José Francisco Serrano Oceja writes an article in ABC that aims to defend the episcopal position on the extraordinary regularization of immigrants. The tone is correct and the author writes without stridency. Precisely for that reason, it is appropriate to respond to him with hardness in the arguments and care in the forms. The problem is not the author. The problem is the demagoguery of the framework he proposes.
Serrano Oceja presents the episcopal support for regularization as an act of freedom, even as a “sign of contradiction” in the face of habitual social allies. And here is the first serious distortion of the analysis.
No, there is no sign of contradiction. There is no prophetic gesture whatsoever. Criticizing Vox—the third party in Spain—does not automatically turn anyone into a countercultural hero. Much less when that criticism is formulated from a position perfectly aligned with all the real power structures of the country.
Because on this issue, the Spanish bishops are not alone nor do they risk anything. They are aligned with Podemos, with the PSOE, with the PP, with UGT and CCOO, with the business community, with the monarchy, with the major media groups, with Brussels, with the network of subsidized NGOs, and, of course, with Pedro Sánchez. Presenting that position as “countercurrent” is simply implausible.
If anyone is going against the current of the dominant political, media, and economic consensus today, it is not the episcopate. Precisely for that reason, it is so striking the enthusiasm with which some bishops wrap themselves in a nonexistent epic: it is enough to receive criticism from Vox to proclaim themselves persecuted, while enjoying the unanimous applause of all the effective centers of power.
Serrano Oceja argues that the episcopal stance is supported by the Church’s Social Doctrine and the pastoral experience of Cáritas. Both appeals deserve more than a pious mention.
The Church’s Social Doctrine is not a catalog of interchangeable moral slogans. It is an articulated body of principles that demands prudence, hierarchy of goods, and evaluation of consequences. Invoking the dignity of the human person without seriously addressing the pull effect, the pressure on public services, the impact on the lowest wages, or the social and security tensions is not applying the DSI: it is mutilating it.
Serrano Oceja himself acknowledges that the bishops “are not blind” to those risks. But he immediately neutralizes them with an evangelical quote: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” The problem is not the Gospel. The problem is its use as a political wildcard.
That passage does not prescribe specific migration policies nor does it annul the State’s responsibility to order flows, protect its citizens, and guarantee the common good. Turning a personal moral exhortation into a universal political mandate is a reductionist reading of the Gospel.
As for the experience of Cáritas, it must be said with respect but with clarity: welfare experience does not equate to political competence. Those who accompany individual situations see the concrete drama; those who govern must consider the whole. Confusing both levels inevitably leads to well-intentioned but imprudent decisions.
The figure of 550,000 people accompanied without regularization does not demonstrate that mass regularization is the just solution. It demonstrates, rather, that the current migration system is dysfunctional. Between immediate compassion and general amnesty, there are alternatives that are scarcely mentioned.
Finally, Serrano Oceja suggests that the criticism from the faithful reproduces an old dialectic of “people against pastors.” Nor is that true. The goal is not to separate the people from the bishops. What is asked is something much more elementary: pastors, not managers of consensus.
The unity of the Church does not consist in blessing without discussion the prudential judgments of the hierarchy, especially when they coincide point by point with the framework of political power. Communion is not broken by rigorous discussion. It is weakened when moral authority is confused with forced unanimity.
Responding to these issues is not attacking the Church or its pastors. It is taking seriously the Social Doctrine, the Gospel, and the intelligence of the faithful. And that, far from damaging communion, is the only way to preserve it.