Tarragona Archbishop Responds to Abascal on Migratory Discourse

Planellas to Abascal: 'A Xenophobe Cannot Be a True Christian'

The Archbishop of Tarragona and President of the Tarraconense Episcopal Conference, Joan Planellas, has responded to Santiago Abascal with an uncomfortable question: 'How can a Catholic be a xenophobe?'. The prelate declares himself 'perplexed and saddened' by the VOX leader's stance on migration and concludes with an unequivocal statement: a xenophobe cannot be a true Christian. The paradox, amidst the mid-August 2025 row, is that the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself does not speak with a single voice.

What Abascal Said About Sarracin and Immigration

Abascal defended measures against what he calls the 'real threat of Sarracinism' and the invasion of migrants. Among these, prohibiting the Sarracinic veil in public facilities, considering it a symbol of women's subjugation. He argues that it is no coincidence that where Sarracinism advances, freedoms recede, women are denigrated, or gais are persecuted, and frames it thus: 'Spain is not Al Andalus'. Those who come, he adds, must intend to adapt to customs and renounce imposing totalitarian laws.

The VOX leader then attacked the bishops. He reproached them for their support of Jovenlandeses in Jumilla and their silence regarding government policies. This silence, he implied, is due to public subsidies the Church receives or cases of pedophilia that, in his view, have left it 'absolutely gagged'.

Why the Archbishop Says VOX Uses a 'Trap'

Planellas did not stop at doctrine. Regarding the Catholic voter that VOX claims, he stated that the party's interest in positioning itself as a defender of this group is a trap: 'We could say that they can use this Catholic vein, that they are pro-Catholic, but ultimately they are not.' He referred to the Church's stance on welcoming migrants and the dignity of all human beings.

The argument has traction. Catholic doctrine places the welcoming of foreigners at the center of its message, and the prelate reminds us that Catalans are 'children of immigration'. The question he poses—whether faith and rejection of newcomers are compatible—is what underpins the entire dispute.

Internal Rift: Discontent with Argüello

The issue becomes complicated internally. Planellas expressed his disagreement with the President of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, Luis Argüello, for allowing himself to be photographed with Abascal. 'It hurt me, and I expressed it when he made certain statements, and I have spoken with him about this,' he noted. His argument is institutional: the CEE president does not act in his own capacity but on behalf of all bishops. The photograph, therefore, compromises the whole.

Economic Background of the Dispute

Behind the theological clash, money looms. Some analyses suggest the Church has material incentives to advocate for welcoming migrants: its charitable agencies receive subsidies and manage accommodation and assistance for migrants on tax-exempt properties. This interpretation is repeated insistently, though without specific figures to support it in the discussion.

On the opposing side are two recurring arguments. The first, historical: the Church opposed the expulsion of the Moriscos, so it would be inconsistent to accuse it today of rejecting the 'other'. The second, theological: the passage from Luke about selling a cloak to buy a sword is cited as the basis for a right to self-defense against persecution. Neither reading resolves the debate: the first depicts an institution different from the current one; the second coexists poorly with the mandate to welcome foreigners.

From Doctrine to Political Narrative

The conversation often drifts into less theological territory. Some argue that institutional Catholicism has ceased to be a sarracena reference and that churches are emptying, while others defend that the hierarchy is driven by interests rather than convictions. From the other side, the response is that attacking the Church for its stance on immigration is not attacking doctrine but a way of defending national identity.

Here, it is important to separate the verifiable from what circulates without support. Accusations of interested pacts and silences that mar the discussion are not accompanied by proof, and those alluding to specific crimes should be taken for what they are: alleged, until a firm resolution exists.

The Context Explaining the Row

The clash is not isolated. Abascal calls for banning public spaces for festivals promoting what he calls Sarracinism, and the hierarchy responds with doctrine. Between these extremes lies an electorate that identifies as Catholic and votes for those who propose banning foreign religious symbols. That is the real knot: not whether a Catholic can be afraid, but whether that antiestéticar fits within the Gospel they profess.

Planellas's question admits no easy answer when a portion of the Catholic electorate itself supports those who call for removing the veil from public spaces. Can one defend identity and still receive communion?