Pope warns on AI as Marche factories weigh the cost of automation

Pope Leo XIV has issued his first encyclical, titled Magnifica Humanitas, in which he describes the development and deployment of artificial intelligence as a threat to human dignity, according to Project Syndicate. The Vatican's position mirrors that of his namesake, Pope Leo XIII, whose 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum sought to reconcile the Church with rapid industrialization. The new encyclical frames technological change as a central ethical concern for the Church and for believers and non-believers alike.

The timing of the Pope's intervention arrives as Italian manufacturers face a different kind of pressure: renewed demand for their goods, but the question of how to meet it without further automating their workforces. According to S&P Global's latest purchasing managers' index data reported by Forex Factory on June 1, Italian manufacturers signalled a boost in demand linked to safety stockpiling, with renewed growth in new orders fuelling a faster expansion in manufacturing output. The sector is expanding, but the path forward—whether through human labour or machine—remains contested.

In the Marche region, where small and medium-sized firms dominate the shoe, leather, and mechanical districts, the tension between growth and employment is acute. These family-owned manufacturers have long competed on craft and flexibility rather than scale, a model that has depended on skilled workers and local supply chains. The Pope's warning that AI threatens human dignity speaks to anxieties that run deeper than quarterly earnings: the survival of a way of making things that has defined communities for generations.

The encyclical, as described by Project Syndicate commentators, does not simply warn against AI in the abstract. One critic argues that Pope Leo XIV has not gone far enough, pressing instead the question of what the technology is being designed to do. The concern is not merely that AI exists, but that the public conversation remains narrowly focused on competition between AI labs or abstract debates about capabilities, while almost no one asks what purpose AI ought to serve or whether institutions and control mechanisms can steer the technology toward broad-based improvements in human welfare.

A second Project Syndicate commentary defends the Pope's position, celebrating his emphasis on the essential and categorical difference between humans and machines. This framing—that the encyclical is a necessary exhortation to both believers and non-believers—suggests the Vatican sees the stakes as universal, not merely theological. The Church is positioning itself as a voice for human dignity in an age of rapid technological change, echoing its historical role during earlier industrial transitions.

For Marche's manufacturing districts, the encyclical arrives at a moment of genuine ambiguity. The region's economy rests on a model that has survived decades of global competition through specialization and craft. Shoe manufacturers in the province of Fermo, furniture makers in the Pesaro area, and mechanical component suppliers across the region have built export markets on the reputation for quality that comes from skilled human hands and judgment. These are not mass-production sectors; they are districts where the relationship between worker, tool, and product remains visible.

Yet the pressure to automate is real and growing. Labour costs in Italy remain higher than in many competing economies, and younger workers increasingly move away from manufacturing towns toward larger cities or abroad. The regional population is ageing faster than the national average, a demographic trend that compounds the labour shortage. Automation, from this perspective, is not a choice but a necessity for survival. A firm that cannot find workers cannot fill orders, no matter how strong demand becomes.

The renewed growth in new orders that S&P Global's PMI data captured in early June reflects a real shift in global supply chains. Safety stockpiling—firms building inventory to hedge against future disruptions—has created a temporary surge in demand for manufactured goods. For Marche's exporters, this is an opportunity. But it is also a test: can they expand output without automating away the skilled jobs that have anchored their communities?

The Pope's encyclical does not address this dilemma directly. His concern, as Project Syndicate reports, is with AI's design and purpose, with the question of whether technology is being deployed to serve human flourishing or to concentrate power and wealth. But the encyclical's broader claim—that human dignity is at stake—resonates in regions where manufacturing is not merely economic activity but a form of social cohesion. In Marche, as in other industrial districts across central Italy, the factory floor is where families have built stability across generations.

