document chronologically, but as a response to the need for a more developed theology and pastoral practice of communication. Its emphasis on communication as communion, dialogue, participation, public opinion, media education, and institutional transparency addresses several of the limitations identified in the reception of Inter mirifica.

These revisions are found primarily in the expanded Introduction and in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.

I thank the reviewer again for these careful and constructive comments. They have enabled me to strengthen the manuscript’s engagement with the academic literature, clarify its methodological foundations, and explain more precisely the historical and analytical choices underlying the study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors are thanked for the research presented, given its genuine value and originality, as it is one of the first academic works to analyze the complete evolution of Catholic teaching on media and technology through to the AI era.

That said, I recommend addressing the following points prior to publication:

1. The opening and closing paragraphs of the "Materials and Methods" section (pp. 2–3) should be revised to avoid repeating the same information.
2. Lines 100–105 announce a four-dimensional framework for analyzing the three AI documents. However, while this framework is applied rigorously in the analyses of the "Rome Call" and "Antiqua et Nova," it partially dissolves in the treatment of "Magnifica Humanitas" (lines 536–622), which defaults to a chapter-by-chapter summary of the encyclical. The author is asked to align this section with the established framework in order to enable a more consistent and analytically coherent comparison.
3. Both the "Antiqua et Nova" and "Magnifica Humanitas" sections are numbered 3.4.2 (lines 469 and 535).
4. While the bibliography draws extensively on German-language scholarship (Schmolke, Rolfes, Hahn, Kracht, Schlott, von Gemmingen, Rees, etc.), it is recommended that it be expanded to include relevant English-speaking researchers in the fields of religion, media, and digital culture (such as Hoover, Campbell, or Howard) as well as Italian scholarship on Catholic communication and AI ethics.
5. As with the "Rome Call" and "Antiqua et Nova," the author is encouraged to carry out a proper critical analysis of "Magnifica Humanitas" rather than limiting the treatment to a summary of its contents.
6. A comparative table covering the documents analyzed in the article would be a valuable addition.
7. The abbreviation "AN" is currently used for both "Antiqua et Nova" and "Aetatis Novae"; distinct abbreviations should be assigned to each document to avoid ambiguity.

Author Response

I sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript, the positive assessment of its originality, and the detailed recommendations. The comments were especially helpful in improving the methodological organisation, comparative consistency, critical depth, international scholarly contextualisation, and clarity of the article. I have substantially revised the manuscript in response to all seven points.

Comment 1

The opening and closing paragraphs of the Materials and Methods section should be revised to avoid repetition.

Response

I agree and have comprehensively reorganised and condensed the Materials and Methods section.

Section 2 is now divided into five clearly differentiated subsections:

1. Methodological Approach;
2. Corpus and Selection Criteria;
3. Analytical Framework;
4. Construction of the Historical Periodisation; and
5. Scope and Limitations.

Repetitive explanations concerning the heterogeneity of the corpus, the analytical dimensions, and the historical periodisation have been removed or consolidated. The revised section now proceeds from the methodological foundations to the corpus and selection criteria, the four analytical dimensions, the construction of the three-phase model, and the scope and limitations of the study.

I have also added methodological references on qualitative document analysis and doctrinal legal research. The revised text explains that the study combines historical-hermeneutical reconstruction, comparative qualitative document analysis, and a juridical-institutional reading. The juridical-institutional component is applied particularly to canonical legislation, administrative acts, ecclesiastical competence, and questions of authority and normativity. It is not used to treat all theological or pastoral documents as legal sources.

Comment 2

The four-dimensional analytical framework is applied consistently to the Rome Call for AI Ethics and Antiqua et Nova, but partially dissolves in the treatment of Magnifica Humanitas, which becomes a chapter-by-chapter summary. The section should be aligned with the analytical framework.

Response

I agree and have completely restructured the analysis of Magnifica Humanitas.

The revised Section 3.4.4 now follows the same four-dimensional structure as the other documents in the recent AI-related corpus:

1. Institutional Context and Character;
2. Theological-Anthropological Foundations;
3. Thematic Emphases and Normative Orientations; and
4. Place within the Church’s Social and Media Tradition.

The analysis is no longer organised according to the successive chapters of the encyclical. Instead, the material has been reorganised around its institutional authority, underlying anthropology, principal social and technological concerns, normative orientation, and relationship to earlier Catholic media and social teaching.

This revision makes the treatment of Magnifica Humanitas directly comparable with the analyses of the Rome Call for AI Ethics, the two papal messages of 2024, and Antiqua et Nova.

Comment 3

The sections on Antiqua et Nova and Magnifica Humanitas are both numbered 3.4.2.

Response

I have corrected the numbering. The revised structure is:

• 3.4.1. Rome Call for AI Ethics;
• 3.4.2. Papal Messages on AI, Peace, and Fully Human Communication;
• 3.4.3. Antiqua et Nova; and
• 3.4.4. Magnifica Humanitas.

Comment 4

The bibliography relies extensively on German-language scholarship and should be expanded to include English-speaking researchers in religion, media, and digital culture, as well as relevant Italian scholarship on Catholic communication and AI ethics.

Response

I agree and have substantially expanded the article’s engagement with international scholarship.

The revised Introduction now situates the study within the broader fields of religion and media, mediation and mediatisation, digital religion, digital ecclesiology, theological anthropology, AI ethics, and algorithmic governance.

The newly incorporated English-language scholarship includes work by Stewart Hoover, Heidi Campbell, Ruth Tsuria, Tim Hutchings, Stig Hjarvard, Mia Lövheim, Kristin Peterson, Noreen Herzfeld, Marius Dorobantu, Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca, Effy Vayena, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, and Elizabeth Gibbons.

This literature is used to move beyond a purely instrumental account of media. The revised article now engages explicitly with approaches that understand media as social and cultural environments that participate in shaping religious authority, community, practice, and public visibility. Research in digital religion is also used to analyse the relationship between online and offline religious life, ecclesial authority, embodiment, ritual, and community.

Italian and Italy-based scholarship has likewise been expanded. The revised manuscript draws in particular on Michele Martini’s analysis of Vatican media documents and on the study by Alessandra Vitullo, Heidi Campbell, Fabrizio Mastrofini, and Federico Palmieri Di Pietro concerning the Catholic Church’s development from radio to artificial intelligence.

These studies are used both to contextualise the historical reconstruction and to distinguish the specific contribution of the present article.

Comment 5

The treatment of Magnifica Humanitas should provide a proper critical analysis rather than merely summarising its contents.

Response

I agree and have substantially strengthened the critical analysis of Magnifica Humanitas.

In addition to reorganising Section 3.4.4 according to the common analytical framework, the revised section now examines the encyclical’s institutional character, normative method, theological anthropology, conception of technological power, and relationship to Catholic social teaching.

The analysis addresses the encyclical’s treatment of:

• economic and technological concentration;
• ownership of digital infrastructures;
• data and platform power;
• labour and automation;
• communication and public opinion;
• surveillance and algorithmic dependence;
• warfare and peace;
• democratic participation;
• public responsibility; and
• multilateral governance.

The revised Discussion also evaluates the contributions and limitations of the encyclical. It now considers whether Magnifica Humanitas should be understood only as an encyclical concerning AI or more broadly as an intervention in theological anthropology, political economy, communication ethics, and civilisational critique.

The Discussion further addresses the limited practical specificity of some of the document’s recommendations, the distinction between general anthropological principles and enforceable legal standards, and the need to translate theological and ethical claims into more precise juridical, political, institutional, and technical mechanisms.

The revised treatment therefore goes beyond exposition and critically evaluates both the significance and the limitations of the encyclical.

Comment 6

A comparative table covering the documents analysed in the article would be a valuable addition.

Response

I agree and have added two comparative tables.

