The debate on the decriminalization of abortion in Andorra has returned to the Consell General this week, marked by political tension and signs of caution from the Vatican. According to La Veu Lliure, the minister Ladislau Baró acknowledged that the initial calendar—which envisaged a legislative text in November—was “too optimistic” and that the Holy See has requested greater discretion and time before any public progress. All this after the visit they made to Parolin a few days ago.
Read also: Andorra seeks to decriminalize abortion with Parolin's mediation in the Vatican
From the Concòrdia group, the deputy Núria Segués expressed her frustration over the continuous postponements: “We have been at this for two years and every time we talk about it we go in circles”. The parliamentarian hinted that in the last meeting with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Vatican, sensitive issues were addressed regarding the role of the episcopal Co-principality in abortion legislation.
Rome asks for calm
The minister Baró admitted that his previous statements were hasty: “In November I took it almost for granted, and my God, I regret having done so. Sometimes optimism makes you braver than you should be”. He added that the debate, now scheduled for December, must be managed calmly: “The margin between the Constitution, the Church's doctrine, and women's reproductive rights is narrow and it must be addressed with discretion”.
The tone reflects a clear change in strategy: Rome has requested time and discretion, aware that the abortion issue threatens to strain the relationship between the Vatican and the Andorran Co-principality.
A dialogue that unsettles
But the political debate hints at something more serious. Statements from several Andorran leaders point to the fact that open talks have been held with Rome about “reproductive rights” and formulas to subsidize abortions outside the country, which constitutes an undoubted indication of dialogue on financing the murder of the unborn.
In the face of this, the Vatican's position seems to move between diplomacy and moral evasion. Cardinal Parolin, who has publicly reiterated his desire for “institutional harmony”, avoids pronouncing clearly on the substance of the matter and bets on a scale of grays to contain the conflict and gain diplomatic space before pronouncing a definitive no.
And the co-prince?
According to La Veu Lliure, the decriminalization of abortion can be allowed without the signature of the episcopal co-prince, transferring the endorsement to the French co-prince, as was already done in other sensitive reforms—such as the assisted reproduction law—. This formula, still uncertain, could be the key to breaking the political deadlock, but it would also imply a serious moral precedent: the practical renunciation of a Catholic state to its identity.
Even if the Bishop of Urgell does not sign the law, the Church could not disassociate itself from the outcome, as it has participated in all phases of negotiation. If the text reaches the Consell General, it will have been practically blessed by the Vatican. The issue, therefore, is not only legal but spiritual: Rome's ambiguity in the face of abortion threatens to turn silence into complicity.