The Vatican's intervention also arrives in a context of broader European anxiety about AI and labour. The European Union has begun regulating artificial intelligence through its AI Act, which imposes requirements on high-risk systems. Italy, as an EU member, will be bound by these rules. But regulation at the EU level is blunt; it does not account for the specific vulnerabilities of regional economies that depend on skilled manufacturing. A shoe factory in Fermo faces different risks from AI than a financial services firm in Milan.

Commentators cited by Project Syndicate note that the public conversation about AI has been too narrow. The focus on competition between AI labs and abstract technical capabilities has left unexamined the question of what AI is for. In manufacturing districts like Marche's, this question is concrete: if a firm automates a process, who benefits? The shareholders? The remaining workers through higher wages? The consumer through lower prices? Or does the benefit accrue only to the owners of capital, while workers bear the cost of displacement?

The encyclical's emphasis on human dignity offers no technical answers to these questions. But it does reframe the conversation. Instead of asking what AI can do, the Pope's position asks what AI should do. This is a moral question, not a technical one. It opens space for arguing that some uses of AI—those that displace workers without providing alternative livelihoods, for instance—might be incompatible with human dignity, regardless of their technical feasibility or profitability.

In Marche, this argument has particular force. The region's manufacturing districts have survived globalization by maintaining a competitive advantage in quality and flexibility. But quality and flexibility depend on human skill and judgment. A fully automated shoe factory might produce more units per hour, but it would lose the capacity to adapt quickly to changing customer preferences or to produce small batches of specialized goods. The craft model that has sustained Marche's economy is, in some sense, incompatible with full automation.

Yet the pressure to automate will not disappear because the Pope has issued an encyclical. Global competition is real, and firms that do not automate may find themselves unable to compete. The challenge for policymakers in Italy and the European Union is to create conditions under which firms can invest in automation without abandoning workers. This might mean stronger social safety nets, retraining programmes, or policies that encourage firms to retain workers in different roles. It might mean recognizing that some forms of manufacturing should remain labour-intensive because the social cost of automation exceeds the economic gain.

The Pope's encyclical does not resolve this tension. But it does name it as a moral problem, not merely an economic one. In doing so, it gives voice to anxieties that have been present in manufacturing regions for decades: that technological progress, however beneficial in aggregate, can leave communities devastated if the transition is not managed with care for human dignity. The encyclical's timing—arriving as Italian manufacturers face renewed demand but also renewed pressure to automate—suggests that this conversation is becoming urgent.

For Elena Marcheggiani and the Marche bureau, the Pope's intervention is significant because it reframes how the region's economic challenges should be understood. The question is not simply whether Marche's firms can compete in global markets. It is whether they can do so in a way that preserves the communities and livelihoods that have made the region distinctive. The encyclical offers no technical solution, but it does insist that this question matters morally, not just economically.

The regional response to the encyclical will likely be mixed. Manufacturers who see automation as essential for survival may view the Pope's warning as well-intentioned but impractical. Workers and their representatives may see it as a necessary moral voice in a conversation dominated by technical and financial arguments. Local governments and regional development agencies may see an opportunity to position Marche as a place where manufacturing and human dignity are reconciled, rather than opposed.

What remains unclear is whether the encyclical will influence policy or practice. The Vatican's moral authority is significant, but it does not directly control investment decisions or labour markets. The real test will come in the decisions made by individual firms, workers, and policymakers in the months and years ahead. Will Marche's manufacturers find ways to invest in automation while retaining and retraining workers? Will the European Union's AI regulations be implemented in ways that protect regional economies? Will the Pope's call for human dignity reshape how technology is designed and deployed?

These questions extend beyond Marche, beyond Italy, and beyond manufacturing. They touch on fundamental issues of how societies should manage technological change. The Pope's encyclical does not answer them, but it does insist that they be asked. In that sense, the encyclical's significance lies not in its technical prescriptions but in its moral reframing of the stakes. Human dignity, the Pope argues, is not a luxury good that can be sacrificed for economic efficiency. It is a fundamental value that should shape how technology is developed and used. Whether that argument will prevail against the pressures of global competition remains to be seen.