Table 1, “Principal Documents of the Analytical Corpus,” provides a diachronic overview of the principal documents examined from Mirari vos to Magnifica Humanitas. It identifies each document’s date and issuing authority, normative status and principal relevance, and role within the proposed historical periodisation.

Table 2, “Comparative Overview of the Recent Catholic AI-Related Corpus,” compares the Rome Call for AI Ethics, the two papal messages of 2024, Antiqua et Nova, and Magnifica Humanitas. It distinguishes their institutional forms, anthropological foundations, principal themes, and normative modes.

A note below Table 2 clarifies that the analytical categories do not imply equivalence in authority, genre, audience, or normative effect.

These additions make both the historical corpus and the recent AI-related interventions more transparent and directly comparable.

Comment 7

The abbreviation “AN” is used for both Antiqua et Nova and Aetatis novae. Distinct abbreviations should be assigned to the two documents.

Response

I agree and have ensured that distinct abbreviations are used consistently throughout the manuscript:

• AN for Aetatis novae; and
• AnN for Antiqua et Nova.

The in-text references and the list of abbreviations have been checked and revised accordingly.

I thank the reviewer again for these constructive recommendations. They have enabled me to improve the methodological clarity, comparative structure, international scholarly contextualisation, critical depth, and overall coherence of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a timely, ambitious, and potentially valuable article. Its central intuition is strong: the Catholic Church’s reflection on media, communication technologies, and artificial intelligence can be read as a long historical trajectory in which questions of authority, communication, social order, and human dignity are progressively reconfigured. The article is especially promising in its attempt to relate older Catholic media teaching to recent universal-Church documents on artificial intelligence, particularly the Rome Call for AI Ethics, Antiqua et Nova, and Magnifica Humanitas.

Nevertheless, the article requires major revision before publication.

First, the methodological framework needs to be made considerably more precise. The article states that it combines historical reconstruction with systematic textual analysis, but it does not sufficiently explain how the corpus was selected, how the documents were analysed, or by what criteria the proposed three-phase periodisation was established. Since the manuscript does not examine all Catholic statements on media and technology, the selective character of the corpus should be explicitly justified. I recommend adding a table listing the primary documents, their date, genre, ecclesial authority, thematic relevance, and role in the argument. The article would also benefit from explicitly formulated research questions.

Second, the theoretical contextualisation should be strengthened. The article engages some relevant scholarship on Catholic media teaching, but its conversation with recent research in practical theology, religion and digital culture, digital ecclesiology, AI ethics, and Catholic social teaching remains too limited. The bibliography is heavily dependent on a relatively narrow set of sources and should be broadened. The article would be stronger if it engaged more directly with recent scholarship on digital religion, algorithmic governance, theological anthropology, communication ethics, and the public role of religious institutions in technology debates.

Third, some of the article’s most important claims are plausible but insufficiently tested. The three-phase model is useful, but it risks becoming too schematic. The early magisterial material, for example, seems to be governed more explicitly by concerns about authority, moral order, public truth, and ecclesial control than by a fully developed language of human dignity. The claim that human dignity functions as a structural continuity across the whole trajectory therefore needs to distinguish more carefully between explicit doctrinal grounding, implicit anthropological assumptions, and retrospective theological interpretation. Without this distinction, the argument risks projecting later Catholic social vocabulary back onto earlier documents.

Fourth, the discussion section should become more critical and less recapitulatory. At present, it mainly restates the developmental arc already presented in the historical sections. It should engage possible counter-readings: for instance, whether the Church’s use of media has often remained instrumentalist despite dialogical rhetoric; whether the Rome Call’s multi-stakeholder character represents a genuine ecclesiological advance or a possible dilution of theological specificity; and whether Magnifica Humanitas is best understood as a social encyclical on AI or as a broader intervention in theological anthropology, political economy, and civilisational critique.

