ArticleJournal of religion and health2026
Remaining Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Spiritual and Psychiatric Reflections on Magnifica Humanitas.
Article in Journal of religion and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Empathy and Spiritual Care: Limits of AI-Mediated Compassion in Chaplaincy.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Medical AI and Human Dignity: A Catholic Normative Ethical Framework in Light of Magnifica Humanitas.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- From Francis to Leo XIV: A Scoping Review of Papal Teachings on AI from Pope Francis to Pope Leo XIV and Their Implications for Health Ethics and Governance.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- The Patient Beyond the Dataset: Levinas, Magnifica Humanitas, and the Principle of Non-totalization in AI Healthcare in the Philippines.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly shaping the ways in which psychiatry understands, predicts, communicates, and responds to mental suffering. Although ethical discussions have rightly emphasised safety, transparency, privacy, accountability, and bias, the psychiatric implications of AI also require deeper anthropological and spiritual reflection. Developed from Paraguay and situated within international psychiatric and spiritual-health scholarship, this conceptual paper examines AI in psychiatry through the lens of Magnifica Humanitas, the first encyclical of Pope Leo XIV, which addresses the safeguarding of the human person in the age of AI. Using an interdisciplinary conceptual approach, the paper reads the encyclical as a spiritual and anthropological resource rather than as a narrowly doctrinal text, and asks what vision of the human person is assumed when psychological distress is translated into data, prediction, and automated response. Drawing on the encyclical's contrast between Babel and Jerusalem, the paper distinguishes between a digital psychiatry oriented towards control, optimisation, and standardisation, and one oriented towards dignity, vulnerability, communion, and the rebuilding of bonds. It further explores vulnerability, loneliness, digital suffering, moral injury, structural determinants of well-being, and the therapeutic relationship in AI-assisted psychiatry. The central argument is that AI may assist psychiatric care, but it cannot replace the moral, relational, spiritual, and interdisciplinary significance of human accompaniment. A spiritually informed human-centred psychiatry should therefore adopt AI with neither fear nor uncritical enthusiasm, ensuring that technological innovation remains ordered towards dignity, meaning, trust, community, justice, and hope.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42414744What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.