Talk:Magnifica humanitas

Translation

@Darth Stabro: the translation is from Latin, there isn't any different version which is "official". Ignoring though this irrelevant factor I indicated of the problem: where is your source which indicates such a translation? I provided The Pillar as a source in the summary Cattenion (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The official title of the encyclical in English is a direct translation from the Latin. This can be seen on the Vatican English translation of the encyclical. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Cf. . Unofficial rough translations should not be used. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you provide the source? I previously searched for "Vatican English translation" (or some variation of those words) and didn't find any source. Cattenion (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you indicate exactly where? - I could look through but it would reduce time for you to show. I'll continue to look while waiting Cattenion (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I have now scan read (which is searching for the words Magnifica Humanitas & Humanity in Its Grandeur which is a technique based on perception, such that, the input of the textual data while in a focus/concentrated and undistracted attention would reveal any place where those words exist - without needing to actually proceed in sequence through the words from the 1st word) all and the only parts I found were "CONCLUSION 230 Mary praises in her Magnificat 233 the grandeur of humanity The song of hope: the Magnificat 243-5 "- there isn't anything in the text I found which confirms your suggestion. I made the error of thinking activating EN would reveal as you state but found infact only "it is the English translation which I am now looking at" Cattenion (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

In the original change of translation, I provided 2 other indications of proof which were the traductors. These are known to be sometimes inaccurate but on both inputs the output was the same as the 3 sources I input into the article. With regardsto "official" obviously there are (as much as I know) other types of Latin - Ecclesiastical Latin, but the 3 sources are church affiliated sources 2 of which are official publications America (magazine) "the Jesuits of the United States" (which I'm presuming indicates a type of official) CAFOD "is the official aid agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales". "The Pillar publishes news, analyses, and interviews on Catholic news topics in the United States and worldwide" is it's sole function (as much as I could determine from the article). Cattenion (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kencf0618: could you provide an opinion on this problem? Cattenion (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I only note that this encyclical is not listed: https://www.vatican.va/latin/popes_latin/leo-xiv/latin_hf_leo-xiv.html kencf0618 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your existing and existence in response - I just deleted the current provided translation Cattenion (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at the very first words of the very first sentence of the introduction? That is the source of every title of every papal encyclical. ~2026-31534-57 (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry! I think I got confused and misread your concern. ~2026-31534-57 (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

True! I didn't see that; "Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur". Though the words are different to the version of Darth Stabro + what of the fact all the sources I found indicating a certain translation? Cattenion (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This AI search does partially confirm you and Darth Stabro: "incipit"; though I think this reveals a flaw in the AI return - "takes its name from its opening words, which translate to "magnificent humanity." - those words aren't the first words. Cattenion (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The AI source "Why is it called Magnifica Humanitas?" doesn't confirm the incipit version. Cattenion (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

"AI source" is not a phrase we generally want to see here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The AI source is "ascension" (via the link) not "AI is/as the source" Cattenion (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Ascension Press is a publisher that has existed since 1998. It does not use AI, as far as I know, unless something has changed very recently. I'm unclear on why you think it's AI? Tikwriter (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

p 466 James McConkey Robinson "quasi-title" - is the problem explicit. Cattenion (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC) I provide this source access version as the previous didn't load when I reviewed Cattenion (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

A Google traduction of "grandeur": "magnificentia" noun​ magnificence is similar but not the same: "Humanities magnificence" is Magnificentia humanitatis - the difference is in the direction of inquiry - so I'm not satisfied that the incipit is exactly the title as Robinson indicates: wikt:quasi: "almost as if; like" Cattenion (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The incipit as Latin: Humanitas, a Deo in omni sua magnitudine creata Cattenion (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This source: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Cattenion (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I just blanked the "translation" because there's way too much OR going on here for two words with no context. Let's wait for now, ok? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

"the official Latin translation" exists currently. Cattenion (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The only way the describe the problem - that I could think of - is as I just showed before you reverted. Cattenion (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The formal translation is Magnificant Humanity. The incipit (as English); which is indicated at the link List of papal bulls#Twenty-first century (etc) is provided in a dynamically translated way in Magnifica Humanitas. Cattenion (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

the official Latin text of the whole document is often the last version made. But the title is usually the first text given. Give it time. ~2026-31253-16 (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see The first encyclical without a Latin version reveals a profound transformation in the Vatican which explains that this encyclical is a radical break with tradition in not providing an official text in Latin at the outset. It explains that the Vatican regulations now authorise the drafting of such official documents in other languages and so Latin has lost its special status.