Fifth, the reference apparatus must be improved. Several magisterial documents discussed in the body of the article do not appear to be fully represented in the reference list. The author should ensure that every document cited or substantially discussed in the text is included in the bibliography, with consistent formatting. The same applies to secondary literature. The article should also distinguish more clearly between primary magisterial sources and secondary academic sources.

Finally, the English is generally understandable, but it would benefit from careful revision. The prose is sometimes dense, repetitive, and overly abstract. There is also a duplicated methodological paragraph in Section 2, and the subsection numbering around Antiqua et Nova and Magnifica Humanitas should be corrected. Expressions such as “Universal-Church” and “strategic instrumentalization” should be reconsidered, since they may sound awkward or unnecessarily loaded in English.

In sum, the manuscript has a promising thesis, a relevant object, and genuine scholarly potential. However, it needs substantial revision in methodology, referencing, theoretical contextualisation, argumentative nuance, and language before it can meet the standards expected for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally clear and readable, but it would benefit from careful copyediting to reduce repetition, improve idiomatic expression, and make some dense argumentative passages more precise and fluent.

Author Response

I sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive assessment of the manuscript and for recognising its potential contribution to research on Catholic media teaching, communication technologies, and artificial intelligence. The comments were highly valuable in improving the methodological precision, theoretical contextualisation, argumentative nuance, critical discussion, reference apparatus, and language of the article. I have substantially revised the manuscript in response to all of the points raised.

Comment 1

The methodological framework requires greater precision. The manuscript should explain how the corpus was selected, how the documents were analysed, and how the three-phase periodisation was constructed. The selective character of the corpus should be justified, explicit research questions should be formulated, and a table listing the principal documents should be added.

Response

I agree and have comprehensively revised the methodological framework.

The Introduction now formulates three explicit research questions:

1. How has Catholic teaching at the universal level responded to changing media and communication technologies since the nineteenth century?
2. Which institutional, theological-anthropological, thematic, and normative transformations can be identified across the selected documents?
3. To what extent can an anthropological continuity be identified across the historical phases, and how has the conceptual vocabulary through which this concern is expressed changed over time?

Section 2 has been reorganised into five subsections:

1. Methodological Approach;
2. Corpus and Selection Criteria;
3. Analytical Framework;
4. Construction of the Historical Periodisation; and
5. Scope and Limitations.

The revised methodological section explains that the study combines historical-hermeneutical reconstruction, comparative qualitative document analysis, and a juridical-institutional reading. The historical-hermeneutical dimension situates each document within its ecclesial, political, legal, and technological context. The comparative dimension identifies recurring concepts, normative orientations, institutional patterns, and significant differences between the selected texts. The juridical-institutional dimension distinguishes the documents according to their genre, issuing authority, normative status, intended addressees, and mode of intervention.

I have also added methodological references. The approach to qualitative document analysis is supported by Prior and Bowen, while the juridical-institutional component draws on Hutchinson and Duncan and Kestemont. The revised text clarifies that doctrinal legal research is applied particularly to canonical legislation, administrative acts, ecclesiastical competence, and questions of normative authority. It is not used to reduce theological or pastoral texts to legal sources.

The manuscript now explicitly states that the corpus is purposive rather than exhaustive. Documents were included when they fulfilled one or more of the following criteria:

• substantial engagement with media, communication, information technology, or artificial intelligence;
• introduction or consolidation of a significant institutional or normative development;
• evidence of a change in the Church’s understanding or use of a particular medium;
• discernible influence on subsequent Catholic media or technology reflection; or
• particular relevance to the construction of the proposed historical periodisation.

The four analytical dimensions have also been clarified:

1. institutional context and document character;
2. theological-anthropological foundations;
3. thematic emphases and normative orientations; and
4. relationship to Catholic media and social teaching.

The distinction between theological-anthropological foundations and normative orientations is now explained explicitly. The former concerns the underlying understanding of the human person through which media and technology are evaluated. The latter concerns the duties, rights, prohibitions, institutional responsibilities, governance expectations, and regulatory conclusions derived from those foundations.

