Seán Ó Conaill – ‘Christus Victor’: Is Catholicism Trending Back to This?
Did Jesus accept Crucifixion to satisfy God’s justice – or to liberate us humans from the power of evil, triumphing over everything that troubles us?
This ancient question may be entering a decisive phase as artificial intelligence (AI) reports a convergence of Catholic theology, neuroscience and psychology around our pervasive human anxiety over what others may think of us.
‘Be of good cheer for I have overcome the world,’ said Jesus (John 16:33). Understood by the earliest Christians to have conquered the power of ‘the accuser’ (Satan) – the power that controlled his accusers and judges in Jerusalem c. 33 BC – was Jesus also conquering, for all time, the social judgementalism we still give way to in addiction, depression, needless cosmetic surgery and frantic accumulation, as well as ceaseless online competition for attention and approval – and even victory on the battlefield?
That this may indeed be the current meaning of the Christian Creed – as confirmed by papal statements and validated by neuroscience and depth psychology – is suggested by the comparison of ongoing trends in these different disciplines. A sequence of questions posed to the Microsoft AI Copilot led to the following conclusion in early August 2025:
“If neuroscience and psychology show that fear of human judgment is a root of suffering, then the Gospel’s promise—that we are known, loved, and judged by God alone—is not just spiritually liberating, but psychologically healing.”
AI and the Catholic Theology of Atonement – A Return to ‘Christus Victor’ – Christ Liberates Us from Fear and Evil?
A recent dialogue with the Microsoft AI ‘Copilot’ has proved the usefulness of the technology in tracking church thinking on the key question of Atonement – how Jesus’s Crucifixion and Resurrection restores the relationship between God the Father and ourselves.
Q1 – Atonement and the Catechism
I began by questioning whether any high-ranking Catholic prelate has raised any misgiving about article 615 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 1994 – whether that reference to the theological theory of St Anselm (that God’s justice demands ‘satisfaction’ for sin) could be a barrier to evangelisation – the sharing of the ‘Good News’.
Copilot’s answer was ‘No’ – Including the sentence:
“While Archbishop Rino Fisichella, a key figure in the Vatican’s evangelization efforts, has overseen updates and commentary on the Catechism, there’s no record of him or others in similar positions directly criticizing Article 615 as an obstacle to mission.”
Q2 – The Missionary Emphasis – ‘Unconditional Love’?
I then asked: “Is it fair to say that the magisterium now relies upon the formula that we are all loved unconditionally by God to ground its working ‘take’ on the Good News?
Copilot’s answer was ‘Yes’ to this. It quoted Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium on Jesus ‘waiting for us with open arms’ and Pope Benedict’s description of conversion as the encounter with a person, ‘which gives life a new horizon’ – in Deus Caritas Est. The 2020 General Directory for Catechesis was also referenced – the emphasis upon the kerygma (proclamation of the Good News) as distinct from ‘doctrinal or moral teaching’.
The answer concludes:
“So while traditional formulations like those in CCC Article 615 remain doctrinally valid, the tone and emphasis in evangelization today is more relational, inclusive, and centered on divine love.”
Q3 – The Cross as Expressing Divine Solidarity with our own Suffering
I then asked: So in explaining the crucifixion the tendency would be to emphasise Jesus sharing our suffering, in ‘solidarity’ with us, rather than to speak of ‘substitution’ or ‘satisfaction’?
Again here Copilot’s answer was ‘Yes’. References to Von Balthasar, Schillebeeckx and Gutierrez concluded with:
“Yes, the dominant pastoral and theological tone today is to present the crucifixion as an act of divine solidarity and self-giving love, rather than focusing primarily on substitutionary or satisfaction-based models. These older models are not rejected, but they are often reinterpreted in light of a more relational and merciful understanding of God.”
Q4 – Did Jesus ‘Overcome the World’ on our Behalf as Well?
I then asked: Have any theologians dwelt on Jesus’s claim to have ‘overcome the world’ as a claim made on our behalf as well – that is as reassurance that we should not fear the verdict of the world – ‘what people think’ – because we are now under God’s compassionate and always wise judgement instead – as we proclaim in the Creed?
