Asian church communications chair urges AI transparency without outsourcing pastoral care

A call from Macau

Bishop Marcelino Antonio Maralit Jr., chairman of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences Office of Social Communication, has urged clergy not to present AI-generated homilies as their own or transfer spiritual care to algorithms. Radio Veritas Asia reported his October 29 address in Macau on October 30.

Maralit, bishop of San Pablo in the Philippines, spoke during the office’s October 27–31 assembly. The Catholic broadcaster’s account also describes his call for transparency, data privacy, seminarian formation, solidarity with data workers and interreligious cooperation against digital abuse. These are recommendations attributed to the communications chair. The article does not supply a final adopted resolution, implementation timetable or enforcement procedure. Radio Veritas Asia’s account Source: rvasia.org

Contact is not the same as care

Another address helps explain the distinction. In its October 28 report, RVA describes church technology adviser Lam’s argument that digital tools can introduce people to the Church, while the purpose remains relationships and participation in its sacramental life. He called for education in responsible technology use and human relationships beyond digital connections. That is not a rejection of online ministry; it distinguishes an initial connection from the relationship it is meant to serve. RVA’s account of Lam’s address Source: rvasia.org

Theologian Leo-Martin Angelo Ocampo made a related distinction in an October 28 presentation reported the following day: tools can assist ministers’ research without replacing their personal witness and care. The reports describe complementary arguments at one gathering, not independent evidence that particular AI tools improve ministry. AI Faith Monitor has read the published accounts, not reviewed recordings or full speech transcripts. RVA’s account of Ocampo’s presentation Source: rvasia.org

A practical Christian distinction

For a congregation considering an AI-assisted welcome service, the useful question is not simply whether the system answers accurately. Who becomes responsible when a visitor needs ongoing help? An explicitly hypothetical service could explain meeting times and offer a route to a named church contact without representing its generated responses as personal pastoral attention.

In 1 Peter 5:1–5 (NIV), the appeal to elders concerns willing service, exemplary conduct and humility toward those entrusted to their care, under Christ as Chief Shepherd. Applying that teaching here does not settle every permissible use of AI. It does clarify why producing religious words and accepting responsibility for people are different tasks. 1 Peter 5:1-5 (NIV)

A church can therefore assess two things separately: what assistance it discloses in preparing material, and which identifiable person remains available for care. Disclosing AI involvement does not, by itself, provide that relationship; banning a tool does not, by itself, establish it either.