The “Pastoral” Compromise: AI as the New Naturalism
The cited article from EWTN News, dated March 18, 2026, reports on a discussion among several priests and a bishop regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence for preparing homilies. The central, stated conclusion of these clerics is that while AI can be a “useful tool” for ideas and references, it “can never replace grace” and preaching must “flow from the heart of the pastor.” The article frames the issue as one of pastoral prudence and authenticity versus technological convenience, with the ultimate authority cited being the recent advice of “Pope Leo XIV” to Roman priests to use “their brains more” than AI. This presentation, on its surface, appears to offer a balanced, cautious rejection of AI as a replacement. However, from the perspective of integral Catholic faith—the immutable doctrine and practice of the Church before the revolution of Vatican II—this very framing is a devastating manifestation of theological and spiritual bankruptcy. It is not a defense of the supernatural, but a capitulation to naturalism under the guise of moderation. The article’s fundamental error is its assumption that the post-conciliar “Church” (the conciliar sect) and its “papacy” possess any legitimate authority to guide souls, and its failure to identify the core supernatural nature of the preaching ministry, which is utterly incompatible with any form of data-processing algorithm, however “theologically sound” its output might appear.
Level 1: Factual Deconstruction—The Illusion of “Useful Tool”
The article presents a false dichotomy: AI as a benign reference tool versus AI as a replacement for the priest. This is a sophistic maneuver. The very act of outsourcing the foundational labor of *sola scriptura* and *sacra doctrina*—the prayerful meditation, the struggle with the sacred text, the seeking of the Holy Spirit’s illumination—to a machine is a radical negation of the priest’s *ontological* role. The priests quoted (Alfonso Peña, Fernando Gallego, Alberto Figueroa, Ignacio Amorós, Francisco Bronchalo, Mario Fernández, Antonio Torres) and the “papal” advice they cite, operate within a framework where the homily is primarily a *human communication act* that can be improved by efficiency. They speak of “pastoral discernment,” “spiritual experience,” “authenticity,” and “consistency” as qualities the priest must bring, but they treat the *content-generation process* as separable from the grace that supposedly infuses it. This is a naturalistic fallacy. The content of Catholic preaching is not natural wisdom; it is supernatural revelation demanding a supernatural mode of acquisition. As the encyclical *Quas Primas* of Pope Pius XI (1925) teaches, the Kingdom of Christ is “primarily spiritual and relates mainly to spiritual matters” and is entered “through faith and baptism.” The preaching that announces this kingdom must itself be an act of that spiritual realm, not a product of information synthesis. The article’s factual error is to treat the homily’s *origin* as a neutral intellectual task, rather than a sacramental-like function of the ordained minister, who acts *in persona Christi Capitis*.
Level 2: Linguistic Analysis—The Language of Naturalism and Subjectivism
The vocabulary employed by the priests is revelatory. They use terms like “authenticity,” “experience,” “heart,” “consistency,” and “personal testimony.” This is the language of modernistic subjectivism, where truth is measured by personal sincerity and psychological impact rather than objective correspondence to revealed doctrine. Bishop Figueroa states God’s people “need more than algorithms,” implying the deficiency is one of *human* warmth versus mechanical output, not of supernatural grace versus natural process. Father Amorós speaks of the “intimate, prior conversation with the Lord” being missed if the search is outsourced, framing prayer as a preparatory “conversation” for a human product, rather than the very source and substance of the preaching act itself. The term “God-incidences” (a portmanteau of “God” and “incidents”) is particularly telling—it reduces the specific, efficacious intervention of the Holy Spirit to a vague, providential “coincidence” that can be “viral.” This language empties the supernatural of its operative power and makes it a mere enhancer of human creativity. The entire discourse is anthropocentric: the homily must come from *the priest’s heart* for *the people’s* needs. Theocentricity—that the homily is God’s word spoken through the minister by the Holy Spirit, for God’s glory and the salvation of souls—is entirely absent. This is the language of the “cult of man” condemned by St. Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici gregis* (1907) and the *Syllabus of Errors* (1864).
Level 3: Theological Confrontation—The Homily as a Supernatural Act
Catholic theology before the conciliar revolution defined the homily (sermon) as an integral part of the Sacred Liturgy, specifically the Mass. It is not a lecture or a motivational talk. The 1917 Code of Canon Law (Can. 126) places the homily under the same liturgical norms as the Mass itself. Its purpose is to “expound the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life” from the sacred texts. This exposition is not a scholarly exercise; it is a ministerial act of teaching with the authority of Christ. The priest, by virtue of his ordination, receives a character configures him to Christ the Teacher. The *Catechism of the Council of Trent* (1566) states: “The pastor… should… explain the parts of the Mass… and should… instruct the people in the mysteries of faith and the precepts of Christian life.” This instruction is an act of the *munus docendi* (teaching office) inherent to the priesthood.
The article’s clerics, by even considering AI as a “tool” for this exposition, commit several heresies, implicitly or explicitly:
1. **They deny the ontological change in the ordained minister.** They treat the priest as a “resource” who can utilize external tools, rather than as a man configured to act *in the person of Christ*. The *De Romano Pontifice* of St. Robert Bellarmine (cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file) emphasizes the Pope’s (and by extension, every bishop’s) authority derives from his union with Christ, not from human capability. Using AI severs the intrinsic link between the priest’s *being* and his *teaching*.