It's not clear which other language was the primary one in this case but sources suggest that there were several authors such as the Pope and his Cardinals who used English and Italian as the primary working languages for their sections. We should try to clarify and explain this aspect in our article and I have made a start.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Interestingly, with respect to the renaming discussion, the article you linked capitalizes the 'H' in Magnifica Humanitas, but not the 'n' in Dilexit nos. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 03:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Browsing, I find this article about The Language of Encyclicals reprinted recently in the Jesuit magazine, America. It's originally from 1967 which shows that this has been an issue for some time.

  There is a nagging, complicated and somewhat technical problem that occasionally springs up when a new papal encyclical is promulgated. All the details of the case need not be rehearsed, but students of Pacem in Terris will recall the unnecessary and misleading questions that arose in 1963 over an alleged lack of fidelity between the so-called official Latin text of Pope John’s famous document and its vernacular translations. At the time, there were even hints of some form of foul play with the official text, and the matter became hopelessly confused and controversial before it was dropped by the press.
  
  As we pointed out during the controversy, it was simply false to assume–as was urged to be the case–that the original text of Pacem in Terris was the Latin text. Actually, the document was first written in Italian, then translated into Latin and into other vernacular languages.
  
  Problems are needlessly generated by the fact that the so-caIled "official" or "authentic" version of an encyclical is regarded as the Latin one. Thus, though often not the primary text from the point of view of composition, the Latin is accorded a primacy of honor and made normative. We urge that this custom be changed, by revealing to the public the original language in which an encyclical is composed and by making that text the "authentic" source.
  ...

  Note also that the magazine puts Pacem in Terris and Populorum Progressio in title case. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Latin is a dead language. Could we have a source for the literal translation of this Latin phrase, Magnifica humanitas? Yacàwotçã (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It is standard practice for Vatican documents for the Latin title to be the first two or three words of the Latin version (see Encyclical; that article is well-cited in general). Lacking an official Latin translation, I could venture a guess at what the Latin might be, starting from the English. But it'll be just my own thoughts, not something that could be added to the article.

The English begins "Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur,...", so I can start by taking "humanity" => "humanitas" and "grandeur" => "magnifica". Humanitas is nominative singular noun here, and magnifica is also nominative singular, and matches humanitas in gender (f) as well. "Having been created" would be "creata", I think (feminine singular of "creatus", which is the perfect passive particle of "creo"). I find prepositions tricky and am not a professional translator, but I think "a Deo" here would be right (ablative); thus "having been created by God" => "a Deo creata".

So the first few words in Latin could hypothetically be "Magnifica humanitas, a Deo creata,..." and the rest of the sentence would not matter for coming up with the title.

But I will add one more caveat: no one should want a "literal" translation too much. There's enough difference in grammar between English and Latin that a word-for-word sort of translation will be unreliable at best.Tikwriter (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Latin version

This InfoVaticana article is erroneous; the Latin version (translation) of Laudato si' was not published for a few months after release – see e.g. or – so I have removed the citation from the lead. A Latin translation of Magnifica humanitas may well be published eventually. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Role of Big Business

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The encyclical is clear about the role of big business in AI. technology is not “a force antagonistic to humanity”, nor is it “inherently evil”. However, “technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it." Perhaps as long as the rich control AI then it will serve their purposes. Discuss. Derekmcmillan1951a (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, this is not a forum for discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeremy who?

It’s strange that “Jeremy Nixon” is featured prominently when he’s such an obscure figure. There is no Wikipedia page for him. Quoting him so extensively is like picking a random developer off the streets of San Francisco and asking for an opinion. ~2026-37668-73 (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)