Letter 'to the people of God' signed by 35 bishops urges voting for 'humanitarian values' and says Flávio threatens democracy

The bishops’ letter links voting with moral responsibility. It urges citizens to choose candidates according to humanitarian values, rather than personal hostility, fear, or prejudice. Its central warning is that Flávio Bolsonaro represents a threat to democracy. That makes the message both electoral and institutional.

The key mechanism is persuasion, not command. Catholic leaders cannot legally determine how people vote or change the election result. They can, however, frame the choice in ethical terms and encourage voters to examine candidates’ effects on democratic life. The letter therefore turns a campaign decision into a question about public values.

The message appeared during the second round of Brazil’s 2026 election. It was signed by 35 bishops, while the CNBB’s Permanent Council also reinforced democratic principles and encouraged conscious voting. The appeal may influence discussion among Catholics and other citizens, but the result still depends on ballots cast under Brazil’s electoral rules.

Flávio Bolsonaro is a Brazilian politician from the Bolsonaro family. In the supplied material, he appears as the election figure singled out by bishops and Catholic news reports. The reports say he represents, or threatens, democracy. They do not identify his exact office, party position, or formal ballot status.

That limitation matters. The question asks what role he has in the 2026 election, but the source only establishes that he is a major subject of the second-round debate. It does not explain whether he is a presidential candidate, another candidate, or an influential political actor. Any more specific description would require outside information.

The documented role is therefore political and contested: his name is being used in a public argument about democratic values and voter responsibility. The bishops’ appeal asks citizens to vote consciously and according to humanitarian values. It does not legally remove Flávio from the election or decide the result.

CNBB stands for the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil, the country’s main institutional gathering of Catholic bishops. It coordinates discussion and public action among bishops on matters affecting the Church and society. The Permanent Council is a smaller continuing body that represents and guides the conference between broader meetings.

Its mechanism is collective communication. Rather than issuing an electoral order with legal force, the council publishes guidance grounded in Catholic social and moral concerns. Here, it reinforced the defense of democracy and encouraged conscious voting in the second round. That gives the message institutional weight within the Church.

The supplied reports present the council alongside a separate letter signed by 35 bishops. Together, they show Catholic leaders using public statements to shape civic reflection. Their influence depends on trust, persuasion, and engagement with voters. It does not extend to controlling ballots, certifying results, or exercising state authority.

The reported letter carries 35 episcopal signatures. This is the clearest numerical fact in the supplied material. It shows that a substantial group of Catholic bishops publicly joined the appeal for humanitarian values and its warning about Flávio Bolsonaro.

The number should not be treated as a count of all Brazilian Catholic bishops. A signed letter normally identifies its participants, while the source does not say that every bishop signed. It also does not provide the total number of bishops in Brazil. The safest conclusion is that 35 represents part of the episcopate, unless additional reporting establishes otherwise.

The distinction matters because institutional breadth affects how readers interpret authority. The reports separately mention the CNBB’s Permanent Council defending democracy and encouraging conscious voting. That is an institutional statement, while the 35-signature letter is a named group appeal. Both carry public influence, but neither alone proves unanimous agreement among Brazil’s bishops.

A religious appeal can influence an election by changing the language voters use to judge candidates. Instead of focusing only on personalities or campaign promises, people may consider democracy, humanitarian values, prejudice, fear, and civic responsibility. The bishops’ message therefore has persuasive power, even without legal authority.

The mechanism is indirect. Bishops communicate through churches, Catholic media, and personal networks. Their statements may receive wider coverage, prompt discussion among families and communities, and encourage voters to study candidates more carefully. The CNBB’s Permanent Council reinforced this process by defending democracy and urging conscious voting in the second round.

The effect cannot be measured from the supplied article alone. Some voters may accept the appeal, while others may reject it or interpret it differently. The election remains decided by valid ballots under electoral law. The bishops can influence opinion and participation, but they cannot select the winner, cancel a candidacy, or certify the result.

Brazilian Catholic leaders have historically addressed elections by connecting political participation with social responsibility. Their public guidance commonly emphasizes human dignity, justice, peace, democracy, and concern for vulnerable people. This framing treats voting as more than a private preference. It asks citizens to consider how political choices affect society.

The supplied reports provide a direct example of that approach. Thirty-five bishops urge voting according to humanitarian values. The CNBB’s Permanent Council reinforces democracy and encourages conscious voting. A bishop from Campos is also quoted rejecting votes motivated by antipathy, fears, or prejudices. The mechanism is ethical guidance rather than electoral control.

This tradition does not produce a single guaranteed voting pattern. Catholic leaders may speak collectively, while individual Catholics decide for themselves. Their influence depends on whether voters trust the message and connect it with their own concerns. In the 2026 second round, the documented emphasis is democratic protection, careful judgment, and humane political choices.

Brazil’s democratic system generally works through elected representation and majority decisions, but majorities cannot lawfully erase basic rights. Constitutional protections for human dignity, equality, political participation, and freedom of religion place limits on government power. This balance lets elections decide leadership while protecting people who hold minority views.

Freedom of religion allows Catholic leaders and other religious groups to express moral and political opinions. Separation between church and state means those opinions do not become government commands merely because they come from religious authorities. The state must remain institutionally independent from churches, while churches remain free to participate in public debate within the law.

The bishops’ appeal illustrates this arrangement. They can defend democracy, recommend humanitarian values, and criticize a political figure. They cannot legally determine votes, remove a candidate, or declare the winner. The forward challenge is preserving both open religious expression and equal democratic rights, so persuasion remains public participation rather than coercion.