2. **They reduce Sacred Scripture and Tradition to data.** The “searching” for biblical texts and doctrinal synthesis that AI accelerates is presented as a neutral information-retrieval task. This is Modernism. *Lamentabili sane exitu* (St. Pius X, 1907), Proposition 12, condemns: “The interpretation of Holy Scripture given by the Church, while not to be scorned, is nevertheless subject to more exact judgments and corrections by exegetes.” The very idea that an algorithm can “find” or “synthesize” sacred doctrine assumes doctrine is a human construct to be discovered, not a divinely guarded deposit to be received in faith and humility. The *Syllabus of Errors* (Pius IX) condemns proposition 4: “All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard…” The AI homily, generated from “data,” makes human reason (or its mechanical proxy) the ultimate standard.
3. **They omit the necessity of Grace and the Holy Spirit’s operation.** The most grave omission is the complete silence on the absolute necessity of *actual grace* for the preacher to understand, internalize, and communicate the supernatural truth. The homily is not a natural discourse about God; it is a supernatural act *of* God through His minister. The *Catechism of the Council of Trent* explains that the priest, in preaching, “speaks in the person of the Holy Ghost.” Father Amorós comes closest when he says AI “will never be able to replace the grace and the irreplaceable action of the Holy Spirit,” but this is immediately undermined by his admission that AI can assist in “finding specific biblical texts.” This is a contradiction: if the Holy Spirit’s action is irreplaceable, then the *process* of finding the text is part of that action. To outsource it is to exclude the Spirit from the process. St. Pius X’s *Pascendi* defines the Modernist as one who “regards dogmas… as… symbols of the inexpressible.” The AI-generated homily, even if doctrinally “sound,” is a symbol *without* the expressible grace that makes it efficacious. It is a corpse of a sermon.
Level 4: Symptomatic Analysis—The Conciliar Revolution’s Logical Fruit
This discussion is not an isolated incident; it is the inevitable fruit of the post-1958 apostasy. The conciliar sect’s “Church” has systematically dismantled the supernatural framework of the priesthood and preaching:
* **The Hermeneutics of Continuity** allows for the “development” of doctrine, making “theological soundness” a moving target that an AI, trained on the chaotic output of modern theologians, can mimic.
* **The Democratization of the Church** (cf. *Syllabus*, Errors 19-24 on Church rights) has reduced the priest to a “presider” or “community facilitator,” whose primary role is psychological engagement and “authenticity.” The homily becomes a “word” from a “heart,” not the *Word* from the *Heart of Christ* through His ordained priest. The article’s focus on “authenticity” and “personal testimony” is pure post-conciliar claptrap.
* **The Cult of Man** (condemned by Pius XI in *Quadragesimo Anno* and implicitly in *Quas Primas*) elevates human experience, “pastoral discernment,” and emotional connection as the measure of success. The priests in the article measure the homily by what “truly moves the heart” and what “people need to hear,” not by its objective conformity to immutable dogma and its power to convert souls through grace.
* **The Loss of the Supernatural** is total. There is no mention of the homily’s efficacy depending on the state of grace of the priest and the faithful, the necessity of sacrifice, the reality of mortal sin, the Four Last Things (Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell), or the eternal damnation of heretics and schismatics. The preaching is about “life” and “community” in a naturalistic sense. This is the “plague of secularism” (*Quas Primas*) that has poisoned the sanctuary.
The article’s acceptance of “Pope Leo XIV” as a legitimate authority is the foundational error that makes all subsequent analysis possible. The sedevacantist position, based on the theological certainties of Bellarmine and the canon law of 1917 (Can. 188.4), holds that a manifest heretic (and the conciliar “popes” have been manifest heretics) loses office *ipso facto*. Therefore, “Pope Leo XIV” is an antipope, and the structures he governs are a schismatic sect. Any “guidance” from him is null. The priests who follow him are, at best, in formal schism and, at worst, heretics themselves. Their opinions on preaching are therefore worthless and dangerous. The true Catholic priest, operating in the desert of the post-conciliar abomination, preaches not with the “brains” of an AI, but with the **faith** of the Church, the **doctrine** of the Councils and Popes before 1958, and the **grace** of the sacraments administered by valid (though illicit) bishops and priests who uphold the integral Faith. His homily is an act of **reparation** for the sacrilege of the Novus Ordo “mass” and a **witness** to the true Faith in a time of universal apostasy.
Conclusion: The Unbridgeable Chasm
The article presents a polished, pastoral-sounding compromise: use AI as a tool, but keep the “heart” in it. This is a diabolical deception. It suggests the supernatural can be augmented by the natural, that the Holy Spirit’s action can be “assisted” by a soulless algorithm processing data from a corrupted corpus of modernistic “theology.” This is the essence of Modernism: the fusion of the natural and the supernatural on human terms. The true, integral Catholic faith, as defined by the *Council of Trent* and the Popes of the 19th and early 20th centuries, knows no such synthesis. The preaching of the Word is a **sacramental act**. The priest’s mind and heart must be the *locus* where the Holy Spirit works, not a processor that inputs data and outputs text. To use AI is to voluntarily abdicate the priest’s unique, supernatural role and to reduce the pulpit to a commentary booth for a digital library. It is to prefer the sterile certainty of the algorithm to the risky, humble, and prayerful dependence on God that defines the true minister of Christ. The priests quoted in the article, by their very willingness to entertain this “tool,” demonstrate that they have already internalized the naturalistic, humanistic principles of the conciliar revolution they serve. Their “preaching” is therefore devoid of the grace that alone can convert souls. The faithful are not thirsting for “authenticity” in the subjective sense; they are thirsting for **truth**—the objective, unchangeable, supernatural truth of the Catholic Faith, which can only be proclaimed by a priest who, in the silence of his study and before the tabernacle, has let the Holy Spirit form the Word in his own heart through prayer, suffering, and loyalty to the *pre-conciliar* Magisterium. Anything else is the chatter of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.
Source:
Preach from the heart, not with AI-generated homilies, priest says (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 18.03.2026