Can a Machine Make an Icon? Carlo Acutis, Pope Leo XIV and What Sacred Art Is For

By Bobby Macintosh · Updated October 2026

In many Catholic and Orthodox churches, someone sooner or later stops before an image, lights a candle and prays. For them the picture isn’t decoration. The person shown matters.

So when a parish in Belarus hung an image of a teenage saint made with the help of artificial intelligence, and a retired archbishop blessed it, the argument was never only about software. This essay tells the story, sets out what Pope Leo XIV said about art and machines nine days earlier, and listens to Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed voices in turn. As far as I could find, no Church body has ruled on AI-made icons, so this is about how to think, not a verdict.

A blessing in Novolukoml

On Sunday 11 October, Archbishop Emeritus Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz of Minsk-Mohilev visited the parish of St Mary Magdalene in Novolukoml, in Belarus’s Vitebsk diocese. According to the archdiocese’s own report, he blessed an image of St Carlo Acutis, canonised in 2025. The parish priest, Fr Mikalai Lipski, greeted its makers by name: a prompt engineer, Dzmitry Kulpanovich, with a designer and a photographer as co-authors, who used “the help of artificial intelligence and other modern technologies” (my translation; catholicminsk.by, 12 October 2026). Three named people made it, with AI among their tools.

BelTA, the Belarusian state news agency, describes a canvas 140 by 290 cm, “executed in the style of artistic painting”, in which Carlo holds a laptop and a rosary, with a golden sun on his chest recalling his conviction that “The Eucharist is my highway to heaven” (BelTA, 13 October 2026, where you can see it).

The archbishop’s reasons deserve a hearing. In his homily he said: “Today we enter the world through the internet. What do we look for there? Holiness? Far from always. The icon of St Carlo should help us, through the internet, to find God’s truth, which leads to holiness” (my translation from the archdiocese’s report).

The Christian Post gathered the reactions on 15 October. Fr Matthew P. Schneider, who teaches theology at Holy Apostles College & Seminary, was blunt: “Have we no shame? Sacred art must always be human made. Icons, if we understand the theology behind them, even more so.” CP also reports Calvin Robinson, a priest of the English Catholic Church (not part of the Roman Catholic Church), seeing modernism at work, and the Orthodox writer Rod Dreher calling for it to stop. Scott Roberts, a Baptist pastor in Ontario, argued that the bigger problem is blessing images for prayer at all. Some coverage calls it the first AI-generated icon anywhere; the parish called it the first in Belarus, and I couldn’t confirm more.

What the Pope actually said

On 2 October, Pope Leo XIV received artists and curators from a meeting promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education. He said this, in the Holy See Press Office text:

There is an ontological difference — even before an aesthetic one — between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others. Algorithms lack the spark of the human, whereas “authentic culture and art preserve this spark” (Encyclical Letter Magnifica Humanitas, 122).

Some news copy renders this differently; that is the official English. Notice the claim. The Pope doesn’t say machine images are ugly. The difference lies in what a thing is, before how it looks.

Magnifica Humanitas §122 begins, “Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognizing the face of God and others.” Because we know vulnerability and failure, we can recognise one another’s dignity and perceive “injustice as a scandal”; then, “Authentic culture and art preserve this spark, resisting the normalization of evil.” The spark is learned through being finite. Elsewhere the encyclical says technology “is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it” (§9; see our reader’s guide to Magnifica Humanitas).

Two cautions. The Pope spoke about art in general; as far as I could find, the encyclical never mentions icons. And a retired archbishop’s blessing isn’t a ruling of the Holy See.

Why an icon isn’t an illustration

This is where I’ll be a little firmer, because the terms matter.

The honour passes to the prototype

Basil the Great, defending the divinity of the Son, wrote: “we speak of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings”, “because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype” (On the Holy Spirit 18.45, trans. Blomfield Jackson, NPNF² vol. 8; New Advent). Basil was writing about the Trinity, not painted panels. The Second Council of Nicaea (787) applied his principle to icons in its decree: “the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented.” Images matter because through them “the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely phantastic” (trans. Henry Percival, NPNF² vol. 14; New Advent).