The revised methodology also explains that the three phases were identified through comparison of changes in four areas: institutional posture, dominant normative mode, conception of media or technology, and anthropological vocabulary. The phases are described as heuristic and overlapping rather than as mutually exclusive stages in a linear progression.

Finally, I have added Table 1, “Principal Documents of the Analytical Corpus.” It identifies the principal documents, their date and issuing authority, normative status and thematic relevance, and role within the proposed historical periodisation.

Comment 2

The theoretical contextualisation should be strengthened through greater engagement with scholarship in practical theology, religion and digital culture, digital ecclesiology, AI ethics, Catholic social teaching, algorithmic governance, theological anthropology, communication ethics, and the public role of religious institutions in technology debates.

Response

I agree and have substantially expanded the article’s engagement with international and interdisciplinary scholarship.

The revised Introduction now situates the study within several interconnected fields: the history of Catholic media teaching, religion and media studies, mediation and mediatisation, digital religion, digital ecclesiology, theological anthropology, communication ethics, AI ethics, and algorithmic governance.

The expanded literature includes work by Stewart Hoover, Heidi Campbell, Ruth Tsuria, Tim Hutchings, Stig Hjarvard, Mia Lövheim, Kristin Peterson, Noreen Herzfeld, Marius Dorobantu, Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca, Effy Vayena, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Elizabeth Gibbons, Michele Martini, and Alessandra Vitullo and colleagues.

This literature is used to move beyond a purely instrumental understanding of media. The revised manuscript now engages directly with approaches that understand media as social and cultural environments that participate in shaping religious authority, community, practice, and public visibility.

Research in digital religion and digital ecclesiology is used to contextualise the relationship between online and offline religious life, institutional authority, ritual, embodiment, and community. Scholarship on theological anthropology and AI is used to analyse questions of the imago Dei, personhood, embodiment, relationality, freedom, and the distinction between human and artificial intelligence. Research on AI ethics and algorithmic governance provides the wider context for the discussion of transparency, accountability, discrimination, human rights, technological power, and regulatory responsibility.

I have also added a more precise statement of the article’s contribution. Existing studies have examined individual pontificates, technologies, post-conciliar documents, or theological responses to AI, but the relationship between canonical communication regulation, pastoral media teaching, digital ecclesial participation, and the recent anthropological and systemic critique of AI has rarely been reconstructed within a single historical and juridical-institutional framework.

The revised Discussion now returns explicitly to the secondary literature. It relates the findings to scholarship that understands media not merely as neutral channels but as environments that shape religious authority and practice. At the same time, it argues that the emergence of dialogical and relational language did not entirely displace instrumental understandings, since post-conciliar documents continued to evaluate media in relation to evangelisation, pastoral planning, and institutional effectiveness.

Comment 3

The three-phase model risks becoming too schematic. In particular, the claim that human dignity provides structural continuity across the entire historical trajectory may project later Catholic social vocabulary onto earlier documents. The article should distinguish between explicit doctrinal grounding, implicit anthropological assumptions, and retrospective theological interpretation.

Response

I agree and have substantially revised the article’s central continuity thesis.

The revised manuscript no longer claims that a fully developed and unchanged doctrine of human dignity governs every historical phase in identical terms. Instead, it identifies a developing anthropological concern whose vocabulary, theological grounding, and normative function change considerably over time.

The earlier documents are now interpreted primarily through the categories they themselves employ: truth, moral order, public morality, ecclesial authority, human vulnerability, responsibility, and the salvation of souls. The article does not suggest that these documents already contain the explicit vocabulary of dignity, embodiment, relationality, participation, or integral human development characteristic of later Catholic social teaching.

The post-conciliar documents increasingly articulate the human person through communication as communion, participation, dialogue, freedom of information, rights, public opinion, and the common good. The recent AI-related documents develop these concerns further through the categories of human agency, embodiment, relationality, moral judgement, responsibility, work, vulnerability, and integral human development.

