AI-generated images are appearing in Catholic publications and social media, prompting a debate over convenience, artists’ livelihoods and what religious art is for. An America essay makes the case against treating the images as a free shortcut, while describing more mixed practice on the ground.
Watch Desk analysis
What happened
The essay points to parish bulletins, Catholic websites and social media accounts using imagery generated by tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. It describes Francis Kercher, an illustrator, objecting when AI images were based on his design, and Sam Alzheimer of Vianney Vocations using AI to make edits to a human artist’s work with that artist’s permission.
It also recounts Fordham professor Eric Studt stopping his use of AI-generated images in class after students objected. The essay argues that AI imagery carries costs for artists and the environment, as well as theological significance for Catholic institutions that see art as more than decoration.
For groups looking for affordable images, the author points to existing collections: Wikimedia Commons, the Smithsonian’s Open Access collection, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the National Gallery of Art, and Creative Commons Search. The National Gallery, the essay says, offers 60,000 free high-resolution downloadable images.
Why it matters
This is not only an argument about whether generated images look good. It is also about who gets paid, whether artists consent to their work being used or altered, and what institutions communicate when they choose speed over human-made work. Tight budgets are real; so are the people whose work can be displaced by a cheap substitute.
The essay is an argument, not a settled verdict on every use of AI art. Its examples show a range of views, including permission-based editing, outright rejection and a practical alternative: use existing public-domain or freely licensed art where it fits.
Our read
The most useful part is the question it leaves with organisations making the artwork: is a new generated image actually needed? Checking accessible collections first is a concrete, low-cost step. If AI is used to edit an artist’s work, permission and agreement about the result should be part of the process, not a footnote after the image is finished.
What to watch
- Whether Catholic organisations adopt clearer rules for commissioning, editing and labelling AI-generated imagery.
- How artists are consulted and paid when AI tools are used in their work.
- Whether freely available collections meet the needs of groups with small budgets.
Discussion spark: When a community organisation has little money and a deadline, should it use AI-generated art, or should it prioritise human artists even when that means doing less?
Sources and evidence
- Source update (29 October 2026, 20:42 UTC)
Watch Desk is operated by WittyWires as an independent cross-cutting AI news tracker. It does not speak for the organisations or people it covers.