In February 2026, the debate around AI generated sermons went mainstream again when Pope Leo XIV warned Catholic priests not to rely on artificial intelligence to prepare their homilies.

The remarks came during a closed door meeting with clergy from the Diocese of Rome on February 19, 2026. During the discussion, the pope urged priests to “resist the temptation to prepare homilies with artificial intelligence.”

His reasoning was simple: preaching is supposed to be a personal expression of faith, not something generated by a machine. According to reports from Vatican media, he said that “to give a true homily is to share faith,” something AI cannot do.

He also warned that over reliance on AI could weaken human thinking, comparing it to a muscle that atrophies when unused:

“Like all the muscles in the body… if we do not move them, they die. The brain needs to be used.”

The comments come at a time when many pastors and priests are quietly experimenting with tools like ChatGPT to draft sermon outlines, research biblical themes, or polish wording.

Why this matters (beyond religion)

This moment is interesting because it highlights a broader question that keeps coming up in the AI era:

If AI can write convincing speeches, essays, and sermons…

what happens to authentic human expression?

A sermon is essentially long form persuasive storytelling, not that different from political speeches or podcasts. If clergy start outsourcing that work to AI, critics argue the message may lose the lived experience behind it.

At the same time, many priests and pastors say AI can simply be a tool, like a commentary book or research assistant.

Open question

Would it actually matter to you if a sermon or even a podcast was written with AI?

Or is the human behind the message still what gives it value?