Veneration is not worship

The same decree draws the crucial line. Images receive “due salutation and honourable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), not indeed that true worship of faith (λατρείαν) which pertains alone to the divine nature.” The Catechism repeats it: the honour paid to images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone (CCC 2132).

On this logic, a defender could argue that what counts is whether the image truly presents Carlo, so that honour passes to him. Schneider’s point runs the other way: icon theology asks more of the maker, not less. Both are serious arguments.

Art as a human act

The Catechism’s section on sacred art leans towards the maker. “Art is a distinctively human form of expression”; “Arising from talent given by the Creator and from man’s own effort, art is a form of practical wisdom, uniting knowledge and skill” (CCC 2501). “Genuine sacred art draws man to adoration, to prayer, and to the love of God” (2502). And bishops are to promote sacred art “old and new, in all its forms” and remove from places of worship “everything which is not in conformity with the truth of faith and the authentic beauty of sacred art” (2503; vatican.va). That cuts both ways: new forms are welcome, and discernment belongs to bishops.

Antiqua et Nova adds a warning. Unlike idols that “have mouths but do not speak”, AI “can ‘speak,’ or at least gives the illusion of doing so”, yet it is “but a pale reflection of humanity”, “trained on human-generated material” (§105).

An Orthodox reading

Nicaea II belongs to the Orthodox as much as to Rome. The Orthodox Church in America’s handbook The Orthodox Faith says icons are “spiritually necessary because ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt among us'”, and that the traditional icon is “a gospel proclamation, a doctrinal teaching, and a spiritual inspiration in colors and lines”, and “not a holy picture” (OCA, “Icons”; OCA, “Church Art”).

Orthodox tradition also cares how the maker lives. The Moscow council of 1551, the Stoglav, told icon painters to live “according to the priests’ counsel in fasting, prayer, and abstinence with humility”, as quoted by the Russian Orthodox iconographer Mother Iuliania (Sokolova), who adds that “The icon is a prayer expressed as an image” (The Iconographer’s Labor, trans. Paul Stetsenko, 2015). Archimandrite Luka (Golovkov), dean of the icon-painting faculty at the Moscow Theological Academy, is nuanced. The iconographer must pray constantly, “because the icon is embodied prayer,” he says. AI can help with small tasks, such as removing glare from a photograph, but it “cannot cope with the actual writing of an icon without the artist himself”, and without final human correction it “will lead to sad results” (my translation; MDA, 17 December 2025).

The Orthodox bishops of the United States haven’t addressed icons and AI; their October press release says only that concerns about AI “call for greater discernment and discussion” (Assembly of Bishops). For more, see Eastern Orthodox Theology Meets AI and What is Human? Orthodox Anthropology and Artificial Intelligence.

A Reformed reading

Here the question changes. The Heidelberg Catechism asks that “we in no way make any image of God” (Q&A 96), and says “God can not and may not be visibly portrayed in any way.” But it isn’t against art: “Although creatures may be portrayed, yet God forbids making or having such images if one’s intention is to worship them or to serve God through them” (Q&A 97). It rests on the second commandment: “You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4, WEB). And God wants his people “instructed by the living preaching of his Word—not by idols that cannot even talk” (Q&A 98; CRCNA).

So for Roberts, painted or prompted is secondary; the objection is to images in worship. It deserves to be heard as a conviction about God’s Word, not hostility to beauty.

The question has an AI version too. This month Pray.com began offering a studio that turns sermons into AI-generated cinematic videos, from $19 a month. In a press statement, co-founder Steve Gatena said, “The tool does not carry the message. The pastor does” (Christian Post, 9 October 2026). Reviewing Pray.com’s earlier AI Bible videos, the theologian Brad East of Abilene Christian University told NPR: “It’s depressing that anyone would think that approach to biblical material was in any way spiritually edifying.” (NPR, 7 September 2025). A Reformed church would bring Heidelberg’s “living preaching” test to both.

