ACI Prensa/EWTN News reports that Bishop Robert Flock of San Ignacio de Velasco, Bolivia, during Lent 2026, encouraged the practice of “spiritual intelligence,” defining it as “being attuned to God” and claiming it allows movement “from a mere understanding of things to true wisdom.” He cited psychologist Howard Gardner’s theory of “multiple intelligences,” placing spiritual intelligence above others as the most important, and asserted that all of Jesus’ teachings and actions emanated from this intelligence. The article presents this as a Lenten spiritual invitation without critique of its theological foundations.
This presentation is a quintessential manifestation of the post-conciliar apostasy, reducing the supernatural life of grace to a naturalistic, humanistic psychology while omitting the essential means of salvation and the absolute necessity of the Catholic Church. It is a dangerous synthesis of Modernism and New Age thought, utterly alien to the integral Catholic faith.
Reduction of the Faith to Naturalistic Humanism
The bishop’s framework, borrowed from secular psychologist Howard Gardner, is a direct embrace of the naturalism condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors. Proposition 3 states: “Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations.” By classifying “spiritual intelligence” as one type among many human capacities (linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, etc.), the bishop treats the supernatural order as a mere subset of natural psychology. This is the heresy of rationalism and indifferentism (Syllabus, Props. 15, 16), where the unique, supernatural destiny of man through Christ is leveled into a pluralistic model of “intelligences.”
The bishop’s definition—“spiritual intelligence is being attuned to God”—is vague, pelagian, and devoid of Catholic substance. It suggests an innate human faculty for God, bypassing the absolute necessity of sanctifying grace, the sacraments, and the magisterium. Pius XI in Quas Primas teaches that Christ’s kingdom is primarily spiritual and entered only through “faith and baptism” (n. 9). The bishop’s schema makes “attunement” a matter of personal development, not of incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ through the sacrament of Baptism. This is a silent denial of the Church’s exclusive role as the “dispenser of salvation” (Quas Primas, n. 1).
Omission of the Supernatural Means: Sacraments and Grace
The article’s most damning feature is its complete silence on the sacraments, the Passion of Christ as a unique sacrifice, the Mass, and the state of grace. For the pre-1958 Church, the spiritual life is sustained by the sacraments instituted by Christ, which are ex opere operato channels of grace. The bishop speaks of Jesus’ “final sacrifice” and the “Lord’s Prayer” as products of spiritual intelligence, but never mentions the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary renewed on the altar, nor the sacrament of Penance for the remission of sins. This omission is not accidental; it is the hallmark of Modernism, which reduces religion to a subjective experience and rejects the objective, sacramental economy.
Pius X in Lamentabili Sane Exitu condemned Proposition 41: “The sacraments arose as a result of the interpretation by the Apostles or their successors of Christ’s thoughts and intentions, under the influence and encouragement of circumstances and events.” The bishop’s framework implies precisely this: that Jesus’ teachings are “emanations” of a human-like spiritual intelligence, not the revelation of divine truths to be administered through sacramental signs. The article thereby promotes the Modernist error that doctrine is a human “development” rather than a deposit to be guarded (Lamentabili, Props. 54, 58).
Pelagian and Modernist Foundations
The bishop’s call to “develop” spiritual intelligence is a call to human effort apart from grace, the core of Pelagianism. Catholic theology holds that the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity) are infused by God, not cultivated as skills. The bishop’s model is synergistic in the worst sense: man perfects his various intelligences, including the spiritual, through his own exertion. This contradicts St. Augustine and the Council of Trent against Pelagius.
Furthermore, the article’s entire premise aligns with the “synthesis of all errors,” Modernism, as defined by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907). Modernists “regard the dogmas of the faith as… a formulation of the religious consciousness” (n. 13). By treating the “Lord’s Prayer” and parables as emanations of a “spiritual intelligence” akin to human existential intelligence, the bishop reduces divine revelation to a human religious experience. This is the heresy condemned in Lamentabili, Proposition 22: “The dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are not truths of divine origin but are a certain interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind has worked out with great effort.”
Acceptance of Illegitimate Hierarchy and Conciliar Errors
Bishop Robert Flock is a member of the post-conciliar hierarchy, which, from the sedevacantist perspective grounded in St. Robert Bellarmine, has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. The article presents him as a legitimate “bishop” and “prelate” without question, thereby legitimizing the conciliar sect’s structure. This is a fundamental error. As the file on sedevacantism demonstrates, a manifest heretic (and the conciliar popes have taught heresy) loses office ipso facto (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II:30). Any bishop in communion with them shares in the schism and apostasy.
The bishop’s teaching is also a fruit of the conciliar revolution. Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes promoted a “new humanism” and dialogue with the world, which this article embodies by adopting secular psychological categories. The Syllabus of Errors (Prop. 80) condemns the idea that the Roman Pontiff “can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” The bishop’s entire method is such a reconciliation, using the language of modern psychology to explain spiritual truths, thus “coming to terms” with the world.
Conclusion: A Call to Reject and Return
The article is not a harmless Lenten reflection; it is a poisoned well of Modernism. It replaces the objective, sacramental, hierarchical Catholic faith with a subjective, psychological, and naturalistic “spirituality.” It omits the necessity of the Church, the Mass, confession, and grace, while promoting a pelagian self-development model. Its source, EWTN News, is a mouthpiece for the conciliar sect, and its “bishop” is an invalid functionary of an apostate structure.
The only legitimate response is total rejection. The Catholic must flee such teachings and return to the unchanging Faith of the pre-1958 Church, which teaches that “the kingdom of our Redeemer encompasses all men” (Quas Primas, n. 31) only through submission to His law and the Church, not through the cultivation of a “spiritual intelligence” divorced from the sacraments and the hierarchical magisterium. Lent is a time for penance, almsgiving, and prayer—acts of supernatural virtue, not psychological self-improvement. The true Catholic turns from such novelties to the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary and the sacraments, the sole means of sanctification.
Source:
During Lent, a bishop invites people to practice ‘spiritual intelligence’ (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 11.03.2026