Vladimir Legoida. Photo: Sergey Bulkin, TASS
An interview about mercy in the modern world, the use of artificial intelligence for religious purposes, the risks for preaching and the phenomenon of Orthodox bloggers, as well as about the education of young people, the crisis of the family, the Church’s attitude towards abortion and the protection of traditional values, from a representative of the Synodal Department for Church Relations with Society and the Media V.R. Legoida and TASS.
—Vladimir Romanovich, the other day we presented an important social project dedicated to the activities of the Sisters of Mercy. In general, don’t you think that there is a deep crisis of mercy in the world and in people?
— Whether we can talk about a crisis of mercy in the modern world is a difficult question, because it requires some empirical basis. We need to analyze this question. If we rely on our feelings, then it seems that there is a two-directional process going on. On the one hand, the joint project between TASS and the Church that we presented shows that many people are becoming volunteers and sisters of mercy, which is a special form of service. Therefore, it is difficult to make the case that there is such a crisis. On the other hand, we see what is happening in the world, and we see how brutally some events are unfolding, and it’s hard to wrap our heads around it, especially after the twentieth century, which had so many terrible events and then seemed to offer hope for a few decades in the second half that perhaps these horrors were a thing of the past.
But from a Christian point of view, fallen human nature never left, and it continues to manifest itself in various ways. Therefore, perspective is crucial. However, I would approach the situation with an optimistic outlook, as we see how modern technologies and communication methods enable people to show compassion and solidarity to great effect, such as quickly raising funds to help someone or to support a good cause. This inspires hope.
—Let’s go a little deeper into the social aspect: Now we have artificial intelligence along with humans. This raises the question: What can we say about religious content generated by artificial intelligence?
— Of course, this content is very diverse. There are some humorous stories that I’ve come across on the Internet, where there’s a generated priest, and a voiceover says, “Father, what hymns should not be sung at funerals?” And he responds, “Take me with you.” It’s a bit of a laugh, but I’m not entirely sure if I can call it religious content. It probably depends on the content itself. Let’s take a sermon, for example. It’s unlikely that anyone would argue that a priest who delivers a sermon should do so from the heart, as opposed to the preparatory part, where a search engine or even artificial intelligence can be used to find the material.
Although I know that in some seminaries and academies, AI is used in order to demonstrate the difference, but only for pedagogical purposes. It is clear that we do not fully understand how much our lives have already changed due to the spread of what we call artificial intelligence. There are areas where artificial intelligence should not be allowed. I am referring to everything related to the sacraments and confession in Orthodoxy. All this talk about confessing to an electronic assistant is, of course, completely unacceptable. But creating a video educational plan and such? Why not?
—Continuing on the topic of sermons, how can we minimize the risks for Orthodoxy in the era of social media, when sermons are taken out of context and become the cause of scandals? How do you assess the digital space today?
—I think that it is possible, as one of my colleagues put it, to clearly recognize the fact that the era of major media outlets, that is, media giants that broadcast to hundreds of millions of people around the world, has come to an end. In particular, the era of television in its classic form is over; television has not disappeared, of course, but it has simply been reshaped in the new media space. Today, the world has become completely different, if I may be so bold. Take, for example, social media and the average size of interest groups—these are small groups, and there are many of them. All of this is completely different. In other words, this is an extremely fragmented media field, and therefore different principles apply here.
There has been a redistribution of trust, and a notorious new sincerity has appeared, and so on. This is also a modern myth, that traditional formats, you know, “lie,” they are supposed to lie, and some blogger who sits in a basement and publishes on social media tells the truth. Both of these statements are overstated. Returning to the first question, about minimizing the risks for Orthodoxy in this era. First, there should be basic media literacy and media hygiene. We have always assumed that in the era of major media, there was an unwritten law: Journalists were required to verify their facts.
Today, the situation has changed in the sense that the consumer of information is the one who has to double-check the facts, because there is a changed media landscape, and you don’t always fully understand where the information comes from. Despite this, there are honest journalists who always double-check their sources before publishing anything. To be polemical, I can say that the media has died as a source of facts, because there are so many factors involved, and often, in order to be the first to report something—and this concerns my fellow journalists as well—someone may spread information without verifying it.
And the second point is that, of course, a priest who goes out to preach, especially a popular priest, should understand that today the audience for his sermon is not just the parishioners of his church. Today, when a priest goes out, people not only raise their hands to make the sign of the cross, but also take out their phones and record or share the sermon. This practice is completely natural and widespread today. But I repeat, if the burden has shifted to the consumer, then the consumer should understand that there are situations where no one will verify the information for them.
—Finishing up with the topic of AI: there are young children who can’t always understand the boundaries of interacting with it. Is it worth banning or restricting AI or social networks that spread AI generated content among young children?
—I think that a specialist from any field would agree with this—psychologists, general practitioners, pediatricians, and so on—that of course it is necessary to limit their use, an, in principle, not to encourage them before a certain age. However, there are different approaches. Some parents offer their children a tablet at a very young age. However, this is often due to parental laziness; instead of engaging in activities themselves, they give their children a tablet, and the child seems to be occupied. I am not a supporter of alarmist statements about bans, because we need to see if there are any in-depth studies. Perhaps there are some studies on how this affects the psyche, consciousness, and other developmental factors.
There may be a lack of research in some areas, and there are many such populist statements. There is physical food, and there is intellectual and mental food. I don’t think humanity has come up with anything better than what the ancient Greeks declared: “All things should be done in moderation.” This applies to the use of gadgets, not only by children but also by adults.
—Let’s talk about those who no longer consider themselves children—the young people. We see a growing interest in Orthodoxy, and Orthodox blogging has played an important role in this. How should we feel about this, and is it a good thing that the format of short videos is making Orthodoxy fashionable again?
