On the newest things in the digital age – what message does ‘Magnifica Humanitas’ bring to the world of work?
1. Work and the social teaching of the Catholic Church
The issue of human work has been present in the thought of the Catholic Church virtually from the very beginning of its history. It is not without significance that Jesus Christ was born into a family whose head was a Carpenter – St. Joseph (who, in the Catholic Church’s pantheon of saints, is the patron of, amongst others, working people). The Catholic approach to work is also visible in the motto ‘Ora et labora!’ (pray and work), which is at the heart of the Rule of the Benedictine Order and reflects the need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, work-related duties and, on the other hand, spiritual life.
Nevertheless, a systematic approach to the issue of work was only formulated many centuries later, within the social teaching of the Catholic Church. In fact, it can be indicated that the ‘question of the working-class’ became a trigger that led to the development of the corpus of the Catholic social teaching, embodied in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical ‘Rerum Novarum’.[1] ‘Rerum Novarum,’ also described by Pius XI as the ‘Magna Carta’ of the social action of the Catholic Church,[2] addressed the "new things” of that time, namely, the relations between labour and capital arising from the First Industrial Revolution, and, more specifically, the situation of workers, which was undermining their human dignity. As Leo XIII pointed out in the introduction to his encyclical, leaving workers without protection, usury and the concentration of labour and trade in the hands of a few have resulted in a narrow group of rich imposing an almost slave-like yoke upon the masses of the proletariat.[3]
‘Rerum Novarum’ articulated the fundamental principles of the Church’s social teaching, such as the principle of common good, the principle of respect for private property and the related principle of the universal purpose of goods, the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of social solidarity as opposed to class war, and the principle of social justice. These principles formed the basis, further developed in the encyclicals of subsequent heads of the Church, for what they referred to as the ‘res novae’ – new things. These encyclicals included, amongst others, Pius XI’s ‘Quadragesimo anno,’ published in 1931 on the 40th anniversary of ‘Rerum Novarum,’ in which the Pope broadened the discussion of labour issues to encompass a holistic view of the social, economic and political order; ‘Mater et Magistra’ by John XXIII, issued on the 70th anniversary of ‘Rerum Novarum’ in 1961, which focused on the concept of ‘socialisation’; John Paul II’s ‘Laborem Exercens’, published on the 90th anniversary of ‘Rerum Novarum’, which set a new direction for reflection on work, considering the so-called social order of work, which leads, on the one hand, to the ennoblement of the workers themselves and, on the other, to the enrichment of society;[4] and ‘Centesimus Annus’, published 10 years later, in which the Pope warns against the excessive development of a capitalist economy detached from morality and based on exploitation; ‘Caritas in Veritate’ from 2009, in which Benedict XVI criticises one-sided growth that benefits only one party of globalisation and advocates for the need to establish more workers’ associations to defend their interests; ‘Laudato si’, signed on 24 May 2015 by Pope Francis, placing work within the broader context of caring for the environment as a common good of the entire human race and warns against the blind desire to replace work with means derived from technological progress;[5] and ‘Fratelli tutti’, published in 2020, which clearly expresses Francis’s critical stance on the dogmas of the neoliberal ideology that sanctifies the free market and is prepared to make the greatest sacrifices on its altar.[6]
The Church’s social magisterium is continued in the encyclical of Leo XIV, ‘Magnifica Humanitas,’ issued on 25 May 2026, marking the 135th anniversary of ‘Rerum Novarum’, discussing the ‘newest’ things, namely the situation of the human person in the age of artificial intelligence. The Pope examines this situation within a broad context, referring to various spheres of human activity on which a new technological paradigm has an impact – the family, education, the natural environment, work and also war. Whilst the rest of this post will focus primarily on the issue of work in the light of Leo XIV’s reflections, there is no doubt that the spheres in question are complementary to one another.
2. The warning on using AI at work
Leo XIV has no doubt that artificial intelligence constitutes a tool that greatly facilitates work processes, which is one of the reasons for its popularity and its continuously driven development. Nevertheless, when discussing the use of AI by individuals, the Pope highlights three main risks: “the ease with which results can be obtained, the impression of objectivity and the simulation of human communication.”[7] Regarding the world of work, these risks can be interpreted as follows.
