I recently came across a communication from the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura — the highest court and Ministry of Justice of the Church — stating that my lawyers, initially recognized by the Judge, are no longer considered valid. Additionally, my four requests were denied: recusal of the judge in this case, revocation of the decree by the Apostolic See, a plea to withdraw the Apostolic See from this process, and a demand for the disclosure of the preliminary investigation. This message is both late and flawed.
It’s late because a journalist had already contacted me about it, indicating a lack of discretion in Rome’s affairs. Their internal matters seem to be public knowledge even before reaching the concerned parties. It’s flawed because the communication addressed to my lawyers was intended for the “Praelaturae Sanctae Crucis et Operis Dei” — the Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei — which is neither involved nor a party in this process. Astonishingly, I received nothing directly.
This response leaves me both perplexed and uneasy. More so, learning that it was drafted by a section of the Apostolic Signatura that includes His Excellency Rev. Juan José Omella, Cardinal Archbishop of Barcelona, known for his partiality in the case. Media reports since 2015 have highlighted his support for the Cuatrecasas family, the accusers. His participation in this farce, in a process that dismisses the non-retroactivity principle of criminal law, is baffling. It’s a right not even denied to war criminals.
Alarmingly, this sacred principle was nullified “ad casum,” solely in my case. I doubt any lawyer or court in Spain or Europe would dare defend such an outrage as just.
I have several questions. Perhaps the Apostolic Signatura can clarify. If this procedure is applied to me, does it mean all Catholic laypeople, living or dead, accused of similar acts will also be judged retroactively? Is this method reserved only for my case, for reasons beyond my understanding?
I’m bewildered why the decree isn’t signed by three judges, as is customary in civilized countries where those deciding on personal rights sign their resolutions openly, not hiding behind mere titles.
I’m puzzled by the Tribunal’s assertion that the Roman Pontiff cannot be recused — a request my lawyers never made. They asked for his withdrawal, as exercising his authority freely doesn’t mean acting against canon and natural law, applying them retroactively, above these norms. Authority may be supreme, but it’s not absolute. We are all subject to the law.
It’s perplexing how reality can be twisted to deny that the delegate judging the case lost impartiality by suggesting in a letter that I contemplate this procedure as an opportunity to acknowledge the truth and apologize. How His Excellency Rev. José Antonio Satué, Bishop of Teruel-Albarracín, delegate of the case, arrived at this conclusion is beyond me.
I cannot fathom how to assess new elements justifying the reopening of a closed case if I’m denied access to the preliminary investigation.
The acceptance of my lawyers in the first instance, followed by their subsequent dismissal, is incomprehensible.
The excessive eagerness of the Cardinal Archbishop of Barcelona, and possibly others, to judge a layperson — one in particular — canonically, for a crime already adjudicated and closed in Spain, is disproportionate.
I’m facing a lawless process where defense is impossible. My experienced lawyers were disqualified after initial acceptance; I’m coerced into accepting a court-appointed lawyer; objections to the retroactive application of penal law, which contradicts all Sanctioning Rights, are ignored. Sadly, this masquerades as legality but is authoritarianism and imposition.
This sense of illegality and persecution isn’t mine alone; many in the legal and cultural fields, as well as ordinary people, believers or not, have expressed similar outrage. This leads me to believe that any jurist would be dismayed and disconcerted by this lack of rigor and independence.
Make no mistake. I will continue to fight. I am innocent, subjected to an unjust and excruciating judgment. It matters because I refuse to be trampled upon, abused by their position. We will respond to the Signatura’s document and, if necessary, take our case to the European Court of Human Rights. This is about the most fundamental rights of any person.