El Ignaciano / Septiembre 2026
Artificial Intelligence and Humanizing Work
Alfredo Romagosa
Introduction
Pope Leo XIV has published an encyclical, Magnifica humanitas¹, on the challenges presented by Artificial Intelligence. The Latin title comes from its beginning: “Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur…” The first paragraph of the encyclical conveys its mission:
Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world. Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.” (paragraph #1)
The metaphor of the Tower of Babel refers to a Bible story on the misuse of power. On his election, Pope Leo indicated that he was taking the name Leo in the spirit of Leo XIII, who authored the first social encyclical, Rerum novarum, “on new things”, on the social challenges of its time. Many encyclicals have been issued since then, including the very important encyclical Laudato si’ by Pope Francis on the environment. The concepts and teachings in these encyclicals constitute what is called the Catholic Social Doctrine. This new encyclical explains what the pope sees as the “new things” or the principal challenges of this time:
In recent years, it has become increasingly evident how rapidly and profoundly digitalization, artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics are transforming our world. Technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity. On the contrary, it has formed part of our history since the beginning as “a profoundly human reality, linked to the autonomy and freedom of man.” Over the centuries, technological development has significantly improved the living conditions of humanity. At the same time, each phase of progress has also revealed the ambiguity of tools that can cause harm when not oriented toward the good. Today, however, we find ourselves facing a new situation. The power and prevalence of emerging technologies are interwoven into the fabric of daily life, shaping decision-making processes and deeply affecting the collective imagination. (#4)
1
The encyclical then outlines its task, to analyze the situation in the context of Christian thought and to ask the difficult questions before suggesting possible ways forward:
It is necessary to begin a shared discernment process for identifying the spiritual and cultural roots of ongoing transformations. If we focus only on contingencies, we risk letting the succession of emergencies dictate the direction of our path. We are living through a rapid phase of transition, a “change of era,” in which —while some are vying for the future of new technologies and others dedicate themselves to reflecting on the matter— most people are watching and waiting, observing from afar and merely hoping for the best. For this very reason, crucial questions impose themselves on our conscience and can no longer be avoided: Where are we going? Toward what goal do we wish to orient ourselves? What direction should we choose as a people and as a human community? (#6)
This article will concentrate on an important subtopic of the encyclical, the impact of AI on employment and working conditions, but a number of foundational topics need to be discussed first.
Labeling and Image
The encyclical does not dwell on definitions of Artificial Intelligence. A very old definition considered AI as any machine behavior that would be considered intelligent if performed by a human. By this definition, even an adding machine would be considered AI. In practice we are dealing with a branch of computer science that began in the 1950’s and that has had a number of waves with varying degrees of success. The technology of concern for the encyclical dates from the 2010’s, which is called “generative” AI, defined by Wikipedia as “a subfield of artificial intelligence (AI) that uses generative models to generate text, images, videos, audio, software code or other forms of data."² In other words, this technology can “create”, offering the most powerful and human-like computer capability to date.
2
This power was made possible by technical breakthroughs that are called Large Language Model (LLM) AI. These models can only work if they use hundreds of billions (100,000,000,000) of coding items. Thus, they have to be run on supercomputers. When one uses the available public programs, such as ChatGPT or Gemini, one is actually being allocated time on a supercomputer being accessed through the Internet. These tools are available at initial levels without a fee because the developers want their products to be exercised. The challenges outlined by the encyclical come primarily from this type of AI. Many of us are now familiar with the use of this technology for obtaining general information from the internet, but its use in specialized business applications generally requires the training of the programs and its users.
While understanding the enthusiasm of developers, this new technology must not be glorified. It is a tool that has appropriate uses such as assisting in handing complex problems, but it also presents challenges and dangers. Due to the current popularity of the term AI, this term is now being used indiscriminately for many simpler and safer types of computer programs. As the image changes, due to the increasing perception of some of the dangers of the generative AI technology, hopefully the labeling will become more appropriate. Recent cases of booing AI advocates at commencement speeches have been widely publicized. An example of what could be considered inappropriate and “dehumanizing” use of AI was an artificially generated “avatar” image of a college president used to welcome new students, calling attention to the college commitment to new technology, but wasting the opportunity for personal interaction.