Firstly, it is a matter of significantly reducing the argumentation and creative abilities of workers and, as a result, weakening the capacity of the human mind. It appears that the Pope’s position reflects, to a certain extent, a modernised and more diplomatically phrased version of the idea developed by Adam Smith in his work ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’. In his book, Smith argues for the urgent need to increase industrial production, which is to translate into the prosperity of individual nations. However, in order to achieve an adequate level of production, it is necessary to move away from the work of craftsmen and establish a new division of labour, involving the breaking down of complex tasks requiring specialist knowledge into smaller, simpler tasks that could be carried out without the need for skilled workers. However, as Smith indicated, and it is the most significant conclusion in the context of the described encyclical, such a far-reaching simplification of the labour process, without an appropriate educational policy on the part of the state, would lead to the utter stupidification of the workforce and the creation of masses incapable of forming any rational opinion.[8]
Moreover, it can be provocatively pointed out that the Pope is warning against what Marx wrote about in the first volume of ‘Capital’, namely, turning the worker into a living extension of the machine.[9] This is particularly evident in the section of the encyclical devoted to the technocratic paradigm and digital power, which contains the following words:
‘(…) technology is not simply a tool. When it becomes the standard by which everything is judged, it begins to dictate what matters and what can be discarded, reducing creation to an object of exploitation and human beings to mere cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency.’[10]
Secondly, expanding on his thoughts regarding the illusory sense of objectivity in artificial intelligence, the Pope states that, in practice, it reflects the cultural parameters of those who designed and trained it.[11] This position, referring to technology as a whole, has been debated within the field of the philosophy of technology for many years, and one of its key proponents is Longdon Winner.[12]
Bias of AI in the context of work is specifically visible in the phenomenon of algorithmic discrimination resulting from the way in which algorithms are developed, that is, their training based on specific historical data.[13] If the data provided for training purposes was ‘contaminated’ by certain biases or if certain criteria were over or underrepresented in it, these shortcomings will be reflected in the way the technology operates.[14] A prime example of discriminatory behaviour on the part of AI is the recruitment tool developed by Amazon around 2014. The tool’s purpose was to assess and select the best resumes submitted by applicants for software developers and other technical positions. The system was trained on the basis of patterns found in the CVs received by the company over the course of 10 years. At one point, however, it emerged that the tool was not assessing candidates in a completely neutral manner. The company discovered that a clear preference was being given to male candidates, and virtually all CVs that contained the word ‘woman’ or indicated that the candidate had attended a school for women only were rated significantly lower. This discriminatory effect was caused by the fact that the vast majority of CVs provided for the algorithm’s training were from men. On the basis of that, the system determined that male candidates are preferred for recruitment to certain jobs.[15]
Thirdly, the simulation of human communication can be associated with the phenomenon of worker alienation. This phenomenon has been particularly visible in the period following the COVID-19 pandemic, which has left an indelible mark on the labour market in the form of the emergence and widespread adoption of new forms of work – remote and hybrid work.[16] As with all new developments, remote working can be viewed in two different ways. It certainly brings many benefits. Remote workers value the flexibility of working hours and the ability to organise their day schedule in a more personalised way. Another important factor is the savings on costs associated with commuting to work, as well as childcare and caring for family members.[17] Nevertheless, these new forms of work also have a downside that is increasingly recognised. As is evident from the research review on loneliness and isolation associated with remote working carried out by Figueiredo, Margaça, and Sánchez-García, depriving an employee of face-to-face interaction with others and consequently, of so-called informal socialisation, leads to an increased sense of detachment, stress and emotional tension, as well as a reduction in creativity and productivity.[18]
Therefore, it is visible that the Pope’s voice, indicating that communication via technological means, not to mention conversation with language models, cannot replace a real relationship between two people, one filled with empathy and genuine emotions, is not only a moral precaution, as it finds confirmation in research on the impact of technology on the work environment.
3. A broader reflection on work in the digital age
‘Magnifica Humanitas’ also includes a separate section devoted to ‘the dignity of work at a time of digital transition’, which offers a broader reflection on technological change and its impact on the working person.