Questions for your parish or congregation

1. Who made it? Are the makers named, and did they pray over the work?
2. What was it made from? Whose images trained the tool, and did they consent?
3. Who is it for? Does it serve prayer, or draw attention to itself?
4. Who decides? A bishop (CCC 2503), the iconographic tradition, or the elders under Scripture?

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an AI-generated image be an icon?
Traditions differ. Voices such as Fr Schneider and Archimandrite Luka expect a human maker, but as far as I could find, no Church body has ruled on AI images.

Has the Vatican banned AI icons?
No. Pope Leo’s 2 October address concerned art in general. It isn’t a ruling on icons.

Do Catholics and Orthodox worship icons?
No. Nicaea II distinguishes “honourable reverence” from the worship due to God alone, and the honour passes to the person shown.

Why do Reformed Christians object to icons?
The Heidelberg Catechism reads the second commandment as forbidding images used to worship or serve God (Q&A 96–98).

The spark

The Catechism’s paragraph on art opens with the words “Created ‘in the image of God'” (CCC 2501). That’s the heart of it. We make because we were made, by a Maker who took flesh and was seen (our piece on Generative AI and the Image of God explores that wider question). A prompt can produce a likeness. Only a person can pray over the work, answer for it and offer it.

If your parish is weighing an AI image, slow down. Pray before you prompt, and pray after. Carlo built his website so that others could find “the truth about Christ present in the Eucharist” (BelTA). Any image of him should point the same way.

Sources and Further Reading

• Archdiocese of Minsk-Mohilev, “У Новалукомлі арцыбіскуп Тадэвуш Кандрусевіч асвяціў капліцу…“, catholicminsk.by (12 October 2026). In Belarusian.
• BelTA, “Roman Catholic Church blesses AI-generated Icon of Carlo Acutis in Belarus” (13 October 2026).
• Jon Brown, “Catholic archbishop stirs debate for blessing AI-generated icon“, The Christian Post (15 October 2026).
• Leo XIV, Address to artists and curators, Holy See Press Office (2 October 2026).
• Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas (15 May 2026), §§9, 122.
• Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and Dicastery for Culture and Education, Antiqua et Nova (28 January 2025), §105.
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2132 and §§2500–2503 (vatican.va).
• Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, trans. Blomfield Jackson, NPNF² vol. 8 (New Advent).
• Second Council of Nicaea (787), Acts and Decree, trans. Henry Percival, NPNF² vol. 14 (New Advent).
• Orthodox Church in America, The Orthodox Faith, “Icons” and “Church Art“.
• Mother Iuliania (Sokolova), The Iconographer’s Labor, trans. Paul Stetsenko (2015).
• Moscow Theological Academy, “К 35-летию иконописного факультета МДА“, interview with Archimandrite Luka (Golovkov) (17 December 2025). In Russian.
• Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the USA, “AoB XV Concludes” (October 2026).
• The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Q&A 96–98, CRCNA. Translation © 2011, Faith Alive Christian Resources, Christian Reformed Church in North America.
• Leonardo Blair, “Pray.com launches AI studio to turn sermons into videos for churches“, The Christian Post (9 October 2026).
• Geoff Brumfiel, “Fantasy or faith? One company’s AI-generated Bible content stirs controversy“, NPR (7 September 2025).

Scripture quotations are from the World English Bible (WEB), which is in the public domain. Heidelberg Catechism quotations: Translation © 2011, Faith Alive Christian Resources, Christian Reformed Church in North America.

Keep reading on AI Prompt Theory: Generative AI and the Image of God: Exploring Creativity, Consciousness, and Personhood · Theological Reflections on Artificial Intelligence and Creativity · AI and Orthodox Christian Ethics: Navigating the Future · A Reader’s Guide to Magnifica Humanitas