On November 25, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ordered Poland to recognize same-sex marriage. Polish law does not provide for same-sex marriage, and Poland’s constitution explicitly declares the state’s responsibility to protect marriage as a sexually differentiated union. Such little things as national constitutions or laws, however, cannot get in the way of the European Union.
In 2018, two Polish men went to Germany to get “married.” Upon their return to Poland they asked the local civil registrar to record their “marriage” in the civil registry. The registrar demurred, citing Polish law and the constitution. The two men sued, taking their case to Strasbourg.
In Jakub Cupriak-Trojan and Mateusz Trojan v. Wojewoda Mazowiecki, the ECJ concedes that marriage is still a matter “within the competence” of member states, not of the Union. So how did the ECJ reach its decision ordering Poland to comply? Citing the four sacred “freedoms” that have animated the European project since the 1950s, the ECJ invoked the “free movement of persons” to order Poland to register the marriage. Poland does not have to allow same-sex marriage, but not recognizing other states’ same-sex marriages would impair the “free movement of persons” within the Union, the court argued. A provision originally designed to facilitate economic activity—free movement of goods, services, capital, and persons (as in, labor)—has now become a universal ticket to lifestyle “rights” even against national constitutions, laws, and cultures.
What’s even more interesting is the December 9 statement of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE). It’s long on law and politics, short on morality.
While “fully respecting the role of the EU judiciary” and noting “with concern” how the ruling may affect national jurisdiction (“competences”), the bishops emphasize the need for “a prudent and cautious approach to family law cases that have cross-border implications” and suggest the ruling “appears to push jurisprudence beyond EU competences” (emphasis added). In other words: We are registering a mild protest—please don’t get mad at us!
The EU bishops opine that the “ruling may foster pressure to amend national family law, creating a convergence of matrimonial-law effects despite the EU having no mandate to harmonise family law and may also increase legal uncertainty.” It might even establish a precedent for other lifestyle issues, such as surrogacy.
The bishops close their remarks with what they seem to think could be the most damning outcome of the ruling: It might stoke “anti-European sentiments in Member States” that are “instrumentalised” to polarize society. For the bishops, that is clearly Armageddon.
The tone of the statement hardly reflects that the issue at stake is marriage, which Catholic social thought has consistently held is the foundational rock and cell of society. When marriage is threatened, the family, and society at large, falls apart.
I understand why the bishops tiptoe around the issue: The Church has been a cheerleader of the EU project for decades; to change course would be to admit that it has failed. But the European project of Ursula von der Leyen, Frans Timmermans, and Javier Solana is hardly the same project of Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi, and Jean Monnet, Catholic advocates of postwar European integration who frequently attended Mass. Perhaps the bishops should have woken up and smelled the coffee when the EU founding documents were being written and, despite Pope St. John Paul II’s appeal, Brussels included no mention of Christianity as a foundational element of European heritage and culture.
The EU’s Catholic bishops lack the spine to throw down the gauntlet in protection of marriage and the family. Which means their supposition—that “freedom to move” will be a cudgel to export pan-European lifestyle libertinism—may expand into other areas.
Consider the “My Voice, My Choice” movement. On November 5, a European Parliament committee approved a resolution calling on member states to “align [their abortion laws] with international human rights standards,” as in, legalize abortion. The resolution also calls for establishing an EU-wide money pool to fund pregnant women in benighted countries to travel elsewhere in the Union to procure abortions. The “free movement of persons” horseman rides again.
The bishops have not commented on the resolution; they would be wise to do so, and fast. A citizens’ initiative is underway to force the European Commission (the real power body in Brussels) to address the issue, including the claim that a right to abortion should be enumerated among the “fundamental rights” of EU citizens. The Commission may have to address this by the end of March 2026. This isn’t going to go away.
A number of EU members have family protective provisions in their national constitutions. Some have even upped the stakes: Both Hungary and Slovakia have amended their constitutions to stipulate EU rules cannot trump national laws on issues of “national identity” such as family. The European Commission is already pursuing “infringement procedures” against Slovakia.
The Church needs to decide: Does it stand with today’s anawim—families that want to live in societies that recognize that marriage and family are reflections of the divine covenant between Christ and his Church—or with the “European project’s” powerbrokers who intend to foist a package of ersatz lifestyle “rights” upon the continent? The bishops’ statement, cautious to the point of near-whisper, does not yet demonstrate the clarity or confidence that this moment demands. Europe’s future—and the integrity of its Christian witness—requires something more than procedural worry. It requires the courage to say plainly what is at stake.
Image by D-Keine via iStock.
