The adoption of the European Parliament resolution on the My Voice, My Choice initiative and the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the recognition of same-sex marriages concluded in other Member States are two separate but interrelated signals.
The My Voice, My Choice initiative is presented as a response to the "inequalities" between women in the EU caused by different legal regulations on abortion. However, its core is not the harmonization of healthcare, but the creation of a financial mechanism that would allow women to circumvent national laws through cross-border financing of abortions.
We see a similar dynamic in the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU ordering Poland to recognize same-sex marriages concluded in other Member States for the purposes of exercising rights under EU law.
In both cases, this is a shift that goes beyond the technical framework of the law and touches on the core of cultural and ethical issues, traditionally left to the discretion of national communities.
Legal limits and ideological shortcuts
The arguments of the initiative's supporters are based on the language of human rights and public health. However, from the perspective of international law, abortion is not recognized as a human right, and the EU has no regulatory power in this area.
The treaties state that health policy falls within the EU's supporting powers and that the Union does not replace the powers of the states. Funding abortions from the European budget would therefore not be a neutral technical solution, but political pressure that could circumvent the treaty limits.
This contradiction is highlighted in a legal analysis by the Ordo Iuris institute. Its memorandum addressed to MEPs was not only a defense of the pro-life position, but also a thorough critique of the legal basis of the initiative. It points to a dangerous precedent: if it is possible to circumvent national laws on the protection of life through funding, the same logic can be applied elsewhere.
The Constitution versus integration pressure
In response to the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Catholic bishops from the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Union warned that this case law exceeds the competences of the Union and weakens the concept of national identity. For states whose constitutional order defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this is not a marginal issue, but a fundamental anthropological framework of society.
The Slovak context further exacerbates this dispute. The Constitution clearly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The recent strengthening of the protection of national identity confirms the will of legislators to protect the cultural and ethical foundations of the state.
However, the Court's decision presents the executive and the courts with a dilemma: should they respect the constitutional text or submit to the interpretation of European law, which is based on the general clause of free movement?
Lawyer Anton Chromík previously pointed out in Štandard that this is not just a matter of administrative registration, but of the significance of marriage as a social institution. If its content is emptied through the formal recognition of foreign legal acts, national protection becomes illusory.
Constitutional lawyer Tomáš Ľalík said in an interview with the daily Postoj that Slovak law provides us with the tools to disregard this decision. At the same time, he described the decision as activist and said that the Court of Justice of the European Union was undermining its own legitimacy.
The voice of the Church is politically weak
The Pope has also weighed in on this debate, strongly condemning abortion, abortion tourism, and the financing of these practices from public funds. His statements are in line with the Church's traditional teaching on the protection of life and the family as fundamental pillars of society.
Similarly, EU bishops warn against case law that could provoke anti-European sentiment and deepen the division of values. The question remains, however, what real influence this voice has in political practice. The moral authority of the Church is clear, but in the institutional setting of the Union, it can only have a certain advisory character. Without a coordinated political and legal strategy, it often remains at the level of appeals.
This is where the work of an institution such as Ordo Iuris becomes important. Its approach does not rely solely on moral arguments, but on consistent work with the legal instruments of the Union. Challenging the overreach of competences, pointing to subsidiarity and the constitutional identity of Member States, represents an attempt to conduct a value dispute in the arena that Brussels recognizes—the field of law.
This is an intellectually demanding and long-term strategy, the results of which are not immediate. However, it suggests that resistance to integration pressure need not be just an emotional reaction, but a well-thought-out project.
A real rebellion or symbolic gestures?
The key question remains: is this a real rebellion of values by Christian and conservative actors, or just rhetoric without any real impact?
Developments to date suggest a contradictory answer. On the one hand, we see clear positions, the mobilization of church structures, and growing legal initiatives. On the other hand, the Union's integration mechanism continues, often through "soft" instruments—resolutions, judgments, and financial schemes.
A real rebellion would require coordinated action by several states, a willingness to bear the political costs, and a clear vision for reforming the Union. Without this, the resistance risks remaining fragmented and symbolic.
Decisions on abortion tourism and the recognition of same-sex marriages are not isolated episodes. They are symptomatic of a deeper dispute over whether the European Union should be a community of sovereign nations with different cultural identities or a project of gradual homogenization of values.
For the Christian community, the challenge is to go beyond moral disagreement and enter into a systematic political and legal struggle.
The reason is simple. Satisfied people do not write history.