On Monday, November 13th, my new lawyer and Monsignor Satué, the Delegate, held a meeting. I didn’t attend because it was a highly formal and technical event, and my distrust in the impartiality of those who judge me persists. I believe that such an injustice should prompt reflection in any person of integrity, especially if they anticipate being judged at the end of their life.
The meeting marked another legal debacle, another step toward the delegitimization of canon law and the ongoing abuse of power.
The Delegate, as determined by the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, has altered substantive law. In essence, they changed the rules of the game midway through. They are no longer assessing whether I am innocent or guilty but, assuming the latter, are evaluating whether the Prelature of Opus Dei should expel me from the institution.
My lawyer inquired about the reason behind this change to the Delegate. No response was forthcoming. She requested justification, which should be commonplace in legal matters, but it was denied. Thus, I understand it’s because there is none; it’s arbitrary! This is precisely what the law seeks to prevent: arbitrariness and abuse of power. Unable to condemn me under canon law, they have now devised an alternative procedure for Opus Dei to condemn me, allowing them to wash their hands of it.
Another absurdity: the Delegate is disregarding the previous investigation conducted in 2015, in which Cardinal Ladaria called for the restoration of my reputation. He deems it superfluous now. It’s considered superfluous because they refuse to consider any evidence that could aid my case. Anything that could work in my favor is being dismissed.
I believe it’s labeled as “superfluous” because they are now judging me for something they had already adjudicated before. Since this is outrageous, it’s easier to claim it’s “superfluous” and hide the evidence.
The Delegate did not hand over but rather allowed my lawyer to see the accusation —a letter from Juan Cuatrecasas dated 2023 describing the same events that were already judged by the Court of Appeals of Bizkaia and mostly dismissed by the Spanish Supreme Court. There is nothing new! Now, three years after that ruling, they want to judge me for the same events. Even though the Supreme Court did not find most of the serious allegations proven, the Delegate appears indifferent.
So, I ask: why does the Delegate solely wish to judge me? No one wishes to address this question. And when no one does, it’s because there are hidden answers they wish to keep concealed, or because there is no explanation. Among all the individuals mentioned in the reports of the ombudsman or the so-called Cremades report, which the Episcopal Conference is currently discussing, they only seem interested in judging me. What’s even worse, they are committing another procedural aberration: disregarding the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law. For those who do not understand this principle, it’s as if the relevant authority wanted to fine or punish Spaniards for not wearing masks in 1999 during the pandemic.
They have not provided me with the Decree justifying this process, the one signed by the Pope in August 2022. When asked why the Delegate does not deliver it, he replied that it’s according to the Norm. The norm, Canon 51 of the Code of Canon Law, states that it should be delivered; Canon 55 states that it should not be delivered when a very grave cause prevents the text of the decree from being handed over. There is no very grave cause preventing its delivery here. What they are achieving is undermining another fundamental right: the right to a fair defense. My lawyer had to copy it by hand. She was not even allowed to take a photo. The same happened with the accusation; she had to copy it by hand. And all of this, considering that in a criminal process, every detail of the accusation or the decree is extremely important. So, what right to defense exists in this case?
The Delegate, who is now in a hurry to condemn, asked my lawyer why she didn’t bring experts to evaluate the evidence. It is evident that to determine what needs to be assessed, one must know the evidence that can be assessed.
The Delegate did provide my lawyer with some evidence—there is no explanation as to why some were provided and others were not—the same evidence used by the Court of Appeals of Bizkaia and which I have possessed for years. And once they were delivered, he proposed a meeting in a week! I have over two thousand pages of the Bizkaia case file: statements, expert opinions, medical reports… Why the rush now?
I believe that anyone can perceive the abuses and irregularities that are being perpetrated under the guise of legality in this process. With this case, I think the credibility of the Church is being seriously damaged. For all these reasons, I ask those who read these lines to pray for the Church and for the Pope; he needs it with these collaborators.