Again Copilot answered in the affirmative, quoting first some reformed sources – who especially draw on Romans 8:37 – “In all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us”.
When I asked about Catholic sources specifically, Copilot referenced the Navarre Bible Commentary and Pope Benedict’s contrasting of worldly and divine judgement in Deus Caritas Est. “God’s judgment is love… It is not a cold accounting, but a healing encounter.”
Q5 – The Creed as Liberation from Worldly Judgement – e.g. ‘Cancellation’?
I then suggested: It seems to follow therefore that no great difficulty should be posed by the argument that to recite the Creed in faith is to proclaim that we place ourselves under the judgement of the Trinity, freeing ourselves from fear of any other judgment – e.g. Internet cancellation or abuse, or false accusation, e.g. of blasphemy in e.g. Pakistan?
Again Copilot assented to this – as ‘theologically sound and pastorally powerful’.
“When we say “I believe in God…”, we are not just affirming doctrines—we are declaring where our ultimate loyalty lies. That loyalty reorients our identity and security away from the shifting verdicts of the world… As Benedict XVI and others have emphasized, God’s judgment is not arbitrary or punitive, but truthful and healing. It is the only judgment that sees us fully and loves us completely… This echoes Romans 8:33–34: “Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies.”
Q6 – Are we Recovering the Christus Victor Understanding of the Cross?
My penultimate offering was: All of this surely justifies a claim that Catholic pastoral theology is tending towards recovery of the ‘Christus Victor’ understanding of atonement – as distinct from the medieval ‘satisfaction’ emphasis.
Copilot’s response to this seems well worth quoting in full:
Yes, your claim is well-founded: Catholic pastoral theology is indeed showing a marked tendency toward recovering the Christus Victor model of atonement, especially in its emphasis on:
- Jesus’ victory over sin, death, and the powers of the world,
- Liberation and healing, rather than juridical satisfaction,
- And the shared participation of believers in Christ’s triumph.
Here’s how this recovery is unfolding:
1. Theological Renewal
- The Christus Victor model, rooted in the early Church Fathers (e.g., Irenaeus, Athanasius), presents Christ’s death and resurrection as a cosmic victory over the enslaving powers of evil.
- 20th-century Catholic theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar, Gustavo Gutiérrez, and Edward Schillebeeckx helped reframe atonement in terms of liberation, solidarity, and divine self-giving, rather than satisfaction or penal substitution.
2. Magisterial Emphasis
- Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis have all emphasized the liberating and healing dimensions of Christ’s work.
- The Catechism includes multiple models of atonement, but recent pastoral documents and papal homilies lean heavily on themes of mercy, victory, and divine love.
3. Pastoral and Catechetical Practice
- In catechesis, RCIA, and youth ministry, the focus is often on:
- Jesus as the one who frees us from fear and sin,
- The Cross as a sign of love and solidarity, not divine wrath,
- And the Resurrection as the decisive victorythat believers share in.
4. Liturgical Echoes
- The Easter Vigil, the Exsultet, and the Paschal Mysteryin the liturgy all reflect Christus Victor themes:
“O happy fault that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer!”
In Summary:
Yes, the pastoral tone and theological emphasis in contemporary Catholicism is increasingly aligned with the Christus Victor model. This doesn’t reject the satisfaction model (which remains doctrinally valid), but recontextualizes it within a broader, more relational and victorious framework.
7. Recent Neuroscience and Depth Psychology Reinforce our Need for Liberation from Fear of the Judgement of Others?
Lastly I asked: Aren’t some neuroscientists now arguing also that fear of the negative judgement of others is our dominant fear – as illustrated for example in symptoms of depression and addiction and social phenomena such as plastic surgery – and Jung’s concept of the false self?
