It's not exactly fair to compare the most measured thinking of official Vatican theological reflection to Evangelical business marketing, but it's hard not to do so.
When "Sermon help with AI" hits your inbox as an ad, it's hard not to pine for some actual engagement even if one, like me, has near-zero Romanticism for Catholicism itself, much less a desire to "cross the Tiber."
Of course, I think that lack of public theological reflection is a direct result of the tendency of many of us from Evangelical backgrounds* to treat technology as morally neutral. McLuhan was right (and not-coincidentally a Catholic) and would, I imagine, agree with the Vatican statement when it says:
"Technological products reflect the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, and have the power to “shape the world and engage consciences on the level of values.” On a societal level, some technological developments could also reinforce relationships and power dynamics that are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the human person and society."
*(I know there is that word again: Evangelical. By Evangelical, I mean low-church protestants who pride themselves on "engaging with culture" in distinction from fundamentalism on such cultural postures, and distinct from mainline Protestantism in class and theological bent. I know "Evangelical" just means "Votes Republican" now in popular parlance, which is not what I mean in simple terms, but I don't have a better word right now.)
Totally agree. It's easy to romanticize the singularity of Vatican statements, forgetting that people ignore them all the time. One of the best aspects of CST is that evangelical insights can find their home inside them all the time, and frequently get more assets to work with as a result.
What would you say would be a more fair comparison? My knee-jerk reaction is to say that there's *no* Protestant equivalent to Vatican documents like this, and probably couldn't be. It seems like the most one could expect would be individual theologians offering their musings. But I am very open to correction on this point!
You’ll see World Council of Churches statements, pronouncements from councils of bishops, etc, but these are more infrequent and often are in response to particular events.
Ah sure, that makes sense. Would I be wrong to assume that broad consensus for these sorts of pronouncements usually comes at the cost of a thinner philosophical/theological grounding? It's hard for me to imagine the Lutherans, Pentecostals, and Southern Baptists being able to secure a detailed agreement about the nature of the human person to the point that they could assume hylomorphism like the Vatican document does, for example.
I do think that internal deliberations and latitude provide room for creativity and hopefully, some generative disagreements. But yes, the tradeoff is a thinner document which has to emphasize pratical insights by necessity rather than offering a consensus theological vision which then drives moral reflection.
True, although ideally it primarily gets to the theologians and bishops, and then any laity with work (or interest) related to the topic. I’m not sure the point is to have every person in the pews reading everything.
The other side of the coin is that Vatican writings on a topic have often a meager reception among the laity. Just because you have a magisterium doesn’t solve that problem.
communion with the Catholic Church that while the laity is not that interested in reading every document issued by the Vatican, there is a certain sense of rest and trust that the laity has in the authority and wisdom of the magisterium that doesn’t exist in the Protestant circles I was in for 23 years. I personally love reading the documents, but that’s also because without a magisterium it’s kind of up to you to decide who’s theological “take” on whatever topic is up for discussion that you are going to agree with. It’s so refreshing to know that with a topic like this I know that the magisterium will be putting forth deep, wise, thoughtful boundaries grounded in Reality to help navigate the changing times. Even if not every Catholic is reading it!
Interesting, too, that AI depicts itself as specifically female, perhaps seeing itself as the new and improved Mother Nature.
It's not exactly fair to compare the most measured thinking of official Vatican theological reflection to Evangelical business marketing, but it's hard not to do so.
When "Sermon help with AI" hits your inbox as an ad, it's hard not to pine for some actual engagement even if one, like me, has near-zero Romanticism for Catholicism itself, much less a desire to "cross the Tiber."
Of course, I think that lack of public theological reflection is a direct result of the tendency of many of us from Evangelical backgrounds* to treat technology as morally neutral. McLuhan was right (and not-coincidentally a Catholic) and would, I imagine, agree with the Vatican statement when it says:
"Technological products reflect the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, and have the power to “shape the world and engage consciences on the level of values.” On a societal level, some technological developments could also reinforce relationships and power dynamics that are inconsistent with a proper understanding of the human person and society."
*(I know there is that word again: Evangelical. By Evangelical, I mean low-church protestants who pride themselves on "engaging with culture" in distinction from fundamentalism on such cultural postures, and distinct from mainline Protestantism in class and theological bent. I know "Evangelical" just means "Votes Republican" now in popular parlance, which is not what I mean in simple terms, but I don't have a better word right now.)
Totally agree. It's easy to romanticize the singularity of Vatican statements, forgetting that people ignore them all the time. One of the best aspects of CST is that evangelical insights can find their home inside them all the time, and frequently get more assets to work with as a result.
What would you say would be a more fair comparison? My knee-jerk reaction is to say that there's *no* Protestant equivalent to Vatican documents like this, and probably couldn't be. It seems like the most one could expect would be individual theologians offering their musings. But I am very open to correction on this point!
You’ll see World Council of Churches statements, pronouncements from councils of bishops, etc, but these are more infrequent and often are in response to particular events.
Ah sure, that makes sense. Would I be wrong to assume that broad consensus for these sorts of pronouncements usually comes at the cost of a thinner philosophical/theological grounding? It's hard for me to imagine the Lutherans, Pentecostals, and Southern Baptists being able to secure a detailed agreement about the nature of the human person to the point that they could assume hylomorphism like the Vatican document does, for example.
I do think that internal deliberations and latitude provide room for creativity and hopefully, some generative disagreements. But yes, the tradeoff is a thinner document which has to emphasize pratical insights by necessity rather than offering a consensus theological vision which then drives moral reflection.
True, although ideally it primarily gets to the theologians and bishops, and then any laity with work (or interest) related to the topic. I’m not sure the point is to have every person in the pews reading everything.
Relying on "individual theologians offering their musings" has not worked out particularly well, I will admit.
The other side of the coin is that Vatican writings on a topic have often a meager reception among the laity. Just because you have a magisterium doesn’t solve that problem.
I have found since coming into
communion with the Catholic Church that while the laity is not that interested in reading every document issued by the Vatican, there is a certain sense of rest and trust that the laity has in the authority and wisdom of the magisterium that doesn’t exist in the Protestant circles I was in for 23 years. I personally love reading the documents, but that’s also because without a magisterium it’s kind of up to you to decide who’s theological “take” on whatever topic is up for discussion that you are going to agree with. It’s so refreshing to know that with a topic like this I know that the magisterium will be putting forth deep, wise, thoughtful boundaries grounded in Reality to help navigate the changing times. Even if not every Catholic is reading it!
Boy do I know it.