Asian Bishops Embrace AI: Technological Idolatry Masquerading as Pastoral Care
The Vatican News portal (December 10, 2025) reports on a three-day meeting in Hong Kong organized by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC). The event, attended by “Cardinal” Stephen Chow and antipope Leo XIV’s communication prefect Paolo Ruffini, promotes artificial intelligence (AI) as a “gift from God” for evangelization. Speakers urged ethical discernment while framing AI as essential to the Church’s mission, with Ruffini warning against “filter bubbles” but affirming technology’s role in Catholic media. The assembly concluded with plans to draft “pastoral guidelines” for AI use across Asian dioceses.
Naturalism Replaces Supernatural Faith
The meeting’s core error lies in its naturalistic reduction of the Church’s divine mission to technological utility. “Cardinal” Chow’s claim that “AI comes from God” echoes the condemned proposition that “divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual progress” (Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, §5). By attributing divine origin to a human invention, the conciliar sect perpetuates the modernist heresy that conflates grace with nature.
Pius XI’s encyclical Quas Primas definitively taught that Christ’s kingship extends over all creation—including technology: “The empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. […] It would be a grave error […] to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs” (§17). Nowhere does the Hong Kong meeting acknowledge Christ’s sovereignty over AI, instead treating it as a neutral tool subject to human ethical frameworks. This omission exposes the sect’s practical atheism.
Synodal Conscience Over Divine Law
Chow’s appeal to “communal conscience shaped through synodal processes” directly contradicts Catholic teaching on the binding nature of eternal truths. The First Vatican Council anathematized those who claim “that the Church has no […] perpetual rights conferred upon her by her Divine Founder” (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, ch. 3). By substituting collective discernment for immutable doctrine, the FABC promotes the modernist error that “dogmas […] are interpretations of religious facts which the human mind has laboriously evolved” (St. Pius X, Lamentabili, §22).
When Ruffini insists that “critical thinking and discernment” safeguard human freedom, he inverts the Catholic order. Veritatis Splendor (John Paul II, 1993)—already steeped in ambiguity—at least acknowledged that conscience must conform to objective truth (¶60). The Hong Kong speakers, however, reduce truth to a product of “education and media literacy,” thereby enshrining the relativism condemned by Pius IX: “Human reason […] is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood” (Syllabus, §3).
Eclipse of Sacramental Economy
Notably absent is any reference to the sacraments as the true engines of evangelization. While the participants discuss “AI’s contribution to Catholic media” and “semantic search tools,” they ignore the Council of Trent’s decree that Christ instituted the sacraments “as efficacious signs of grace” (Session VII, Canon 1). The Catechism of St. Pius X emphasizes that grace comes primarily through sacramental participation—not algorithmic efficiency. By prioritizing “multilingual translation” over sanctification, the conciliar sect reduces the Church to a NGO with digital strategies.
Fr. John Mi Shen’s assertion that “the heart of communication remains the human person” exemplifies this horizontalism. Contrast this with Pius XII’s warning against “exaggerated and senseless longing for […] technical progress” that displaces the supernatural (Humani Generis, §2). Nowhere do the Hong Kong documents mention reparation for sins, the Four Last Things, or the necessity of baptism—proof that their “pastoral guidelines” will further entrench religious indifferentism.
False Shepherds Legitimize Technocratic Idolatry
The presence of Paolo Ruffini—prefect of an illegitimate “dicastery”—lends pseudo-authority to this apostasy. His claim that “intelligence cannot be artificial” rings hollow while he collaborates with antipopes who deny Christ’s exclusive mediatory role (cf. Pius IX, Syllabus, §17). When Ruffini quotes Guardini on “conscience and responsibility,” he omits that the German theologian’s ambiguous modernism helped pave the way for Vatican II’s anthropocentric shift.
Equally damning is the meeting’s culmination in a “Mass” presided by “Bishop” Marcelino Maralit Jr. Given the post-1968 invalidity of conciliar sect ordinations, this ritual constitutes simulated worship. The true Church teaches that “those who eat and drink without discerning the body eat and drink judgment on themselves” (1 Cor 11:29). By encouraging participation in counterfeit sacraments while promoting AI, the FABC doubly mocks Christ’s sacrifice.
Conclusion: Digital Tower of Babel
This Hong Kong assembly epitomizes the conciliar sect’s betrayal of its divine mandate. Instead of thundering against AI’s capacity to spread blasphemy (deepfake “miracles,” algorithmic desacralization), the “pastoral guidelines” will likely endorse technological integration—just as Vatican II endorsed religious liberty. Let us recall Pius XI’s admonition: “When once men recognize […] that Christ must be acknowledged […] as the King of the whole human race, […] then at last will many evils be cured” (Quas Primas, §24). Until the usurpers renounce their technocratic idolatry and return to the Kingship of Christ, such meetings serve only Mammon.
Source:
Hong Kong: Asian Church leaders gather to discern AI’s pastoral impact (vaticannews.va)
Date: 10.12.2025