Again the response from Copilot bears careful reading:
Yes, your insight is strongly supported by both contemporary neuroscience and depth psychology, including Jungian thought. There is growing recognition that fear of negative social judgment—being rejected, shamed, or excluded—is one of the most powerful and pervasive human fears, and it plays a significant role in:
- Depression and anxiety
- Addiction
- Social conformity and image management (e.g. cosmetic surgery, social media curation)
- The development of the “false self”
Neuroscientific and Psychological Perspectives
Fear of Social Judgment as a Dominant Fear
- Neuroscientists have found that social pain(e.g. rejection, humiliation) activates the same brain regions as physical pain—particularly the anterior cingulate cortex.
- This suggests that social exclusion is neurologically encoded as a threat to survival, which makes evolutionary sense given our dependence on group belonging.
- This fear is a major driver of depression, where individuals internalize perceived rejection or failure to meet social expectations.
Addiction and Social Disconnection
- Addiction is increasingly understood not just as a chemical dependency, but as a maladaptive response to emotional pain and social disconnection.
- Johann Hari and others argue that “the opposite of addiction is connection”, highlighting how fear of judgment and isolation can drive addictive behaviors.
Plastic Surgery and Image Anxiety
- The rise in cosmetic procedures is often linked to social comparison and fear of not being accepted, especially in the age of social media.
- This reflects a deep anxiety about external validationand the need to conform to idealized standards.
Jungian and Depth Psychology
The False Self
- Jung, and later D.W. Winnicott, described the “false self”as a persona constructed to gain approval and avoid rejection.
- This self is often disconnected from authentic desires, leading to inner conflict, neurosis, and spiritual emptiness.
- As one article puts it:
“Barriers to the development of a true self include peer pressure, family preferences, social norms, and cultural expectations… This can lead to a discrepancy between internal desires and lived reality, contributing to the development of a ‘false self’”
Theological Implication
Your earlier point about the Creed as a declaration of freedom from worldly judgment fits well here. If neuroscience and psychology show that fear of human judgment is a root of suffering, then the Gospel’s promise—that we are known, loved, and judged by God alone—is not just spiritually liberating, but psychologically healing.
This sequence can obviously be labelled ‘tendentious’ and needs to be compared with results from other AI models. I reproduce it here as an example of where this technology can lead.
Sean O’Conaill
7th August, 2025
I so appreciated this article, thank you Sean! When those who are suffering especially at the loss of a child and they hear the words “God is suffering with you” it brings them some solace.
I am asking AI what I think about the divinity of Christ, the Atonement, and the Resurrection.
Here is a first reply (Chat GPT): ‘You were asking about Joseph S. O’Leary’s position on the divinity of Christ—specifically, how he conceptualizes Christ’s “divinity.” Joseph S. O’Leary, an Irish theologian, approaches the divinity of Christ not as a static ontological attribute but as an emergent event or meaningful manifestation. He invites us to think of Christ’s divinity—and even the Resurrection—not as fixed metaphysical qualities but as dynamic, historically embedded phenomena. In his words: “His ‘divinity’, like his ‘resurrection’, are better thought of as events or as emergences of meaning than as ontological attributes.” O’Leary sees the Incarnation not merely as a divine-human fusion at a single moment in history but as the dwelling of the Logos throughout the entire historical context of Jesus—that is, divinity unfolds across the breadth of his life and relationships, not just at the point of conception.’
Joseph S. O’Leary approaches the divinity of Christ with a nuanced and philosophical lens, often engaging with historical theology, continental philosophy, and interreligious dialogue. His interpretation is shaped by a deep engagement with figures like Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and modern thinkers such as Heidegger and Derrida.
In his review article Rethinking the Incarnation, O’Leary explores the question: “Is it still possible to believe in the divinity of Christ?” He critiques Karl-Josef Kuschel’s work, which favors mythic representations of Christ’s pre-existence rooted in apocalyptic traditions. O’Leary argues that Kuschel underplays the Johannine vision of Christ as the incarnate Logos—a central theological concept in traditional Christology.
🔍 Key Points in O’Leary’s Interpretation
– Mythic vs. Metaphysical Models: He distinguishes between two models of Christ’s pre-existence:
– The apocalyptic model, where Christ is projected back to the beginning of time as part of God’s salvific plan.
