Human Dignity: Religion, Politics, or Natural Morality?

The sentence against Socrates

In connection with his visit to Spain, and in particular his address to the Parliament, Pope Leo XIV has been criticized in some media outlets for having argued that democratic parliaments must be subject to certain basic moral norms, such as those associated with human dignity. It has been said that the Pope was speaking as head of the Catholic Church, that the Spanish Parliament is not composed solely of Catholics, and that he should not have questioned the legitimacy of the Parliament to enact laws, based on the majority rule. This is the paragraph that has attracted the most disagreement:

About the Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. Can it be called Luddism?

The publication of Pope Leo XIV's Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas has prompted some people to accuse it of being an exercise in Luddism and a return to the Middle Ages (many of these people know little about the medieval period), sometimes accompanied by gruesome images of robots being burned at the stake, undoubtedly generated using AI tools. The speed of their responses is so surprising that one may wonder if they are judging the text without having read it. Are they right? Can the encyclical be accused of Luddism?

Let's begin by defining the word Luddism, as it appears in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

The beliefs or practices of the Luddites: one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest. Broadly : one who is opposed to technological change.

It is, therefore, a term primarily applied to the use of violence against technological advancements. Violence is certainly difficult to justify, although in Ned Lud's case it is understandable, considering what happened at the time as a consequence of the introduction of machinery (looms) in textile factories. Some employers took advantage of this to dismiss their workers, telling them something like this: