Hate campaign against Andorra's Co-Prince: Media exploit Barcelona priest case to target Serrano Pentinat

There is an enormous difference between reporting on an alleged sexual assault and using an allegation of such gravity to call into question the reputation of a head of state.

Holding institutions accountable is one thing. Constructing a narrative of political guilt before the facts have been established is something entirely different. And that is precisely what concerns us about the way certain Andorran media outlets are covering the case involving a priest from the Diocese of Urgell.

The Episcopal Co-Prince, Josep-Lluís Serrano Pentinat, has been placed at the centre of a controversy despite not being directly involved in the alleged events. He is not accused of any sexual assault, there is no evidence that he knew about the alleged rape when it reportedly occurred, and no involvement on his part has been established.

Nevertheless, Diari d'Andorra has chosen to portray him as a Co-Prince politically weakened by the scandal. In our view, this interpretation goes far beyond what the information currently available can substantiate.

Since when does an allegation against a priest automatically become a reputational condemnation of the Co-Prince? Who decided that Serrano Pentinat should pay a political price for acts allegedly committed by someone else?

These are legitimate questions. And someone should answer them before continuing to fuel a narrative that seems more concerned with undermining an institution than establishing individual responsibilities.

The 21 days some seem determined to ignore

The chronology is particularly revealing.

Josep-Lluís Serrano Pentinat swore allegiance to the Andorran Constitution on June 26, 2025. The alleged sexual assault reportedly took place in the early hours of July 17 that same year, in a private residence in Barcelona.

In other words, he had been sworn in as Andorra's Co-Prince just 21 days earlier.

The complainant, a 26-year-old man, has explained that he arrived in Catalonia on July 15, travelled to Barcelona with the priest the following day and, after spending time out in the city, allegedly suffered the sexual assault that he later reported.

All of these circumstances are under investigation, and it is for the courts to establish what actually happened that night.

But one point should not be open to self-serving interpretations: Serrano Pentinat was not present in that residence, is not accused of committing any of the alleged acts, and there is no indication that he knew about them at the time.

According to the complainant's account, the bishop was informed of the allegations during a meeting held on August 31, 2026, more than thirteen months after the alleged events.

Therefore, portraying the case as a shadow hanging over Serrano Pentinat since the beginning of his term is, at the very least, deeply questionable.

His institutional responsibility should be assessed from the moment he became aware of the allegations and on the basis of the decisions he subsequently made, not through a retrospective attribution of guilt that nobody has demonstrated.

The complainant deserves respect. So does the Co-Prince

One thing must be made absolutely clear: the person who reported the alleged sexual assault deserves to be heard, protected and treated with complete respect.

The fact that more than a year passed before he filed a police complaint does not discredit his account. Neither does the fact that he went out with the priest, consumed alcohol or initially approached Church authorities.

None of these circumstances constitutes sexual consent or establishes whether an assault took place.

The right to report an alleged crime is unquestionable, and the justice system must investigate the facts with full procedural safeguards. If the priest's criminal responsibility is established, he must face the appropriate consequences.

But that same respect for individual rights must also prevent others from being publicly condemned simply because of their institutional relationship with the person under investigation.

Defending the complainant's rights does not require sacrificing the Co-Prince's reputation. And defending the presumption of innocence does not mean discrediting the person who reports an alleged assault.

This distinction is fundamental. Unfortunately, it does not always appear to guide the media debate.

What more can reasonably be demanded of the Diocese?

The information published so far allows us to reconstruct a series of actions that also deserve to be explained.

The complainant says he spoke with Serrano Pentinat on August 31. Subsequently, on October 5, he sent a formal communication to the diocesan office. The Diocese maintains that on October 17, after the accused priest had been reliably identified, it opened a canonical investigation and contacted the complainant.

The institution also states that it encouraged him to contact the civil authorities and offered psychological and spiritual support.

Finally, on November 9, following a meeting between the investigator responsible for the canonical proceedings and the complainant, the priest was temporarily removed from pastoral duties and prohibited from publicly exercising his priestly ministry.

It is legitimate to question whether all these steps were taken quickly enough. It is equally legitimate to examine what happened between the August 31 meeting and the formal opening of proceedings in October.

That is what institutional scrutiny means.

What is unacceptable is ignoring the measures taken and treating every explanation from the Diocese as further evidence of guilt.

If the Diocese investigates, it is questioned. If it temporarily removes the priest, it is questioned again. If it offers assistance to the complainant, that apparently is not enough either.

What, exactly, is the standard? What actions would be sufficient to conclude that the institution is responding appropriately?

The answer cannot be that no measure will ever be sufficient because the real objective is no longer to examine the institutional response, but to keep the Co-Prince permanently under suspicion.

Diari d'Andorra and the limits of journalistic accuracy

The coverage of this case by Diari d'Andorra deserves particular reflection.

It is entirely legitimate to report on an allegation of this seriousness, verify conflicting accounts and investigate possible shortcomings in the institutional response. Indeed, that is a fundamental duty of journalism.

But the desire to publish first must never take precedence over the obligation to report the facts accurately.

The distinction between permanently dismissing a priest and temporarily removing him from his duties is not a minor detail. The legal, canonical and reputational consequences are entirely different.

The Diocese has announced a precautionary measure while the investigation continues. Presenting it as a permanent dismissal personally ordered by the Co-Prince, without establishing those facts, would create a misleading impression of the decision.

And when reporting concerns an institution as significant as Andorra's head of state, verification is not optional, and precision is not a luxury.

It is particularly troubling that media outlets which frequently emphasise their history and commitment to fighting disinformation may end up confusing interpretations, provisional decisions and established facts.

A newspaper's history does not make its reporting infallible. Years of publication are no substitute for evidence. And accumulated prestige cannot serve as a shield against criticism.

No newspaper has a monopoly on the truth. Not even those that seem convinced they do.

A Co-Prince inconvenient for certain interests?

Andorra's political context cannot be ignored either.

Serrano Pentinat assumed the role of Co-Prince at a time of institutional tensions and debates directly affecting the position of the Episcopal head of state.

The proposed reform of abortion-related criminal legislation, disagreements surrounding certain institutional decisions and the recurring debate over the future of the co-principality have shown that the Government's interests and those of the Episcopal institution do not always coincide.

There is nothing scandalous about that. The Co-Prince is not subordinate to the Government, nor is he obliged to become a political instrument of Demòcrates per Andorra.

Precisely because our constitutional system distributes power among different institutions, disagreements are a normal part of democratic life.

That is why it is legitimate to ask whether certain political and media circles are using this allegation to fuel a broader campaign to undermine the Episcopal Co-Prince.

This is a political suspicion worthy of debate, not a conspiracy that we can claim has been proven.

But neither will we accept the idea that any criticism of the treatment Serrano Pentinat is receiving amounts to an unquestioning defence of the Church.

One does not have to be Catholic, conservative or supportive of every decision made by the Diocese to consider it unfair to undermine the reputation of a head of state without establishing any wrongdoing on his part.

Still less when such reputational damage could ultimately serve, intentionally or otherwise, the interests of those who have long challenged Andorra's existing institutional balance.

The double standard applied to the co-principality

There is another issue that deserves consideration.

Andorra has two Co-Princes. One is the Bishop of Urgell, and the other is the President of the French Republic.

Both serve as heads of state within the constitutional framework, despite coming from entirely different institutions and backgrounds.

When scandals emerge involving individuals connected to French institutions, the President's responsibility is not automatically considered established. It is necessary to examine what he knew, what powers he held and how he acted.

Why should the same standard not apply to the Episcopal Co-Prince?

Why should an allegation against a priest necessarily damage Serrano Pentinat's credibility without evidence that the bishop consented to, concealed or tolerated the alleged acts?

Institutional accountability exists and must be enforced when appropriate. But it is not unlimited, nor can it arise simply from belonging to the same organisational structure.

If evidence of negligence or a cover-up were to emerge tomorrow, it should be published unequivocally.

What cannot be done is replace such evidence with headlines that anticipate a reputational verdict.

Not everything is acceptable in an attempt to weaken the co-principality

The co-principality is not an untouchable institution. No democratic institution should be.

It is legitimate to advocate constitutional reform, question the Church's role in the headship of state or call for a different institutional model. All of this belongs within legitimate political debate.

But openly defending those positions is one thing. Using an allegation of sexual assault as ammunition in a political battle is quite another.

An allegation of this nature should not become a weapon for destroying reputations, settling institutional scores or fuelling an offensive against the co-principality.

The complainant does not deserve to have his account exploited. The priest under investigation has the right to the presumption of innocence. And Serrano Pentinat has the right not to be assigned responsibilities that have not been established.

These three statements are entirely compatible.

At La Veu Lliure, we will not participate in a campaign to undermine the Episcopal Co-Prince based on insinuations or guilt by association.

We will not abandon our duty to investigate the Diocese, question its decisions or publish any wrongdoing that can be demonstrated. But neither will we accept journalism becoming a succession of trials by media, with conclusions reached before the evidence is known.

And if that makes certain newspapers uncomfortable, so be it.

Journalism is not about deciding who should be brought down. It is about explaining what happened, what can be proven and who is genuinely responsible.

Co-Prince Josep-Lluís Serrano Pentinat must answer for his own decisions, like any other institutional leader. He should not be held responsible for conduct attributed to third parties merely because they belong to his diocese.

Because if we accept that logic, tomorrow any institution could be publicly condemned not for what it has done, but for whatever others find convenient to attribute to it.

And then the issue will no longer be merely the credibility of a Co-Prince. It will be the credibility of journalism that has abandoned the distinction between reporting, interpreting and condemning.