By: Fr. Custodio Ballester Bielsa
The news item published on this portal on August 11 describes a political and diplomatic process that, due to its moral gravity, must be confronted with the clear, unequivocal, and prophetic teaching of John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium vitae (1995) and Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae.
The contrast between the cited journalistic document and the two magisterial texts reveals a profound tension between the perennial teaching of the Church and the diplomatic practice that, in this case, appears to have chosen “discretion,” negotiation, and silent surrender: where the magisterial texts demand witness, clarity, and resistance.
The Government of Andorra will present in September a reform of the Penal Code to decriminalize abortion; and it will do so “with the knowledge—and without the public and explicit opposition—of the Vatican Secretariat of State.”
This phrase, which the Andorran Government itself publicly acknowledges, constitutes the core of the scandal: the Holy See, guarantor of the perennial Catholic magisterium, would have accepted, or at least tolerated, a practice that removes penal protection from the conceived but yet unborn human being. What is most serious and scandalous about this “diplomatic” transaction is that it occurs with regard to one of the last European legal systems that still maintained such protection.
The encyclical Evangelium vitae, by contrast, affirms that no authority (neither civil nor ecclesiastical!) can legitimize the elimination of an innocent person, and that political (and religious!) leaders have the moral obligation to oppose publicly any legislation that attacks human life.
John Paul II, together with the constitution Gaudium et spes of the Second Vatican Council, declares in it that abortion is an “abominable crime” and that civil law must always protect the weakest: the innocent not yet born.
Decriminalization, even partial, is presented in the encyclical as a form of cooperation with evil, incompatible with the moral responsibility of rulers and, with even greater reason, of pastors. The contradiction between the two planes—the doctrinal and the diplomatic—is evident: it is jarring.
Political leaders emphasize that the Andorran reform is “limited”: it does not legalize abortion, it only removes penal consequences for the woman and those who collaborate in the abortion. However, Evangelium vitae warns precisely against this gradualist strategy. Yes, strategy. John Paul II denounces that partial decriminalization is the first step toward the normalization of abortion: because the law ceases to recognize that there is a victim. Human life, deprived of legal protection, is left exposed to the logic of desire, social pressure, political convenience, or profit. That is what gradualism entails: in the end we arrive at “abortion during birth” because in the organ market, these reach a higher price the more developed they are. It is not the same to execute the unborn at six months as at nine. That is what gradualism entails.
The encyclical Evangelium vitae insists that the law has a pedagogical function: when it ceases to protect the conceived, it conveys to society that that life is dispensable and that the decision to dispense with that life is within the legal reach of anyone. Therefore, decriminalization is not a technical nuance, but a moral surrender.
The Infovaticana article concurs with this diagnosis: it recalls that all countries that began the liberalization of abortion did so with the same argument (“only decriminalize”), which later led to full legalization, including partial-birth abortion (during delivery!). The Andorran reform, therefore, is not an isolated gesture: it is the first crack in a wall that until now had held firm. And that crack opens—according to the article—with the active collaboration of the Bishop of Urgell, co-prince of Andorra, and with the silent but unequivocal acquiescence of Rome.
The text attributes the negotiation to the Secretariat of State, headed by Cardinal Pietro Parolin (note the fact: Catholic morality turned into a “matter of State”: therefore, the competence of the Vatican Secretary of State), and highlights that the Andorran Government thanked “the climate of trust and discretion” maintained with the Holy See. The word “discretion” is decisive here: it means that Rome has preferred not to speak out “publicly,” not to warn, not to correct, not to exercise its moral authority in a matter that directly affects human life. Evangelium vitae explicitly condemns this attitude: Saint John Paul II affirms that pastors must raise their voice without ambiguity when life is threatened, and that silence or ambiguity constitutes a form of complicity.
The encyclical demands that the Church be a “sign of contradiction,” not a diplomatic companion to legislative processes that erode the culture of life, and above all, the morality that sustains it with all its force.
It is noted that Parolin, in 2023, stated that the defense of life is “an inalienable principle.” Three years later, that principle seems to have been treated as a negotiable variable at convenience, provided the operation is carried out discreetly, without media noise. Diplomacy (the office of the Secretary of State), in this case, would be to replace witness: the office and responsibility of the entire Church, beginning obviously with its leadership.
The situation in Andorra is singular: one of its heads of state is the Bishop of Urgell. This means that the reform of Andorran legislation is not only a political matter, but also an ecclesial one. Bishop Josep-Lluís Serrano Pentinat, as co-prince, has direct and inalienable responsibility in the promulgation of the law. His silence, therefore, is not only pastoral: it is institutional. It is the Church that is silent with him, that “qualifies” what, in upright and courageous doctrine, admits no qualification.
Although, looked at carefully, he always has the recourse of King Baudouin of Belgium, who, under institutional pressure to endorse and ratify with his signature the abortion law, abdicated his office on the day he was to sign, only that day, because in his conscience the abortion law could not be endorsed with the signature of a Catholic king. Will Bishop Pentinat also abdicate his noble office as co-prince of Andorra? Even if only for one day. Oh!, might he lose his status as Co-Prince along the way?
The available information indicates that Mons. Serrano Pentinat has spoken of “dialogue” and “accompaniment of women in difficult situations,” expressions that, although pastorally understandable (in the most modern pastoral care that accompanies everything, everything, everything), are legally irrelevant and morally insufficient. The encyclical requires that a pastor—and even more so if he is also a head of state—oppose frontally any legislation that withdraws protection from the conceived but not yet born. It is not enough to accompany the aggressor: one must defend the one attacked. The question posed by the article is legitimate and serious: Can a Catholic bishop allow the promulgation of a law that leaves the unborn unprotected, if it is in his power to prevent it?
According to Evangelium vitae, the answer is no. The encyclical affirms that no Christian can formally cooperate with abortion laws, and that Catholic rulers must resist even at the cost of their political career. If this is required of a legislator, with even greater reason of a bishop who is, moreover, a head of state.
The attitude of Serrano Pentinat, as described in the article, appears to opt for institutional neutrality (forgetting, of course, that the “institution” is the bishop: the bishop, “neutral” regarding abortion?) and diplomatic prudence. But neutrality, in this case, can only be described as abandonment. A tremendous imprudence, irresponsibility, and moral abdication. Indeed, not abandonment of political office for one day, like Baudouin, but abandonment of moral responsibility as a bishop (and not only for one day!).
The article adds a geopolitical element: the pressure of French President Emmanuel Macron, who has turned abortion into a “constitutional right” in France. Macron would have insisted on the issue during his visit to Andorra, and the reform seems to advance in the direction he desires.
But here the encyclical in question warns against the influence of political powers that promote the “culture of death.” John Paul II denounces that powerful states impose anthropological models that erode human dignity. In this case, French pressure seems to have found little resistance both in Andorra and in Rome, which would have opted for the most discreet negotiation instead of a public defense of the current Andorran legal order. Aligned for the moment with Catholic morality.
The article notes that the arrival of Pope Leo XIV complicated the conversations and reduced the scope of the project. But the decisive test will be September: if the reform prospers without a word from Rome, the doctrinal corpus would be called into question.
Andorra was one of the last European territories where the life of the conceived but not yet born still enjoyed full protection. It was not an anachronism: it was a witness. Therefore, its fall would not be an inevitable defeat, but the result of a lamentable “negotiation” in which the Holy See would have accepted to participate. Yes, that is it, the Church “negotiating,” and not on equal terms, but from a position of manifest inferiority; negotiating morality with the State, with the world.
Evangelium vitae teaches that the Church must be “the house of life,” a refuge for the weak, a moral beacon amid confusion. When diplomacy replaces witness, the Church loses its prophetic voice and becomes just another actor in the political game.
The article concludes that “what is inalienable ends up having a price.” The encyclical, on the other hand, affirms that human life has none, since it is infinite (for politics? No, for the Church). The contradiction between both messages is the core of this crisis.
The relevance of Evangelium vitae reveals a worrying fracture between doctrine and practice. While the encyclical demands clarity, resistance, and witness, the described action of the Vatican and Bishop Serrano Pentinat appears to opt for discretion, negotiation, and silence. The decriminalization of abortion in Andorra is not only a legislative change: it is a symptom of a Church that, in this case, would have renounced its prophetic role.
However, the encyclical of John Paul II remains a moral beacon. The Andorran process, as presented, is a shadow that contradicts it.
Note: Articles published as Opinion express the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the editorial line of Infovaticana, which offers this space as a forum for reflection and dialogue.