The Spanish Episcopal Conference, together with Cáritas, CONFER, and the REDES network, has backed the extraordinary regularization of immigrants promoted by the Government of Pedro Sánchez. This is not just a prudent support for a specific measure: the statement presents it as “an inherent demand” of the Church’s mission and as “a coherent expression of the Gospel in public life”.
The Church has always taught that the migrant must be welcomed, protected, and accompanied. That is not in question. But turning a specific policy— in this case, a mass regularization— into an evangelical demand raises a fundamental problem. Not because the intention is questionable, but because the leap from moral principle to political decision is not automatic. Between the two there is a proper realm: that of prudence.
The statement presents the extraordinary regularization as a response to a real situation of vulnerability. The data provided by the entities themselves show it: social exclusion, difficulty in accessing basic rights, structural dependence.
However, the issue does not end with that diagnosis. The question is not only what problem exists, but what solution resolves it without generating others. Migration policy is not limited to immediate welcome. It affects social cohesion, integration capacity, and the credibility of the norms themselves.
Recent experience requires introducing a nuance that the statement does not include. Political decisions and public messages have consequences. When the idea is conveyed that regularization is the natural way out of irregularity, there is a risk of reinforcing a pull effect that pushes thousands of people into increasingly dangerous routes. This is not a theoretical hypothesis, but a fact observed in various European contexts. Ignoring it does not protect the migrant; it exposes them.
To this is added another element that should be pointed out clearly. The approach taken tends to present irregular immigration in exclusively humanitarian terms. Reality is more complex. Behind each journey there are trafficking networks, exploitation, and, in not a few cases, death. Reducing the phenomenon to a welcome scheme without considering these dimensions leads to an incomplete vision that ends up being unfair to those who suffer its consequences.
That is why it is problematic to identify a specific measure with the Gospel. The Church’s social doctrine does not impose unique technical solutions. It recognizes the duty to welcome, but also the right of States to regulate migratory flows according to the common good. Between these two principles there is a legitimate space for debate. Presenting it as closed does not strengthen the Church’s teaching; it weakens it.
The question is not whether the migrant should be helped. The question is how to do it without sacrificing the truth about reality or turning into a moral imperative what belongs to prudential judgment. When charity is separated from prudence, it ceases to be fully Christian. And when the Church identifies its voice without nuances with a specific policy, it runs the risk of losing the necessary distance to illuminate, rather than accompany, the decisions of power.
Read also: