Colombian Bishops’ Conference Reduces Church’s Prophetic Voice to Partisan Neutrality
EWTN News reports that the Colombian Bishops’ Conference (CEC) issued a statement on June 10, 2026, objecting to the “manipulation” of their messages ahead of the June 21 presidential runoff election between right-wing candidate Abelardo de la Espriella and left-wing candidate Iván Cepeda of President Gustavo Petro’s party. The bishops emphasized that their statements are “inspired by the Gospel, the Church’s social doctrine, and the magisterium,” intended to “offer criteria for reflection” and “foster citizen participation,” while clarifying that they do not seek to “favor, endorse, or delegitimize any candidacy.” This conciliar episcopate, like its global counterparts, has abandoned the Church’s divine mandate to pronounce moral judgment on political affairs, reducing the prophetic office of the bishop to a bland provider of “criteria for reflection” in a democratic marketplace of ideas.
The Abandonment of the Church’s Teaching Authority Over Political Life
The Colombian bishops’ statement is a textbook example of the conciliar Church’s systematic abdication of its divine commission to teach, govern, and judge in the temporal order. When the CEC declares that its statements are “inspired by the Gospel, the Church’s social doctrine, and the magisterium” yet simultaneously insists that they do not seek to “favor, endorse, or delegitimize any candidacy,” it reveals a fundamental contradiction at the heart of post-conciliar pastoral practice. Either the Gospel and the Church’s social doctrine have concrete, binding implications for political life — in which case a bishop is obligated to declare which positions conform to or contradict Catholic teaching — or they are merely optional “criteria for reflection,” in which case the bishops are admitting that their authority is purely advisory and ultimately irrelevant.
Pius XI, in the encyclical Quas Primas (1925), established the Feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the “secularism of our times, so-called laicism, its errors and wicked endeavors.” He taught with unmistakable clarity: “His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations or to those who, by receiving baptism according to law, belong to the Church, even though their erroneous opinions have led them astray or discord has separated them from love, but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” The reign of Christ is not a vague spiritual sentiment; it demands concrete obedience from individuals, families, and states. Pius XI explicitly addressed rulers: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ, but let them fulfill this duty themselves and with their people, if they wish to maintain their authority inviolate and contribute to the increase of their homeland’s happiness.”
The Colombian bishops’ studied neutrality between a right-wing and a left-wing candidate — without any indication that Catholic moral teaching might render one or both positions unacceptable — is a direct repudiation of this teaching. The Church has always taught that certain political positions are intrinsically incompatible with the faith. The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX (1864) condemned the proposition that “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship” (Proposition 77), and that “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80). When a candidate advocates policies that contradict Catholic moral teaching — whether on the sanctity of life, the natural family, religious liberty in its proper sense, or the social reign of Christ — a bishop who fails to say so is not being “pastoral”; he is being faithless.
The Linguistic Camouflage of Conciliar Cowardice
The language employed by the CEC is revealing in its bureaucratic sterility. The bishops speak of “offering criteria for reflection,” “fostering citizen participation,” “responsible discernment,” “freedom, respect, a culture of encounter, reconciliation, and the pursuit of the common good.” This is the vocabulary of the United Nations and secular NGOs, not of the Catholic Church. The phrase “culture of encounter” is particularly associated with the pontificate of the apostate Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and its adoption by the Colombian episcopate demonstrates the thorough penetration of conciliar modernism into the local churches.
The insistence that their statements should not be “exploited for partisan political purposes” is especially telling. In the conciar mind, “partisan” has become a synonym for “principled.” To take a clear moral stand based on Catholic doctrine is now equated with “partisanship.” This is the logical fruit of the conciliar declaration Dignitatis Humanae, which enshrined the error of religious freedom as a civil right — the very error condemned by Pius IX, Gregory XVI, and Leo XIII. When the Church accepts the liberal premise that the state is neutral regarding religious truth, it follows necessarily that the Church’s moral teaching must also be presented as “neutral” — that is, as one opinion among many in the democratic marketplace.
