Extraordinary abuse of judicial power in Rome

There is already talk of a new legal outrage by the Vatican in the 'Gaztelueta case'. As we have been reporting in this medium since the beginning of the case, the strange events continue to happen and impact this matter.

José María Martínez, a numerary of Opus Dei and former teacher at Gaztelueta, has once again written an entry in his blog in which he relates an unusual fact: The Vatican Tribunal has dismissed his lawyers without further explanation. (Cathcon:!!!!!!!)

He also reports that the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura has not accepted any of his four petitions in which he asked, among other things, that the Bishop of Teruel be removed from the case because of his impartiality and that the previous investigation be handed over to him.

In his letter, the former Gaztelueta professor points directly to Cardinal Omella, President of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, whom José María says "has demonstrated his partiality in the case".

For its interest, we reproduce the full text of José María Martínez's letter:

"I have just read a communication from the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura - Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice of the Church - which states that, although my lawyers were recognised by the judge, they are no longer recognised. Nor are the four petitions I presented accepted: recusal of the judge in this case, revocation of the decree of the Apostolic See, request for the Apostolic See's inhibition in these proceedings and that the preliminary investigation be handed over to us. This communication comes late and badly.

It arrives late because a journalist had already contacted me to comment on it, and it seems that everything that happens in Rome lacks discretion, everything is known before it reaches the interested party. It has arrived badly because the communication that my lawyers have received is addressed to the "Praelaturae Sanctae Crucis et Operis Dei" (Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei), which is neither a cause nor a party in these proceedings. It has not reached me directly. Surprising.

The response causes me both perplexity and uneasiness. Even more uneasy when I learn that it has been drawn up by a section of the Apostolic Signatura of which His Excellency the Most Rev. Juan José Omella, Cardinal Archbishop of Barcelona, who has demonstrated his partiality in the case. I know, and several media have highlighted it over the years, that since 2015 he has listened to and protected the prosecution, the Cuatrecasas family. I cannot understand that I am part of this nonsense, of this procedure in which the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law has been annulled. I have been deprived of a right that is not even denied to a war criminal.

What is more serious, this sacred principle has been annulled "ad casum", specifically and only in my case. I do not believe that there is any lawyer or court in Spain or in Europe that would dare to defend this outrage as just.

I have several doubts. Perhaps the Apostolic Signatura can clarify them for me. I suppose that, if this procedure is being applied to me, it is because it is going to be applied, retroactively as well, to all lay Catholics, living and dead, who have been accused of similar acts. Is this procedure going to be applied to all of them? Or is it only being applied to me "ad casum", for some reason that escapes me?

I do not understand that the communication, called a decree, is not signed by three judges as it should be. In civilised countries judges, or those who make a decision on people's rights, sign their rulings, they do not hide behind the mere mention of their office.

I do not understand the Tribunal's assertion that the Roman Pontiff cannot be recused - something my lawyers were not asking for: they were asking for his inhibition, for him to be removed from the case - because "he enjoys ordinary, supreme, full, immediate and universal power over the Church, which he exercises freely". And exercising it freely does not mean exercising it against canon law or natural law, against the laws it has given itself, applying them retroactively, putting itself above those norms. The power may be supreme, but it is not absolute. We are all subject to the law.

I do not understand how you can twist reality so much to deny that the delegate in charge of judging the case lost his impartiality when he wrote me the following words in a letter: "As a brother in the faith, I respectfully recommend that if, for whatever reason, you have defended your innocence in an uncertain manner, you should consider this procedure as an opportunity to recognise the truth and ask forgiveness from Mr. Juan... and his family". I do not know how His Excellency José Antonio Satué, Bishop of Teruel-Albarracín, delegate of the cause, could come to that conclusion.

I do not understand how I can know if there are new elements that justify reopening a process that has already been closed, if I do not know the content of the previous investigation, which I am not allowed to see.

I do not understand how I can find out whether there are new elements that justify reopening a case that has already been closed, if I do not know the content of the previous investigation, which I am not allowed to see.

I do not understand how, in the first instance, my lawyers are accepted, but then dismissed.

I do not understand the disproportionate determination of the Cardinal Archbishop of Barcelona and perhaps of others to try a lay person - one in particular - through canonical channels, which are reserved for priests and religious, for a crime which, however execrable it may be, has already been tried and closed in Spain.

I am faced with an unregulated process, in which defence is impossible because a procedure has been established so that, in fact, it is not: my lawyers - who have been practising for many years - are challenged and declared incompetent to defend me after I have accepted them; a court-appointed lawyer is imposed on me since, in fact, I will have no choice but to accept the one they want; they keep quiet when they are told that they are applying a criminal law retroactively, which is completely contrary to all punitive law. Sadly, everything is disguised as legality but it is authoritarianism and imposition.

This impression of illegality and cruelty is not only mine; it has been expressed to me, with greater or lesser indignation, by many people in the field of law and culture, as well as by people with simple common sense, believers and non-believers. All this leads me to think that any jurist would be saddened and disconcerted to learn of its lack of rigour and independence.

Let no one doubt it. I will continue to fight because I am innocent, because I am being judged in an unjust and very painful way, because it is worth it, because I do not want to be trampled underfoot by abusing their position. For all these reasons, we will respond to the Signatura's document, and we will go to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary, because that is what we are talking about here: the most elementary rights of any person."

Source