Following the logic set out in ‘Rerum Novarum’, namely, that work is, on the one hand, a personal endeavour serving self-fulfilment and, on the other, a necessity as it serves to secure the conditions for a dignified life,[19] Leo XIV points out that under the influence of AI it cannot be reduced to the sole demands of productivity.[20] Unfortunately, at present, trends relating to the use of AI in the workplace are moving towards an ever-greater objectification of the worker, a development which is being closely monitored by labour law doctrine. This can be seen, amongst other things, in the discussions concerning the development of the concept of employee subordination, within which a distinction has recently been made between the category of so-called ‘technological subordination’ - that is, a partial restriction of the employer’s organisational functions in favour of the authority of algorithmic systems used to manage the workplace.[21] The trend of perceiving employees as a specific means of production is also reflected in new forms of employee monitoring, which allow for detailed and continuous surveillance that often extends beyond the boundaries of the workplace and working hours.[22]
Leo XIV also considers the issue of technological unemployment, caused primarily by the increasing automation of workplaces. These concerns are well-founded, as according to estimates set out in the ‘Future of Jobs 2025’ report, around 92 million jobs will be lost by 2030. On the other hand, 170 million new jobs are expected to be created, which, in total, represents a growth of 78 million jobs.[23] However, to understand the phenomenon of technological unemployment and the Pope’s concerns, the predicted changes in the global labour market should be examined through the prism of the types of jobs in which the fastest outflows and inflows will occur. The most rapid decline will be seen in occupations such as postal service clerks, bank tellers and related clerks, data entry clerks, cashiers and ticket clerks – that is, occupations of a rather conventional nature.[24] In turn, the fastest growth will be seen in areas primarily linked to new technologies - big data specialists, fintech engineers, AI and machine learning specialists, software and applications developers, etc.[25]
In accordance with the words set out in the encyclical, it is desirable that technology should help to liberate mankind from the work that is arduous, dangerous or excessively repetitive.[26] Nevertheless, the economic aspect alone, that is, the desire to cut costs and increase profits, cannot be the sole justification for reducing the workforce as a result of replacing workers with technological solutions.[27] Unfortunately, this is precisely the conclusion that can be drawn from an analysis of the data outlined above. The jobs that are set to be most severely affected in the future are not particularly burdensome, but rather the tasks performed within them are more prone to being taken over by AI-based systems. From the perspective of the Church’s social doctrine, such use of the opportunities offered by the Fourth Industrial Revolution is not desirable, since, although it may lead to economic growth, it simultaneously leads to anthropological regression and, in the broader perspective, to the breakdown of just social peace.[28]
Conclusion – the desire to fulfil Leo XIV’s vision
In conclusion, it should be noted that the reflections on work contained in the encyclical ‘Magnifica Humanitas’ are no abstract but are firmly rooted in reality. The Pope identifies the phenomena and threats that may arise from technological development for the dignity of working people in the broader sense. Clearly, the Pope does not provide ready-made solutions on how to guard against certain negative trends, but rather highlights key conditions and ideas such as: a human-centred economy, the principle of the common good, sustainable development, the rejection of absolute primacy of economic freedom, the protection of workers and support for the social dialogue, which should underpin such progress. This should not be regarded as a weakness of the encyclical. It is not the Pope’s role to design adequate legal and economic remedies. Rather, the Pope’s vocation is to make us aware of certain axiological and moral principles which humanity should bear in mind during its existence. Clear answers, fulfilling the principles of the Church’s social teaching, should be expected from scientists, lawyers, economists, politicians, social partners and developers of new technologies.
One example of a solution to counteract the negative effects of, amongst other things, the emergence of AI in the labour market is the creation of an unemployment insurance scheme operating within the framework of an unemployment insurance fund, which would be a dedicated fund intended to provide benefits in the event of unemployment and temporary interruptions in employment resulting from the redundancy of a post, the need to upgrade or change qualifications.[29] Such a fund would be universal and compulsory, financed by contributions from employers and employees, and supported by European funds and budgetary subsidies.[30] Given the insurance-based nature of this scheme, the amount of the unemployment benefit would depend on the amount of the insured person’s earnings.[31]
In the context of labour protection in the digital age, the concept of lifelong learning - that is, learning at all stages of life - is also of paramount importance. Such learning should be geared towards enhancing employees’ qualifications so that their skills meet the needs of employers arising from technological transformation. The development of such education would need to go hand in hand with the development of institutions such as national and workplace training funds. Such funds would provide support for employers willing to provide training for their staff and would lead to greater access to educational services for employees.[32] In this regard, the state should take an active role in raising awareness amongst labour market stakeholders of the need to adapt to the new requirements of the digital revolution.
