Death of the Maternal Instinct? How AI Is Teaching Moms Not to Trust Themselves
Abby McCloskey argues that widespread use of AI parenting tools is eroding mothers’ confidence and increasing pressure to be perfect. A study from Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago found that a third of parents say they trust AI parenting advice over their own instincts. The article warns that relying on quick AI answers can weaken peer-to-peer support networks and make motherhood more isolating.
about 11 hours ago
The article reports concerns from policy researcher Abby McCloskey, Catholic Association senior fellow Ashley McGuire, and author Carrie Gress that parents’ growing use of AI may weaken mothers’ confidence, increase isolation and perfectionism, and substitute algorithmic advice for judgment and human support. It also highlights the risk of inaccurate AI guidance on consequential family decisions. 1
McCloskey says an estimated 80% of parents use algorithmic tools, and cites a Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago study reporting that one-third of parents trust AI parenting advice more than their own instincts. She warns that repeatedly outsourcing everyday decisions—such as whether siblings should share a bedroom—could reduce parents’ confidence and weaken peer-to-peer support networks. 1
McGuire argues that AI can make motherhood more impersonal and isolating by displacing both mothers’ own instincts and wisdom shared by relatives and other women. Gress likewise says some parents lack experienced family members to consult, making AI seem like an accessible stopgap. 1
McCloskey says AI can reinforce the idea that every parenting choice must be optimized, adding pressure to a culture already marked by stress; the article reports that 41% of parents say they are too stressed to function. She argues that trying to control every aspect of a child’s environment is exhausting and does not guarantee the child’s success. 1
Gress places reliance on AI in a broader cultural context, saying that the devaluation of motherhood has left some women less prepared for its demands. She describes mothering as an art through which women develop wisdom and emotional and spiritual maturity, and cautions against allowing technology to replace that learning. 1
McCloskey warns that generative AI can “hallucinate” or provide unsupported answers. She says errors are especially concerning when parents rely on AI for decisions involving medication, vaccines, or schooling, and contrasts the technology’s recent emergence with maternal judgment developed over generations. 1
Her proposed remedy is not greater dependence on AI, but renewed trust in oneself and human relationships. The article presents these concerns as the views of the people it interviews, rather than as evidence that every parent’s use of AI has these effects. 1*
Technology mediates maternal discernment and parental authority in childrearing
Technology does not simply give parents more information or control; it changes how they see their children, make judgments, and exercise authority. Catholic teaching treats media as potentially useful, but not as a substitute for parental presence, prudent judgment, or the gradual formation of a child’s freedom. This applies to mothers’ discernment in particular, without making education a mother’s responsibility alone: both parents have a primary role in guiding their children, and that role is meant to help them mature rather than merely keep them under surveillance.
Digital media can connect family members and give parents access to information, advice, and practical tools. The Church’s guidance on the internet recognizes both the benefits of online access and the need for parents to learn how it works, supervise children’s use, and talk with them about what they encounter.
But access to information is not the same thing as discernment. Discernment means judging what is appropriate for this child, in this circumstance, in light of what helps the child grow. Pope Benedict XVI describes media education as formation in critical judgment: parents are to help children assess media rather than accept it passively, and to model prudent use themselves.
That point matters when mothers—or parents generally—turn to search results, social media, parenting apps, or digital tracking tools. These may assist a decision, but they cannot determine on their own what a child needs. The supplied Church texts do not discuss every contemporary tool or make claims about particular platforms; applying their principles to such technologies requires attention to how a tool affects conversation, trust, privacy, and a child’s development.
Catholic teaching does not equate parental authority with knowing or managing every detail of a child’s life. In Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis warns against the “obsession” of controlling a child’s location and every movement. The aim of education, he says, is to help children grow in freedom, maturity, discipline, and real autonomy, so that they can eventually act prudently when parents are not present.
A location-sharing app or a device restriction can therefore be useful in a particular situation; the Catholic principle does not require parents to reject monitoring. But a tool becomes a poor substitute for education if it encourages the belief that safety and good judgment can be secured by constant oversight alone. The deeper question, Francis says, is not only where a child is physically, but where the child is in convictions, desires, goals, and spiritual life.
This is a distinction between supervision and formation. Supervision may set boundaries and prevent some dangers. Formation teaches a child how to recognize danger, make sound choices, and take responsibility. The Church’s internet guidance explicitly points toward that long-term goal: parents are to help children become discerning and responsible users, rather than merely restricting access or allowing unreflective use.
Technology can bring people together, but it can also interfere with the direct encounter family life needs. Pope Francis observes that communication media can help relatives stay in contact, while also separating family members when devices displace conversation and shared attention. He cautions that digital habits may foster apathy or disconnection from the real world, leaving children more exposed to manipulation.
This has a particular bearing on maternal discernment. A parent may be physically near a child while attention is absorbed by alerts, online commentary, or monitoring dashboards; conversely, a parent may use digital communication to remain present when distance makes face-to-face contact impossible. The technology is not decisive by itself. The relevant question is whether it supports a relationship in which a parent listens, understands, and guides, or instead makes the child an object to be tracked and managed. Francis’s warning about excessive control and his emphasis on understanding where a child is “existentially” provide a standard for evaluating that difference.
The same standard applies to online parenting advice. Pope Francis cautions that parents can become sidelined when experts are treated as the final authorities on intimate questions of development and family life. His point is not that professional counsel is always unwelcome, but that parents should not withdraw from their own educational role or simply surrender judgment to outside voices.
Parental authority is not mere command. In Amoris Laetitia, Francis describes the absence of reliable adult guidance as harmful to children’s maturation: children need parental love, direction, and a stable presence. He also notes that communication and entertainment media can consume time that would otherwise be given to family life.
This means technology may serve parental authority, but should not quietly replace it. A filtering system can help enforce a boundary; it cannot explain why the boundary matters. An educational video can introduce a topic; it cannot take the place of a parent’s conversation with a child. A digital alert can prompt a parent to check in; it cannot determine what is happening in the child’s heart. These are applications of the Church’s broader teaching that media can assist education but cannot replace personal dialogue and responsible parental guidance.
That guidance should also be exercised with attention to the child’s growing capacity. Benedict XVI calls for gradually giving children greater freedom while forming them to choose what is good, true, and beautiful. The direction is neither unrestricted access nor permanent control, but a gradual transfer of responsibility supported by example, conversation, and prudence.
When deciding whether a technology belongs in a family’s childrearing, parents can ask:
These questions reflect the Church’s balance: parents have a serious duty to guide and supervise media use, but education aims at the child’s maturity and freedom, not indefinite dependence.
Technology, then, mediates parental authority by shaping what parents notice, how they communicate, and what they can monitor. Catholic teaching does not ask parents to choose between technology and care. It asks them to ensure that technology remains subordinate to the personal work of education: attentive presence, prudent limits, truthful conversation, and the formation of children able to act wisely when no device—and no parent—is watching.