The Paul VI Foundation has published a text which, under the guise of bioethical reflection, arrives at a position difficult to sustain on both intellectual and moral grounds. The article, signed by José Ramón Amor Pan, addresses the case of Noelia Castillo — the 25-year-old woman euthanized in a hospital belonging to the Order of the Camillians — and presents it as a « collective failure ». However, descending from the theoretical to the concrete, it introduces claims that alter the axis of analysis and shift responsibility toward parents who still mourn the corpse of their euthanized daughter.
The author states literally:
A penultimate reflection concerns what Santiago Abascal (president of Vox) wrote on his social networks: « I am deeply affected by this news. The State takes a daughter from her parents. The Menas rape her. And the solution the State gives her is to have her commit suicide. Sánchez's Spain is a horror film ». With the exception of the first statement, the rest is not acceptable nor does it adopt ethically receivable language. Even less so the second sentence, « The State takes a daughter from her parents », because we are faced, on one hand, with an autonomous decision by Noelia and, on the other hand, as is public and notorious, with parents who either were unable or could not build a good relationship with their daughter. Politicians would do well not to stretch what is already an extremely complex and tragic reality in itself.
The text asserts that the parents « either were unable or could not build a good relationship with their daughter ». In a context marked by severe depression, institutionalization, a suicide attempt, sexual assault, and a final decision for euthanasia, placing the immediate family as an explanatory element amounts to placing an implicit responsibility upon it. This is a form of blame which, moreover, is formulated when the daughter is dead and the parents remain publicly exposed without any possibility of rebuttal. This assertion, presented as something « public and notorious », operates as an imposed conclusion, rash, devoid of prudence and charity, but above all misdirected toward the true responsible parties.
The objective of the article is to shift the focus of institutional responsibility toward the guilt of the family environment. Yet the case contains a chain of perfectly identifiable public decisions: guardianship by the administration where she was violated, inadequate passage through the assistance system, negligent medical evaluation, authorization by autonomous commissions, and judicial validation at multiple levels. This course defines the real framework of the case. Introducing the parents as the central piece of the problem distorts the reading of the facts and reduces the requirement concerning the system's functioning.
To make matters worse, this same text introduces an evaluation of Santiago Abascal's statements, whose criticism of the State's role is qualified as unacceptable. The objective sequence of the case includes state intervention from her minority, the inability to prevent situations of extreme vulnerability, and a final resolution by euthanasia. Pointing out this sequence is not an exaggeration; it is a reading of the facts. The article chooses to delegitimize this reading while maintaining an unproven accusation against the immediate family. The result is an inversion of the plane of demand: institutional responsibility is softened and a rash, scarcely charitable imputation toward the family is intensified. Is this the manner of thinking of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the president of the AcdP, and the members of such a significant ecclesiastical foundation?
The positioning acquires greater scope when situated within the Paul VI Foundation, an entity whose board of trustees concentrates a significant part of Spanish ecclesiastical leadership. It is presided over by Ginés Ramón García Beltrán and includes prominent figures such as Luis Argüello García, president of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, José Cobo Cano, José Luis Retana Gozalo, Juan Antonio Martínez Camino, Jesús Fernández González, Joseba Segura Etxezarraga, and José María Gil Tamayo. Alongside them participate Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza, Jesús Avezuela Cárcel, Fernando Fuentes Alcántara, and Alfonso Carcasona García.
This board of trustees is not a symbolic instance. It defines the orientation of the institution and supports the framework within which its contents are published. When an environment of this nature disseminates a text that introduces unfounded judgments regarding a bereaved family and, at the same time, corrects those who direct their criticism toward the true culprit, the question ceases to be anecdotal. It reflects an orientation criterion. Noelia's case demands precision in the attribution of responsibilities and prudence in the treatment of those involved. The text opts for a different line: it fixes the focus on the parents and reduces institutional and legal criticism through the disqualification of the political discourse that formulates it and, in passing, attempts to criticize Santiago Abascal, who seems to be in fashion in clerical circles. A worrisome derangement.