Nevertheless, besides addressing the effects of technological change, root causes must also be examined – that is, how specific technological solutions are designed and implemented. In labour law doctrine, a certain school of thought can be identified which is, justifiably, rooted in human dignity as the axiological foundation of labour law.[33] In accordance with this idea, as Barański points out, dignity should serve as a point of reference for all considerations regarding the impact of AI on the labour market and labour law regulation.[34] This approach is, to a certain extent, reflected in EU-level legislation covering issues relating to the use of AI in the field of employment, namely the GDPR[35] and the AI Act[36]. However, certain criticisms have been raised against these regulations, particularly the AI Act. The main target of criticism is the risk-based approach to AI systems set out in the Regulation. Ter Haar points out that this approach - particularly the classification of AI used in the employment sector as high-risk systems - implies that these technologies are, from the outset, deemed to be ‘bad’. Consequently, the author proposes a shift in logic towards developing regulations that encompass ‘good’ technologies. A new paradigm for thinking about technology and its regulation would entail a shift away from neoliberal thinking, which prioritises profit as the key objective of technological development, towards a perspective grounded in values such as workers’ well-being, privacy, universal access to technology, and the reduction of disproportionate discrepancies between members of society, etc.[37] This change is reflected in the Value Sensitive Design approach, the aim of which is to develop new technologies in accordance with, amongst other things, the values set out above.[38]
In view of the above, it is clear that ideas expressed in ‘Magnifica Humanitas’ regarding the need to humanise work in the age of digital transformation are reflected in the field of labour law, which without placing the principles of common good and human dignity at its centre, would constitute little more than a collection of technicalities rather than a branch of law serving to protect workers and ensure fair balance between parties to an employment relationship.
[1] Leo XIV, 2026, par. 29.
[2] Pius XI, 1931, par. 39.
[3] Leo XIII, 1891, par. 3.
[4] John Paul II, 1981, para. 9-10.
[5] Francis, 2015, par. 128.
[6] Francis, 2020, par. 168.
[7] Leo XIV, 2026, par. 100.
[8] Smith, 1776 (1976), p. 1040.
[9] Marx, 1867 (1992), pp. 614-615.
[10] Leo XIV, 2026, par. 92.
[11] Leo XIV, 2026, par. 100.
[12] See more: Winner, 1989, pp. 19-39.
[13] Zliobaite, 2017, pp. 1060-1089.
[14] Otto, 2022, p. 147.
[15] Dastin, 2022, p. 296.
[16] Saurombe, Rayners, Makgobu, Manka, 2022, p. 1.
[17] Jalagat, Jalagat, 2019, p. 97.
[18] Figueiredo, Margaça, Sánchez-García, 2025, p. 23-24.
[19] Leo XIII, 1891, par. 44.
[20] Leo XIV, 2026, par. 149
[21] Barański, Gredka-Ligarska, 2025, pp. 20-29; Bąba, 2022, pp. 88-109.
[22] Wood, 2021, pp. 2-11; Rozmysłowicz and Krzyżaniak, 2023, pp. 149-164; Ivanova, Bronowicka, Kocher and Degner, 2018, pp. 12-17.
[23] World Economic Forum, 2025, p. 18.
[24] World Economic Forum, 2025, p. 19.
[25] World Economic Forum, 2025, p. 19.
[26] Leo XIV, 2026, par. 152.
[27] Leo XIV, 2026, par. 152.
[28] Leo XIV, 2026, par. 154.
[29] Męcina, 2023, p. 181.
[30] Męcina, 2023, p. 182.
[31] Męcina, 2023, p. 184-185.
[32] Męcina, 2023, p. 204.
[33] Mitrus, 2014, pp. 133-142, Liszcz, 2018, pp. 19-26.