The revised manuscript therefore distinguishes between:

• explicit use of the language of dignity;
• implicit anthropological assumptions concerning truth, freedom, responsibility, and human flourishing; and
• the retrospective analytical reconstruction proposed by the article.

The continuity identified is neither terminological nor doctrinally static. It consists in the recurring effort to subordinate communication and technology to an evolving Catholic understanding of the human person and the conditions of human flourishing.

The three phases are also now presented explicitly as heuristic and overlapping. Regulatory, instrumental, pastoral, dialogical, and anthropological approaches continue to coexist rather than simply replacing one another.

Comment 4

The Discussion should become more critical and less recapitulatory. It should address counter-readings concerning the persistence of instrumentalism, the theological implications of the Rome Call’s multi-stakeholder character, and whether Magnifica Humanitas is best understood as an encyclical on AI or as a broader intervention in theological anthropology, political economy, and civilisational critique.

Response

I agree and have comprehensively revised the Discussion.

The revised Discussion is now organised around seven analytical themes:

1. Anthropological Continuity and Conceptual Transformation;
2. From Media-Pastoral Adaptation to Anthropological and Systemic Reflection;
3. Institutional Diversification and Participation in AI Governance;
4. From Application-Oriented Ethics to the Critique of Technological Structures;
5. Normative Method and Practical Indeterminacy;
6. Critical Limits of the Periodisation and the AI Category; and
7. Overall Assessment.

The revised text explicitly considers whether Catholic media teaching remained partly instrumentalist despite its dialogical rhetoric. It concludes that post-conciliar teaching broadened the instrumental model through relational, participatory, and socially formative conceptions of communication, but did not completely replace it. Evangelisation, pastoral planning, institutional effectiveness, and media use remain important concerns.

The treatment of the Rome Call for AI Ethics has also been made more critical. Its multi-stakeholder form is interpreted as an innovation in the Church’s mode of public and institutional engagement with technological governance. At the same time, the manuscript notes that its reliance on broadly accessible human-rights and governance language involves less explicit theological specificity than the subsequent papal and dicastery documents. Its significance is therefore understood primarily as an institutional and governance innovation rather than as a development of ecclesiology or doctrine in the strict sense.

The Discussion also examines the tension between voluntary ethical commitments and the concentration of technological and economic power. It considers the dependence of multi-stakeholder cooperation on the willingness of powerful corporate actors to accept independent scrutiny, external oversight, and possible binding regulation.

The treatment of Magnifica Humanitas has been completely restructured. It is no longer organised as a chapter-by-chapter summary but according to the same four-dimensional analytical framework applied to the other AI-related documents.

The revised article interprets the encyclical not merely as a reaction to artificial intelligence, but as a broader intervention in theological anthropology, Catholic social teaching, political economy, communication ethics, and civilisational critique. It analyses AI in relation to technological infrastructures, ownership and economic concentration, labour and automation, data and platform power, surveillance, warfare, democratic participation, political authority, and the common good.

At the same time, the Discussion now identifies several limitations: the practical indeterminacy of some recommendations, the distance between anthropological principles and enforceable legal standards, the absence of detailed implementation mechanisms, and the heterogeneity of the technologies grouped together under the category of artificial intelligence.

Comment 5

The reference apparatus should be improved. All magisterial and other primary documents discussed in the article should be represented in the reference list, formatting should be consistent, and primary sources should be distinguished more clearly from secondary academic literature.

Response

I agree and have comprehensively reviewed and reorganised the reference apparatus.

All primary documents cited or substantially discussed in the article have been checked against the reference list. This includes papal encyclicals and messages, conciliar documents, universal canonical legislation, dicastery and curial texts, administrative acts, the Rome Call for AI Ethics, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Artificial Intelligence Act.

The secondary literature has likewise been checked and substantially expanded.

The reference list is now divided into two sections:

1. Primary Sources; and
2. Secondary Literature.

This distinction makes the different functions of magisterial, canonical, conciliar, administrative, political, and academic sources more transparent.

