St. Camillus report shows a parish making room for AI questions

A report on September discussions

A Franciscan account published October 14 describes how parishioners at St. Camillus Church in Silver Spring, Maryland, gathered to discuss AI through Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas. The meetings took place on three successive Saturdays in September, not this week.

Br. Steven Patti, who facilitated the discussions at the invitation of pastor Br. Jorge Hernandez, says each session lasted two hours. Participants raised questions about trust, surveillance, disinformation, AI companionship and warfare. His reflection describes shared concern for human dignity alongside hope rooted in the Gospel. It does not report an attendance count, evaluate learning or announce a parish AI policy. The evidence is a facilitator’s account of a local conversation, not proof that a particular format works everywhere. Source: friars.us

Earlier Catholic teaching

Catholic teaching had already placed relationships within the AI debate. Antiqua et nova, issued by two Vatican dicasteries in January 2025, argues that embodied encounters and genuine concern for another person are indispensable. In paragraphs 58–61, it distinguishes simulated responses from the demands of personal relationship. That earlier framework helps explain why a church’s response can involve people listening to each other as well as evaluating technology. Source: vatican.va

Christian application: shared concern

Paul’s image of the church as a body in 1 Corinthians 12:12–27 gives this discussion a further Christian purpose. The passage challenges members to regard apparently weaker parts as necessary and to share concern across the body. Verse 26 describes the whole body sharing a member’s suffering. It is teaching about life together in Christ, not an instruction to run an AI workshop. 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 (NIV)

A proposed follow-through question

An application for adult formation is to ask whose experience a technology discussion has not yet heard. A volunteer responsible for records, someone learning to identify deceptive messages and someone who feels excluded by digital services may bring different questions. A facilitator need not collect identifying stories or private pastoral details to make those concerns visible.

A proposed next step is to end a conversation with one agreed question, a named person responsible for finding reliable information and a date to return to it. Participants should be able to see what happened to their concern. These are editorial suggestions, not reported St. Camillus practices. The point is modest but practical: listening can inform a church’s decisions when there is an accountable route from what members say to what leaders investigate.