The CEC’s call for “verifying any information through the institution’s official channels before replicating or interpreting its statements” further exposes the authoritarian bureaucratic mentality of the conciliar structures. The faithful are not encouraged to form their own judgments based on the unchanging principles of Catholic doctrine; they are told to consult the “official channels” of the episcopal conference. This is the language of corporate communications, not of the Barque of Peter.
The Omission of Moral Judgment as the Gravest Error
The most damning aspect of the Colombian bishops’ statement is not what it says, but what it fails to say. There is no mention of the specific moral issues at stake in the Colombian election. There is no reference to the intrinsic evil of abortion, the natural law foundation of marriage, the rights of parents in education, the dangers of socialism and communism, or the obligation of Catholics to work for the social reign of Christ the King. The statement is a masterpiece of omission — it addresses everything except the only thing that matters: what does Catholic teaching require of the Catholic voter?
This silence is not accidental. It is the systematic policy of the conciliar Church since the Second Vatican Council. The bishops have been trained — in the post-conciliar seminaries, by the post-conciliar curia, and through the post-conciliar episcopal conferences — to avoid any statement that might be perceived as “judgmental” or “divisive.” The result is an episcopate that speaks endlessly about “dialogue,” “encounter,” “mercy,” and “accompaniment” while remaining absolutely silent about sin, heresy, apostasy, and the eternal damnation that awaits those who die in mortal sin.
St. Pius X, in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), identified this very tendency as a hallmark of Modernism: the reduction of the Church’s teaching authority to a mere “approval of the common opinions of the Church listening” (Proposition 6 of Lamentabili Sane Exiti). The Colombian bishops do not teach; they “offer criteria.” They do not judge; they “foster discernment.” They do not command; they “exhort.” This is the language of a Church that has lost its faith in its own divine authority.
The Symptomatic Fruit of Conciliar Apostasy
The Colombian bishops’ statement must be understood not as an isolated incident but as a symptom of the systemic apostasy that has consumed the conciliar Church since 1958. The Second Vatican Council — convened by the heretic Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) and executed under the direction of modernist theologians — fundamentally altered the Church’s self-understanding. The Church was no longer to be a perfect society with full authority over the temporal order; it was to be a “People of God” engaged in “dialogue” with the world. The Church’s mission was no longer the conversion of nations to Christ the King; it was “human development,” “social justice,” and “ecumenical collaboration.”
The Colombian episcopate is merely applying these conciliar principles consistently. If the Church has no authority to pronounce on political matters — if “religious freedom” means that the state must be neutral regarding religious truth — then it follows that the bishops must also be neutral. If the “common good” is defined in purely naturalistic terms, without reference to the supernatural end of man, then the bishops’ role is reduced to providing vague moral platitudes that offend no one and guide no one.
The conciliar Church has produced exactly the kind of episcopate it was designed to produce: men who are more concerned with “polarization” than with truth, more afraid of being called “partisan” than of being called faithless, more interested in maintaining “dialogue” with the world than in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Colombian bishops’ statement is not a failure of the conciliar system; it is its perfect fulfillment.
The Duty of the Faithful
The faithful who still profess the integral Catholic faith must recognize that the Colombian Bishops’ Conference — like every other episcopal conference in the conciar world — has no authority to teach in the name of Christ. These structures were erected by the conciar revolution and serve its purposes. The faithful are not bound by their “criteria for reflection” or their calls for “serenity” and “dialogue.” They are bound by the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church, which demands that they work and pray for the social reign of Christ the King, that they reject all forms of liberalism, socialism, and religious indifferentism, and that they form their consciences not according to the “official channels” of episcopal conferences but according to the perennial teaching of the Magisterium — the teaching of Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and all the true popes who understood that “the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.”
The Colombian election, like every election in every country, must be evaluated not according to the “criteria” of modernist bishops but according to the immutable principles of Catholic social teaching. Which candidate, if either, defends the right to life of the unborn? Which candidate upholds the natural law definition of marriage? Which candidate respects the rights of parents in education? Which candidate acknowledges the social reign of Christ the King? These are the questions that matter — and they are the questions that the conciliar episcopate, by its very nature, is incapable of asking.
Source:
Colombian bishops object to manipulation of their statements in run-up to presidential election (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 15.06.2026