The formatting of authors, institutional authors, dates, titles, publication details, journal information, online sources, and document references has also been reviewed for consistency.

Comment 6

The English should be carefully revised to reduce repetition, improve idiomatic expression, and clarify dense or abstract passages. The duplicated methodological paragraph and numbering errors should be corrected, and expressions such as “Universal-Church” and “strategic instrumentalization” should be reconsidered.

Response

I agree and have carefully revised the language and structure of the manuscript throughout.

The title has been changed from:

Catholic Universal-Church Reflection on Communication, Technology, and Human Dignity from Mirari vos (1832) to Magnifica Humanitas (2026)

to:

From Mirari vos (1832) to Magnifica Humanitas (2026): The Development of Catholic Teaching on Communication, Technology, and Human Dignity.

The expression “strategic instrumentalization” has been removed from the historical periodisation. The second phase is now described in terms of pastoral appropriation, dialogue, media education, institutional participation, and digital adaptation.

The Materials and Methods section has been reorganised, and the duplicated and repetitive passages have been removed. Long and abstract formulations have been shortened or clarified, terminology has been standardised, and the article has been revised for more idiomatic and consistent British English.

The subsection numbering has also been corrected. The recent AI-related corpus is now organised as follows:

• 3.4.1. Rome Call for AI Ethics;
• 3.4.2. Papal Messages on AI, Peace, and Fully Human Communication;
• 3.4.3. Antiqua et Nova; and
• 3.4.4. Magnifica Humanitas.

The analysis of Magnifica Humanitas now follows the same analytical framework as the other documents instead of proceeding chapter by chapter.

I sincerely thank the reviewer again for the careful and constructive comments. They have enabled me to clarify the methodological foundations of the study, broaden its theoretical engagement, qualify its central anthropological argument, deepen the critical discussion, improve the reference apparatus, and revise the language and structure of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

These revisions adequately satisfy my concerns. I suggest another round of minor revisions mainly dealing with the organization and readability of the manuscript.

The introduction has become very long. I appreciate the addition of contextual paragraphs here, but the two paragraphs at the beginning of "prehistory" might not be the best way to start the article because it now takes quite a bit of time to "get to the punch." These may better fit into section 2.5 Scope and Limitations, to indicate that you are aware of this prehistory and use it as a foundation even if you don't systematically analyze it, or a hypothetical "Section 3.0: Prehistory" which would do effectively the same thing. I completely agree with your decision to keep starting with Mirari vos.

I am not necessarily convinced that you need to include Table 1. I am a nerd so I enjoyed reading it, but it does break up the manuscript significantly, and the sheer quantity of text in the columns makes it somewhat hard to parse. If there is a more efficient way to communicate the continuity that you are showing in the fourth column in paragraph form, that might be the best method.

I hope that these comments have been helpful, and I hope to see this article in print soon!

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of the revised manuscript and for confirming that the revisions made in response to the first round of review have adequately addressed the earlier concerns. I am grateful for the two further suggestions concerning the organisation and readability of the manuscript, and I have implemented both in full.

Comment 1

The two paragraphs at the beginning of the Introduction discussing the historical "prehistory" of Catholic communication (early Christian letters, manuscript transmission, and the introduction of printing) delay the article's arrival at its main argument. The reviewer suggests relocating this material to Section 2.5 (Scope and Limitations), or alternatively to a new "Section 3.0: Prehistory," so that the article signals its awareness of this longer history without treating it as a foundation for the main argument – while continuing, as the reviewer agrees, to begin the historical analysis with Mirari vos.

Response

I agree and have relocated this material to Section 2.5, Scope and Limitations, as the reviewer's first suggested option.