—If by Orthodox blogging you mean priest-bloggers, well, we even have a council of priest-bloggers at our department, created with the blessing of the Patriarch, which includes the most popular priests with the largest audiences. We treat this as a reality. We try to discuss common topics and issues together, because priests are also people, and they have human emotions and characteristics. So, of course, one can get carried away, give in to some media temptations, start chasing “likes,” and so on.
Of course, there are things that are unacceptable for a priest, but they are unacceptable not because he is a blogger—they are in principle unacceptable. It’s just that this is a new space that he is developing for himself, and there are, as it seems to me, quite natural restrictions here. And it’s good to have them. But in general, it is just a space for preaching. The important thing is that the sermon does not turn into something else. That is, the problem is not whether to go or not to go, to do or not to do, but always the problem is how [to do it]. This applies to preaching as well; there are different preachers and different styles, and some things they say may not always be considered acceptable or correct.
If you answer in general terms, I repeat: a priest should not stop being a priest, no matter where he is. We’ve had conversations with the priests, and they conceded that they shoot some videos with some extra enthusiasm, to make them interesting; but, you know, this is already on the verge of another profession. And they generally agreed with that. The Patriarch says that the mission in the internet is very important. A few years ago, he met with representatives of the council of priests-bloggers and very frankly said that he was concerned about what he thinks. The main point was that a priest should not forget his priestly mission and should not turn into a blogger with other, primarily material, goals.
—Apart from online videos, how else can we engage young people to get them deeper into religion? What language should we use to communicate with them?
—You know, of course, the language should be understandable. This is a general problem of preaching, mission, and Christian witness. When you speak in an incomprehensible language, it is counterproductive. However, I believe that there is an equally important, if not more important, aspect: It is not enough to simply say the right words. You can say the right words, and they fly right over a person’s head without reaching their mind or heart. Alternatively, you can touch a person’s soul, bring contrition to their heart, or provide them with profound comfort.
My experience of communicating with students shows that there are questions that we call eternal, ultimate, important, and existential, and everyone faces them and answers them in one way or another. This often happens at a young age, in our youth. I believe that the only way to discourage someone is to willfully lead a way of life that contradicts what you are teaching. Perhaps the complete agreement of words and actions is reserved for the saints. But this gap between what you teach and what you talk about and how you live shouldn’t be very big. The bigger it is, the less likely it is that you’ll reach someone.
—You talk a lot about young people. Are the young people of the 2010s more talented than their predecessors, or less talented?
—I think that in a sense, these are some constants that probably don’t change much. You’ve asked a good question. It’s common to confuse what is often referred to as the "father-son" issue with the "generation gap." Throughout history, people in their teens and twenties have had different perspectives on life compared to those in their forties and fifties. However, this doesn’t mean that a new generation has emerged with a completely different worldview. Those who are fifteen to twenty years old today will behave in much the same way as their parents did when they are forty-five to fifty years old.
Therefore, to answer the question of how talented or untalented the current young generation is, we need to compare it to other generations at the same age. Since I’m always eighteen in my dreams, I remember my student years well. Can I say that there were more talented people in our time? No, there weren’t. Were there fewer? Again, no. People are always different—some are talented, some are less talented, and some are more passionate about their studies, while others are less so. For a more detailed answer, you need to ask a more specific, narrow question and conduct some research.
—For young people, family should be a fundamental aspect of life. But you said that we are currently experiencing a crisis of family. What are the symptoms of this crisis?
—It’s quite obvious, because in the system of values, despite the fact that, as they say, we all come from childhood, childhood memories are important for everyone, and for most people, family is still something very important that gives them strength, it’s nevertheless clear that the value of family is changing in the cultural space. It is clear that a number of themes related to the crisis of the family have always been present in world art in the broad sense of the word, and not only in visual art.
But when we see models of behavior in the field of mass communication, in cinema, in endless television shows, which are becoming more and more popular today; we see models of behavior that directly demonstrate anti-family values. I’m currently watching a certain series about a policeman, when I have no energy left. In each episode, he has a new girlfriend. Is this a family value? No, it’s not a family value. I repeat, of course, art has a nonlinear effect, in which similar things in slightly different contexts can have very different effects. There is Leo Tolstoy’s great novel “Anna Karenina,” which also offers insights into family values, although it portrays a crisis in many ways. However, it contains poignant scenes that exemplify Christian love, including one of the most Christian scenes in Russian literature, where Karenin forgives Anna in a moment of great tension between life and death.
—Another question is about abortions. Is it necessary to keep abortions part of the compulsory health insurance system and perform them in private clinics from the point of view of morality and care for women?
—At one time, the Church put forward an initiative—and it has not abandoned it—to remove abortion from the system of compulsory medical insurance, because it is not a medical procedure that is necessary or vital. This is a complex negotiation process that we are currently engaged in with the government. On the other hand, we are increasingly seeing that in a number of regions, private clinics are refusing to perform abortions, and we certainly welcome this. Perhaps by working together we can find a solution to this issue. In principle, there is a dynamic here. The Church’s position is clear: abortion is considered the taking of the life of an unborn human being.
—Russia is actively advocating for the protection of traditional family values. How can these values be properly protected, given that the cultural influence of the West is still quite strong?
—You see, the influence of the West should not be underestimated, of course, but maybe it’s important not to exaggerate it. I will return to what I have already said. To be honest, I am more concerned that in our modern cultural space, with our own hands, without any influence from the West, we are making films, TV series, and doing other things that do not reflect these traditional values. We do not need to look for the causes of our problems exclusively from outside. Consistency in our words and our actions is more important.