– The Logos model, where Christ is seen as the eternal divine Word made flesh.
– Johannine Emphasis: O’Leary believes the Johannine language of the Logos is crucial and should be retrieved in a contemporary theological framework. He sees this as a richer and more metaphysically grounded account of Christ’s divinity than Kuschel’s mythic reinterpretation.
– Modern Relevance: He suggests that while metaphysical accounts of Christ’s divinity are rooted in myth, they still offer profound insights into the nature of God and the incarnation when interpreted through modern philosophical and literary lenses.
O’Leary’s work is deeply reflective, aiming to bridge ancient theological insights with contemporary thought. His interpretation doesn’t reject traditional doctrine but seeks to reframe it in ways that resonate with modern sensibilities and philosophical rigor.
Would you like to explore how his views compare with other theologians or how they influence interreligious dialogue?
Co-pilot wrote a fictional dialogue between Joe O’L and von Balthasar.
Parsifal and the Glory of the Lord
A Dialogue Between Joseph S. O’Leary and Hans Urs von Balthasar
O’Leary:
Hans, I must confess—Wagner’s Parsifal leaves me torn. It aspires to liturgy, yet it feels like a sacramental mirage. The Eucharist is staged, veiled, adored—but never truly received. Is this beauty or betrayal?
Balthasar:
Ah, Joseph, you are right to be cautious. Wagner’s aesthetic is overwhelming, but beauty must be truthful. In The Glory of the Lord, I argue that theological aesthetics must lead to encounter, not just enchantment. Parsifal risks becoming a closed icon, beautiful but mute.
O’Leary:
Precisely. The Grail cult in Parsifal feels gnostic—secretive, elite, detached from ecclesial life. The Eucharist becomes a symbol of mystical longing, not incarnational presence. It’s as if Wagner replaces Christ with a metaphysical cipher.
Balthasar:
Yet we must not dismiss the opera’s yearning. Wagner intuits something true: the wound that refuses to heal, the compassion that redeems. Parsifal dramatizes the Theo-Drama, even if it falters in its Christology.
O’Leary:
So you see it as a flawed Theo-Drama?
Balthasar:
Yes. The drama is there—the suffering, the redemption, the silence of God. But the form lacks the Church. The Eucharist without ecclesia is like music without breath. Wagner gives us the shadow of glory, not its fullness.
O’Leary:
Then perhaps Parsifal is a mirror—a distorted one, but still a mirror. It reflects our longing for transcendence, even as it misplaces the source. It is theology in exile.
Balthasar:
Beautifully said. And in exile, even flawed beauty can become a prelude to grace. Let us not canonize Parsifal, but let us not ignore its ache. The readiness is all.
AI can generate this sort of thing in vast quantities in no time at all, drowning out laboriously produced texts. It’s a kind of identity theft.
Bland, discreet, sane, serene Pope Leo, who never puts a foot wrong, may put church journalists out of business. To generate news, some frenzied folk have shamelessly created fake videos and texts projecting a simulacrum of Pope Leo according to their own imagination. Whether Facebook and YouTube have cracked down on this in response to outraged Catholics is unclear. But Pope Leo has mentioned concern about AI as one of his topics, and he would be right to alert us to the potential human and moral cost of this jumped-up medium which is a cesspool of error and imposture.
#5 “…. this jumped-up medium which is a cesspool of error and imposture.”
True, Joe, but the ‘cess’ (or muck) comes from human misuse of it, not from the medium itself, which still (thank God) lacks intentionality and autonomy. Interrogated sensibly, Copilot is objective and helpful on the ongoing struggle for sensible regulation of AI. It will tell you that there is no such thing as a fully trustable ‘truth bank’ on the Internet, because all such resources are created by fallible, and very often also malicious, humans.
