The Colorado Catholic bishops have publicly criticized a campaign ad that features footage of Pope Leo being used to promote Manny Rutinel, calling attention to the contrast between that imagery and Rutinel’s support for radical pro-abortion policies. This piece looks at the bishops’ rebuke, the tension between faith symbols and political messaging, and why that matters to voters who value religious consistency.
The bishops’ statement landed with clear purpose: church leaders are objecting to a political spot that uses a revered religious figure while promoting a candidate who backs policies at odds with Church teaching. That point hits a nerve because images of saints and popes carry moral weight, and using them in a campaign can feel like cheapening something sacred for political gain. From a Republican perspective, this is about honesty and respect for the institutions that matter to many Americans.
There is a difference between appealing to faith and exploiting it. Voters expect authenticity, not manipulation, especially when candidates borrow religious imagery to curry favor. When a campaign clips together footage of a pope and then aligns itself with policies that the Church opposes, it awakens questions about whether the message is sincere or merely strategic.
Religious leaders speaking up is part of a healthy public square. Bishops have a duty to protect the integrity of their traditions, and when they see sacred symbols used in ways that conflict with doctrine, they will call it out. That reaction is not an attempt to silence politics but a demand that political actors treat matters of faith with the seriousness they deserve.
For voters who prioritize conscience and religious liberty, the clash between image and policy can be decisive. People want representatives who reflect their values, not ones who borrow the language or symbols of those values while advancing opposing agendas. The ad controversy forces a choice: do you follow a campaign’s imagery or its policy record?
Campaigns should answer direct questions when controversies like this erupt. If a candidate uses footage of a religious leader, explain the intent and reconcile it with policy positions that appear contradictory. Transparency matters, and a simple explanation can prevent suspicion from turning into voter distrust.
This episode also points to a broader lesson for political communication: symbols carry meaning, and that meaning is not owned by any party. When politicians borrow religious iconography, they invite scrutiny about their record and motives. Responsible messaging respects the symbols people hold dear rather than treating them as interchangeable props.
At the end of the day, voters respond to pattern more than to a single spot on the airwaves. One ad can spark headlines, but consistent alignment between words, imagery, and policy wins trust. The bishops’ denouncement underscores that gap in this case and offers a moment for clarity, not spin.
Using religious imagery in politics will always be sensitive, and campaigns that ignore that fact do so at their own peril. Whether you care most about religious fidelity, political integrity, or plain common sense, the takeaway is the same: authenticity matters and hypocrisy does not go unnoticed. Candidates who respect that reality do better in the long run with the voters who count.