The two paragraphs discussing early Christian letters, manuscript transmission and canonical ordering, and the introduction of printing (including the Fifth Lateran Council's decree on printed books and the Council of Trent's regulation of Scripture) have been removed from the Introduction and inserted as a new paragraph in Section 2.5, immediately after the paragraph explaining the deliberately selective character of the corpus. The material is now explicitly framed as a further instance of that selectivity: the article acknowledges this deeper prehistory of Catholic communication and treats it as a foundation the study builds upon, while explaining that its systematic analysis lies beyond the scope of the present study.

The Introduction has been shortened accordingly. It now moves directly from the statement of the article's subject matter to the sentence explaining the article's starting point: the analysis begins with Mirari vos in 1832, not because Catholic reflection on communication originated in the nineteenth century, but because the encyclical represents a distinctive confrontation with the conditions of modern mass communication. The reviewer's agreement with this starting point is reflected in the fact that the decision itself, and its justification, remain unchanged – only the preceding prehistory has moved.

This revision is found in the Introduction (Section 1) and in Section 2.5, Scope and Limitations.

Comment 2

The reviewer is not convinced that Table 1 is necessary. It breaks up the manuscript significantly, and the density of text in the columns – particularly the fourth column, summarising each document's role in the proposed periodisation – makes it difficult to parse. The reviewer suggests that the continuity shown in that fourth column might be communicated more effectively in paragraph form.

Response

I agree and have dissolved the table into narrative prose at its original location in the main text, while preserving the full table – including the document dates, issuing authorities, and normative status shown in the other three columns – as a reference table in a new Appendix A.1, for readers who wish to consult it.

In place of the table, the main text now contains three narrative paragraphs, one for each of the article's three historical phases, that trace the sequence of documents and articulate precisely the continuity previously shown in the table's fourth column: how each document builds on, consolidates, or transitions from those preceding it. These paragraphs are now located in Section 2.4, Construction of the Historical Periodisation, immediately after the abstract characterisation of the three phases, so that the abstract description of each phase is followed directly by its concrete illustration through the relevant documents.

The corpus and selection criteria paragraph in Section 2.2 now refers the reader to the full table, listing document dates, issuing authorities, and normative status, as Table A.1 in Appendix A.1, rather than reproducing it in the body of the article. This removes the interruption to the reading flow that the reviewer identified, while keeping the complete reference information available to readers who want it.

This revision is found in Section 2.2, Section 2.4, and the new Appendix A.1.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a solid, relevant, and well-structured investigation into the development of Catholic thought on communication, technology, and human dignity. Its broad historical scope is supported by a clearly articulated methodological framework, enabling the author to distinguish between different historical phases, documentary genres, and levels of institutional authority. Particularly noteworthy is the integration of media history, canon law, theological anthropology, and contemporary debates on artificial intelligence.

The proposed periodisation has considerable heuristic value and is presented with appropriate methodological caution, acknowledging both continuity and transformation within Catholic teaching. Although the breadth of the corpus inevitably entails a degree of selectivity, the limitations of the study are explicitly recognised and do not undermine the validity of its principal conclusions. The article therefore constitutes an original, academically rigorous, and valuable contribution to the field and is suitable for publication.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally clear and readable, but it would benefit from careful copyediting to reduce repetition, improve idiomatic expression, and make some dense argumentative passages more precise and fluent.

Author Response

I sincerely thank the reviewer for this generous assessment of the revised manuscript and for the encouraging comments on its historical scope, methodological framework, and integration of media history, canon law, theological anthropology, and contemporary debates on artificial intelligence. I am glad that the revisions made in response to the first round of review — particularly regarding the methodological precision, theoretical contextualisation, the qualification of the article's central continuity thesis, the critical depth of the Discussion, and the reference apparatus — have adequately addressed the concerns raised at that stage, and that the reviewer now considers the periodisation to rest on appropriate methodological caution and the article as a whole suitable for publication.

I have also taken note of the reviewer's remark on the quality of English and have carried out a further careful language revision of the manuscript to reduce repetition, improve idiomatic expression, and clarify dense argumentative passages.

I am grateful to the reviewer for the time and care invested across both rounds of review, which have substantially strengthened the manuscript.