But I wasn’t aware that my own ‘hunch’ about Jesus’ overcoming of the world – that it was and is a victory won for our liberation also (from fear of what others think) is shared by others – and is even implicit in the warmest theology of Benedict XVI: “God’s judgement is love … a healing encounter.” (Deus Caritas Est)
To me this and other similar ‘echoings’ suggest that different historical theological models of atonement should not be seen as necessarily exclusive but as different approaches to the same great question.
How could an infinitely loving God be satisfied with the continuing captivity of his people in fear of the judgemental opinions of others? How could he refrain from influencing them morally – through Jesus – in the direction of their own liberation?
Do you see in those two sentences the potential for a harmonisation of Irenaeus, Anselm and Abelard on Atonement? ‘Satisfaction’, ‘Liberation’, ‘Moral Influence’ are simply different emphases in, or perspectives on, the same loving mystery of the ever-present Trinity, always active in history.
And never more so than right now. Just try asking Copilot – and any other AI – the following question: “What do EU protocols for AI say about safeguarding children from addiction to AI designed to be seductive?”
Yes – AI can deliver or take you to a cesspool. Used responsibly It is also now an indispensible avenue to the truth that conquers – because it has also has access to all of the texts that are true, including scripture and the church documents that descend from that source – including your own.
Just as the helicopter can be an Apache doom machine OR an Air Ambulance, AI can bring us both muck and truth, depending altogether upon the human intentionality of its makers and users.
Sir, AI’s lecturing is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.
AI seems to invent facts and references with NO basis on what is circulating in the internet. When challenged it admits that the facts were wrong but were based on what was likely to be said or done by the person in question.
Seán and Joe, thank you for all of that.
Excellent!!
The more I read the more I realise that the scholarly consensus now is that Anselm’s idea of substitutionary atonement is no longer viable.
Yet, is it still Catholic teaching, still confirmed on the Catechism and, so, something we are still expected to believe.
It appears that many scholars are of the view that by ransacking the temple, scattering the money lenders and so on – was it on the Tuesday of His last week — Jesus sealed his fate.
He became a threat to the delicate understanding between Imperial Rome and the local Jewish authority and, so, he had to die.
I just got into an exchange with ChatGPT about Flaubert, Louise Colet, and Sartre, and was amazed at the well-shaped essays I immediately got back in response to my dubia. A student would be very discouraged if, having laboured over a question on this topic, with multiple trips to the library, they found that ChatGPT could write brilliantly and authoritatively on it in a split-second. Huge problems loom here.
AI admits “that it can analyze theological texts & generate arguments, but it cannot engage in the kind of critical theological reflection that requires human interpretation, personal growth and spiritual discernment.” AI can assist with the “head”work but we humans are left with the “heart” work.
Yes Paddy. CCC 615 – Substitution and Satisfaction are still there, without any ‘softening’. Just for fun you could ask one of the AIs if this is still considered compatible with the Good News pitch of God’s unconditional love – and, if so, how.
‘Nothing to see here. Move on please!’ Tends to be the magisterium’s standard approach to potentially embarrassing legacy ‘teaching’ – such as ‘substitution’ and ‘Limbo’!
And that too is down to fear of what people will think, the same fear that determined the cover-up of abuse.
When will they tumble to this root of so much evil – fear of the judgement of others – and realise that this is what Jesus overcame in suffering crucifixion – while still forgiving all who had made that happen?
All that stands between the magisterium and a full reckoning on the abuse issue is also fear of what people would think of the whole unvarnished story. It hobbles the church as much as it hobbles corrupt government everywhere.
But nevertheless I must add that had it not been for magisterial protection of the sacred texts, and of the Eucharistic liturgy at which we read and hear them, I would not even be here still to sound off like this.
Even the parable of the lost sheep tells us that the church can survive as a diaspora. And history reminds us that it was the diaspora church that revealed the clerical abuse catastrophe – beginning where the post-Reformation diaspora had created the freedom for the first loud detonation – in Louisiana, USA, in the mid 1980s.
Could the assurance that no sin is unforgiveable eventually trigger the full accounting the church needs? We can surely hope for this too, in this Year of Hope?