European Episcopates Straighten Out the EU Parliament in Brussels

On November 26, 2020, the European Parliament adopted by an overwhelming majority—455 votes in favor, 145 against, and 71 abstentions—a resolution condemning the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Poland imposing an almost total ban on abortion on the banks of the Vistula.

Curious readers who have the patience to read this 12-page text will understand that the European Parliament sees itself as Europe’s policeman and arrogates to itself the exorbitant right to admonish and threaten a legitimate national government.

According to parliamentarians, the act of the Polish government constitutes a “serious violation of the values ​​of the European Union,” and may lead to sanctions which could include the suspension of the country’s voting rights in the Council, or even the suppression of European subsidies.

The very title of this text is very significant: “Right to abortion in Poland.”

In this context, on February 22, 2021, the presidency of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) sent a letter to David Sassoli, President of the European Parliament, deploring the November 26 decision in the name of “the protection and care of all unborn life.”

For once, the hierarchy is not afraid to recall the origin of the intangibile rights of a little child in his mother’s womb: “Every human person is called into existence by God and needs protection, in particular when she is the most vulnerable.”

Then, the signatory bishops point out that “neither European Union legislation nor the European Convention on Human Rights provide for a right to abortion. This matter is left up to the legal systems of the Member States.” The Episcopal Commission goes on to target the interference of the European Parliament in Polish affairs, which the latter justifies in the name of a “rule of law.” 

Indeed, continue the authors, according to the “the principle of conferral, under which the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties.” Thus, “the rule of law also requires respect for the competences of the Member States and the choices made by them in the exercise of their exclusive competences” recalls COMECE.

The minimal portion left by MEPs to the conscientious objection of doctors not wishing to perform abortion, alarms the European prelates: “the Resolution seems to question the fundamental right to conscientious objection.… This is particularly worrying considering that in the healthcare sector conscientious objectors are in many cases subject to discrimination. In our view, such unjust stigmatization should not be promoted.”

Likewise, the use by Parliament of the ambiguous notion of “non-discrimination” in order to condemn the decision of a sovereign State in the matter of the prohibition of abortion, is not innocent: “we fear that the principle of non-discrimination would be used to extend or blur the limits of the competences of the European Union,” warns the Episcopal Commission.

Finally, the selective indignation which progressive MEPs of the European Parliament often show with regard to acts of Christianophobia, is the subject of a last cutting remark: “We also noted with sadness that no condemnation or solidarity was expressed in the text with regard to the unacceptable attacks on Churches and places of worship in the context of protests related to this law in Poland.”

It remains to be seen whether David Maria Sassoli, President of the Brussels Parliament, will be sensitive to the arguments developed by COMECE.