[34] Barański, 2022, pp. 86-87.
[35] Article 88 (2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
[36] Rec. 48 of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act).
[37] Ter Haar, 2025, pp. 52-56.
[38] Longo, Padovano, Umbrello, 2020, pp. 11-14.
References
Barański, M. (2022) ‘Initial Remarks on Artificial Intelligence and Axiological Foundations of Labour Law’, Studia z Zakresu Pracy i Polityki Społecznej, 29(2), pp. 85-93.
Barański, M., Gredka-Ligarska, I. (2025) ‘Autonomous subordination and technological subordination as new concepts of subordinate work – in search of a new regulatory model’, Praca i Zabezpieczenie Społeczne, LXVI(3), pp. 20-29.
Dastin, J. (2022) ‘Amazon Scraps Secret AI Recruiting Tool that Showed Bias against Women’ in Martin, K. (ed.) Ethics of Data and Analytics – Concepts and Cases. Boca Raton, London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 296-299.
Figueiredo, E., Margaça, C., Sánchez-García, J.C. (2025) ‘Loneliness and Isolation in the Era of Telework: A Comprehensive Review of Challenges for Organizational Success’, Healthcare, 13(16), pp. 1-28.
Ivanova, M., Bronowicka, J., Kocher, E. and Degner, A. (2018) The App as a Boss? Control and Autonomy in Application–Based Management. Frankfurt (Oder): Viadrina.
Jalagat, R.C., Jalagat, A.M. (2019) ‘Rationalizing Remote Working Concept and Its Implications on Employee Productivity’, Global Journal of Advanced Research, 6(3), pp. 95-100.
Liszcz, T. (2018) Aksjologiczne Podstawy Prawa Pracy. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.
Longo, F., Padovano, A. and Umbrello, S. (2020) ‘Value-Oriented and Ethical Technology Engineering in Industry 5.0: A Human-Centric Perspective for the Design of the Factory of the Future’, Applied Sciences, 10(12), pp. 1-25.
Marx, K. (1867) (1992) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Vol. I. London: Penguin.
Męcina, J. (2023) Od cyfryzacji i robotyzacji do sztucznej inteligencji – wyzwania dla gospodarki i rynku pracy. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
Mitrus, L. (2014) ‘Godność jako podstawa aksjologiczna praw pracowniczych’ in Skąpski, M. and Ślebzak, K. (eds.) Aksjologiczne podstawy prawa pracy i ubezpieczeń społecznych. Poznań: Ars boni et aequi, pp. 133-142.
Otto, M. (2022) ‘Dyskryminacja Algorytmiczna w Zatrudnieniu. Zarys Problemu’, Studia z Zakresu Prawa Pracy i Polityki Społecznej, 29(2), pp. 145-160.
Pope Francis (2015) Laudato Si’.
Pope Francis (2020) Fratelli Tutti.
Pope John Paul II (1981) Laborem Exercens.
Pope Leo XIII (1891) Rerum Novarum.
Pope Leo XIV (2026) Magnifica Humanitas.
Pope Pius XI (1931) Quadragesimo Anno.
Rozmysłowicz, M., Krzyżaniak, P. (2023) ‘Automated Processing of Data on Work Performance and Employee Evaluation: A Case Study of Practices at Amazon Warehouses in Poland’, Italian Labour Law e-Journal, 16(2), pp. 149-164.
Saurombe, M.D., Rayners, S.S., Makgobu, K.A., Manka, K. (2022) ‘The perceived influence of remote working on specific human resource management outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic’, SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(0), pp. 1-12.
Smith, A. (1776) (1977) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Cannan, E. (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ter Haar, B.P. (2025) ‘The law of good technology’ in Gersdorf, M. and Maniewska, E. (eds.) Prawo Pracy Wobec Nowych Technologii. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 47-64.
Winner, L. (1989) The Whale and the Reactor – A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Wood, A.J. (2021) Algorithmic Management Consequences for Work Organisation and Working Conditions. Seville: European Commission.
World Economic Forum (2025) Future of Jobs Report 2025. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Zliobaite, I. (2017) 'Measuring discrimination in algorithmic decision making', Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 31(4), pp. 1060-1089.
Comments