Human Dignity
A valuable introductory section of Magnifica humanitas reviews key concepts of the Catholic Social Doctrine from the earlier encyclicals and it applies them to the issues resulting from AI. The most foundational concept for the whole encyclical, taken from this Doctrine, is the inherent dignity of the human person:
At the heart of the Christian understanding of the human person lies the great biblical affirmation that men and women are created in the image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-27) of the Triune God. Created for relationship, every human person is planned and willed by God to enter into communion with him, with others and with creation. Human dignity does not depend on a person’s abilities, wealth or position in life, nor on the right or wrong choices made; instead, it is a gift that precedes and transcends each person, endowed by God as an expression of his unfailing love. (# 50)
³ Michelle Goldberg, “Why College Grads Are Booing Their Commencement Speakers” in New York Times, May 18, 2026.
⁴ Linda Kinstler, “A University System Went All In on A.I” in New York Times Magazine, June 1, 2026
3
Some of the criticism offered by the encyclical on this context does not begin with AI, it applies to a pervasive attitude common in modern economic systems: “persons end up being reduced to a means of achieving results, a resource to be used and exploited, and are no longer recognized as a proper end in themselves who should never be instrumentalized.(#51) The problem is that AI is often grounded on an excessive emphasis on productivity, on achieving economic results regardless of the human or social costs. What is needed is a “human centered” view of the economy and of AI tools, which establishes that the end of these is not only economic production, but the development of a better and more inclusive life for all.
Economic Models
Most modern economies depend on the free market to determine values and prices. The problem is that there are some factors that cannot be easily reduced to these equations. Pope Francis gives an important example: “Environmental protection cannot be assured solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces. Once more, we need to reject a magical conception of the market.”⁵ Labor wages are partially established by supply and demand, but this cannot be the only factor, especially in cases affected by technological change: “The labor market is one area in which the risks associated with new technologies more clearly emerge. It is thus necessary to remember that economic freedom is not absolute; it must always be measured against the common good and the dignity of every person. (#157)
In this context, the encyclical emphasizes the traditional role of labor unions which have been supported since Rerum novarum, in spite of complications:
The initiatives which emerged from that tradition, including associations, trade unions, cooperatives and welfare organizations, have contributed decisively to improving labor legislation, protecting the most vulnerable and promoting more humane conditions. Today, however, these instruments are no longer sufficient by themselves in the face of the transformations driven by AI, the new organization of markets and the competitiveness that is rarely concerned with social sustainability. New collaborative efforts are needed among political leaders, labor organizations, the business world and the scientific community in order to develop rapidly adequate shared regulations and protections, including at the international level. Labor unions, which the Church has consistently supported, are called upon to be open to new types of employment and the corresponding needs of workers, in order to represent and defend them. (#155)
⁵ Encyclical Laudato si' paragraph #190.
4
The Dignity of Work
A common view of some philosophies that glorify technology is that all work is drudgery that needs to be avoided. To this, the encyclical presents a different view of work taken from an encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Laborem Exercens dedicated to this topic:
Work is not considered simply as a problem to be dealt with or a means of generating income, but a fundamental good for the person, a principle of economic activity and the key to the entire societal question. Through work, human beings bring their freedom, creativity and capacity for cooperation into play, contributing to the cultural and moral elevation of society.⁶
Therefore, to replace a person that is doing well a work that he or she enjoys with a computer program that is cheaper, cannot be seen as progress:
It is certainly desirable for technology to relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks and to provide intelligent support for human activity. Yet, the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule. The pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs, because the human person is an end, not a means, and the economic order must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good. (#152)
The Employment Challenge
The central challenge of AI selected for this article has two parts. First, there is a real process of job loss and potential unemployment. Some address this with proposals of guaranteed income, but this is not consistent with the Christian concept of work as expressed above:
Work remains a fundamental dimension of the human experience, for not only is it a means of sustenance, but it is also a context for expression, relationships and contributing to the community. Therefore, the problems related to work extend beyond the income necessary for family survival. A society that guarantees employment to only a small fraction of the population, despite having a high level of technical development, risks exposing many to forced inactivity, a lack of responsibility and the absence of daily tasks and stimuli, resulting in human and cultural impoverishment. This creates a paradox of material progress and anthropological regression that undermines the foundations of a just and stable social peace. For this reason, the Church’s Social Doctrine insists that access to work for all must be a high priority for public policies and economic processes, serving as a criterion for evaluating the human quality of any development model. (#154)
⁶ Encyclical Laborem exercens #37.
5
As the encyclical affirms, “it is not enough to react only when jobs disappear; we must oversee the transformation in advance. (#156)
The second part of the challenge is the damage to working conditions:
Today, the convergence of automation, robotics and AI is rapidly transforming the very structure of work. It is said that this will bring great improvements for everyone. In reality, however, the “new ways” of working are not necessarily better, for “while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work. As a result, contrary to the advertised benefits of AI, current approaches to technology can paradoxically de-skill workers, subject them to automated surveillance and relegate them to rigid and repetitive tasks. The need to keep up with the pace of technology can erode workers’ sense of agency and stifle the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work.” Precisely in order to avoid this drift, it is necessary to design systems that are centered on the human person and not solely on performance. (#150)
Entry Level Issues
It is widely acknowledged that the highest incidence of job loss due to AI, which is already being noticed, is in entry level jobs. Unfortunately, an important negative consequence of replacing entry-level jobs with AI may take some time to be recognized. Companies may be throwing away the opportunity to acquire valuable experience, as reflected by business psychology experts:
Consider the analogy of education: If a student outsources every essay to generative AI, they bypass the intellectual struggle that produces deep learning. It is like microwaving ideas: fast, convenient, and unsatisfying. The effort, even the pain, of thinking for yourself is what builds a student’s capacity. The same applies at work. If we remove the stretch and discomfort of early jobs, we rob future leaders of formative growth that helps them tolerate the stretch and discomfort of leadership roles.⁷
Currently, companies are favoring hire candidates that have some AI experience. Hopefully, they will learn to also value those that know when not to use the technology, as it “needs time for development and for engagement with reality beyond appearances.
⁷ Amy C. Edmondson and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, “The Perils of Using AI to Replace Entry-Level Jobs” in Harvard Business Impact, December 11, 2025.
6
This is a fundamental issue because every technology shapes those who use it. Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used.” (#140)
Humanizing the Business Enterprise
As mentioned in previous sections, we cannot blame AI for problems inherent in the economic system. More than a century of social encyclicals has been providing guidance in this regard, and although the results have been limited, there has been some progress in humanizing businesses, more in some countries than others. The central concept, which results from human dignity, is to consider the enterprise as a community of persons: "Every effort must be made to ensure that the enterprise is indeed a true human community, concerned about the needs, the activities and the standing of each of its members."⁸ The concept of the enterprise as a community must include all the "stakeholders — namely the workers, the suppliers, the consumers, the natural environment and broader society" in which it operates. ⁹
One welcomed development has been the global business recognition of this type of organization as fostering quality products:
Management actively involves all people in the improvement process; encourages and empowers people to create ideas and make decisions within their area of expertise not only to do the work, but also to improve the system. The ultimate objective is to empower the workforce to exercise self-direction while continuously pursuing improvement strategies in routine work as well as on special projects. ¹⁰
This has been a happy coincidence between Catholic social thought and practical industrial experience. Catholic Social Doctrine uses the term solidarity for this community relationship:
Solidarity is expressed when each person, both individually and collectively, takes part in the life of the community —by staying informed, engaging with others, making their voice heard and contributing to public decisions and choices— while also assuming real responsibility so that the common good is achieved through shared decision-making. (#73)
Stakeholders: A Shared Responsibility
As mentioned in several of the previous quotations, the encyclical recognizes that to address this complex issue, multiple and distributed efforts are going to be required:
The Social Doctrine of the Church calls for a shared responsibility. It asks that these processes be guided with foresight: by institutions capable of regulating without stifling, and protecting without taking over; by businesses that recognize work and dignity as measures of success; by intermediary organizations and educational communities that rebuild trust and relationships; and by citizens who cultivate responsibility, moderation, discernment and a sense of truth. Only in this way can innovation genuinely serve integral human development, rather than becoming a source of exclusion and dominance. And only in this way can the promise of progress be recognized as authentic, because it is measured against the inviolable dignity of every man and woman. (#181)
⁸ Encyclical Mater et magistra paragraph #91
⁹ Encyclical Caritas in veritate paragraph #40
¹⁰ Unites States Department of Defense, Total Quality Management Guide, 1989.
7
The encyclical further itemizes all of the stakeholders in this venture: “Men and women prepared to enter the construction sites of history —research laboratories, technology companies, schools, the media, institutions and local communities.” (#241) Governments clearly have a very important role to play with regulations, guidelines and leadership, and these issues transcend national boundaries. The encyclical makes the interesting and frightening observation that in this area, some of the companies involved have the “resources and the capacity to intervene that surpass those of many Governments.” (#5) The European Union has formulated what is perhaps the most comprehensive government legislation on AI.¹¹
Individual Action
Pope Leo calls for the cultivation of relationships, “the human heart retains an irrevocable need for genuine closeness. I invite everyone to cherish places and times where physical presence remains crucial, such as shared meals, Christian community gatherings, time spent with the lonely and serving the poor.” (#239)
We can also act through our purchasing power. Gradually, a concern for public image has helped companies develop more consciousness of environmental sustainability. As the understanding of the appropriate use of AI gradually emerges, it is hoped that companies will become sensitive to their image in this regard, and we may be able to support with our purchases companies that subscribe to the responsible use of AI.
