For countless years, I have steadfastly declared my innocence in the face of allegations thrust upon me. Bearing nothing to conceal and armed with a resolute determination to defend my honor, I recently subjected myself to the scrutiny of a polygraph examination within the confines of Spain’s most esteemed and professional institution. I responded to pertinent inquiries concerning the Gaztelueta affair, and the result, devoid of any shadow of doubt, stands irrefutable: I SPEAK THE TRUTH.
Now, I venture to pose a query: Are those individuals, who with fervent zeal have propelled and orchestrated this ordeal, reaping benefits from the chaos engendered, prepared to embrace the polygraph? A mere inquiry into their belief in my guilt shall suffice. This question extends equally to Monsignor Satué: Does he stand ready to face the polygraph and address the same inquiry? Should they choose evasion, it may well suggest concealments of their own. Yet, would it not be more honorable if they were to brave the polygraph? In doing so, ambiguity would dissolve, revealing the truth that some fabricate falsehoods while others display apathy towards justice.
It is imperative to elucidate that Monsignor Satué, not being acquainted with me on a personal level, hence bears no personal grievance against me. Nevertheless, his actions can only be rationalized by an unwavering commitment to execute directives, irrespective of the consequences. And the toll is grievous: the condemnation of an innocent and the infliction of suffering upon his kin. I am compelled to recount only the most egregious violations I have endured:
Firstly, I find myself subjected to a second adjudication for a transgression from which the Church has previously absolved me in an initial trial. This begs the question: Shall a third trial convene if the verdict of the second displeases certain factions?
Secondly, there is an endeavor to retroactively enforce penal statutes—laws enacted subsequent to the purported offences—violating a cornerstone principle of jurisprudence that not even the Holy See can disregard.
Thirdly, despite my incessant appeals, the adjudicator refuses to disclose the penalties that loom over me.
Fourthly, the current proceedings preclude the testimony of certain individuals whose declarations I have solicited, including ecclesiastics who adjudged me devoid of guilt in all charges during the first tribunal.
Fifthly, the judge has rejected numerous pieces of evidence my legal counsel has submitted.
Sixthly, the judge (Bishop Mons. Satué), through his preliminary written missive, insidiously suggested I confess guilt, contravening the foundational neutrality expected in the dispensation of justice.
Seventhly, Pope Francis has granted audience to one party whilst neglecting the other, in spite of my bi-fold written entreaties. One is led to surmise that an innocent verdict might dishearten the Holy Father.
I could prolong this account with further elaboration of the judicial farce unfolded, yet the above testimony is so manifest that any individual of sound reason would discern the absence of any intent to dispense justice. And, most lamentable of all… It increasingly dawns upon Mons. Satué, as well as the entire Spanish Episcopal Conference, that I have never perpetrated abuse upon anyone, and that the canonical procedure is a sham.