The loss of human touch is not unique to AI, as we all mourn the loss of human telephone operators and receptionists, but do we favor stores that have human attendants even if they are more expensive? An interesting case of humanization was the use of uniformed “greeters” in upscale department stores in postwar Japan that pleasantly directed costumers through the store. Compare this with paying unemployment compensation for inactivity.¹²
¹¹ EU Artificial Intelligence Act
¹² MITSUKOSHI: Pioneering Through the Ages
8
Organization Processes
The encyclical suggests a process to be used in introducing AI into an enterprise. It assumes the type of organization that emphasizes employee participation in decision making, as outlined in our previous section on “Humanizing the Business Enterprise”:
Every introduction of automation and AI should be accompanied by verifiable measures to protect the employment, retraining and participation of workers. In this way, technology will be oriented toward freeing up human time and capabilities, rather than producing exclusion. Second, we need proactive policies that make continuous training and professional transitions accessible to all, ensuring that the cost of adaptation does not fall solely on individuals. Finally, there needs to be a corporate commitment to include quality and dignity of work among its indicators of success. When these conditions are present, innovation can serve as an ally of safer, more creative and dignified work; without them, innovation tends to become an accelerator of injustice. (#156)
A useful illustration of this type of process approach and an example of appropriate government leadership is provided by the executive order issued by the governor of Pennsylvania, which is outlined in the following paraphrase:
- The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is committed to exploring the potential use of generative AI as a means to enhance employee productivity and job satisfaction within state government.
- The Commonwealth will include union-covered employees in future potential pilot programs and initiatives to obtain diverse insights and perspectives on evaluations of the technology. The Commonwealth’s goals of understanding how to best facilitate a human-in-the-loop approach to generative AI benefits from the ideas and experiences of employees, including those represented by unions.
- Should generative AI initiatives reduce the time it takes to complete certain tasks and create cost efficiencies, the Commonwealth is committed to finding ways for employees to invest any time saved in other ways that improve customer service, customer outcomes, and Commonwealth operations as a whole.
9
- The Commonwealth is committed to supporting training opportunities for employees to advance employees’ understanding of generative AI.
- Generative AI will not be used to replace human supervision. The Commonwealth will always prioritize having humans in the loop of supervisory work and generative AI should not be used as a substitute for direct human supervision.
- The administration will ensure that AI tools are never personified as “AI workers” or “AI employees”. A tool or AI agents can never replace the humanity of the public servant that wields it.¹³
It is clear that this initiative views AI as a tool to be used by humans to “enhance employee productivity and job satisfaction,” rather than to eliminate jobs. This is emphasized in point 3, where it specifies how savings are to be used. The interest in employee feedback and union participation are also significant.
Conclusion
At this point, however, a subtle temptation may emerge, namely the thought that the problems are too big and we are too small, and that our choices, therefore, cannot make a difference. This is a polite form of resignation, often disguised as realism. Certainly, not everyone has the same power to make a difference. There are those who govern, make investment decisions, lead institutions, conduct research, educate, produce or provide information, and then there are those who only seem to live their daily lives. Yet, no one is without responsibility. We all have our own areas for action, and it is precisely there — and nowhere else — that we must choose whether to fuel the mentality of force (even if only through indifference, cynicism, lies or hatred), or to preserve the mindset of peace (with truth, moderation, closeness and care). (#212)
“Let each builder choose with care how to build” (1 Cor 3:10). With these words, Saint Paul encouraged the Christians of Corinth to preserve unity. Dear brothers and sisters, we have reflected on the world we are building, and we asked ourselves what it means to safeguard the human person in the era of artificial intelligence. (#229)
As a believer among believers, I invite everyone to contemplate, in the face of the Son of God, the grandeur of humanity that shines a light also on the era of AI. In Christ, we are called to cooperate in the work of creation, rather than be disinterested observers of technological processes that limit our freedom and responsibility. The dignity inscribed in each of us by the Holy Spirit can also be seen in our capacity to reflect critically, choose and love freely, and form authentic relationships. No computational system, however sophisticated, can create a heart that gives itself, or a conscience that discerns good from evil. Even when machines excel in efficiency, a human face that asks to be gazed upon remains the center of our history. (#233)
Alfredo Romagosa is Director of Instituto Jesuita Pedro Arrupe, he has degrees in Religious Studies and Engineering and has taught at the Southeastern Pastoral Institute (SEPI) and at Florida International University.