New legal opinions incorporated into lawsuits against the agreement signed between Félix Bolaños and Cardinal José Cobo on the future of the Valley of the Fallen question both the canonical validity of the pact and the legality of the government’s resignification project.
The reports, to which Religión Confidencial has had access, argue that the Cardinal Archbishop of Madrid lacked competence to sign agreements on behalf of the Abbey of the Holy Cross and also warn that any attempt to impose civil uses on the Basilica would violate the Concordat with the Holy See and Article 16 of the Spanish Constitution.
The opinions form part of the documentation submitted in the judicial actions opened against the agreement signed in March 2025 between the Minister of the Presidency and the Archbishop of Madrid, which allowed the launch of the international ideas competition for the resignification of the Valley of Cuelgamuros.
The Prior would be the only one legitimized to represent the abbey
According to the opinion, the abbey was erected directly by Pius XII through the Apostolic Letter Stat Crux of 1958 as a sui iuris abbey, that is, autonomous and exempt.
This status implies that it is not legally dependent on the Archbishop of Madrid, nor on the Spanish Episcopal Conference, nor even on the Vatican Secretariat of State, but solely on the Roman Pontiff and its own legitimate authorities.
The jurists argue that, in accordance with Canon Law, the only one legitimized to act legally on behalf of the abbey is the abbot or the administrative prior.
Therefore, the agreement signed between Bolaños and Cobo would lack canonical validity as it was subscribed to by an authority incompetent to represent the Benedictine community of the Valley.
The report also recalls that the administration of certain assets linked to the Foundation of the Holy Cross of the Valley of the Fallen was expressly entrusted to the Benedictine prior in the foundational agreements of 1958.
The Basilica can only have religious use
The second opinion focuses on another of the most controversial aspects of the governmental project: the intention to combine religious worship with a “civil and secular” use of the monumental complex, including the Basilica.
The jurists recall that the Basilica of the Holy Cross was canonically erected by Pius XII as an exclusive place of worship and that, since then, it enjoys concordatary protection under the Agreements between the Holy See and the Spanish State of 1979.
According to the report, those international agreements guarantee the inviolability of places of worship and the Church’s right to freely organize its religious activities, without distinguishing who holds civil ownership of the property.
Therefore, the experts consider that both the Democratic Memory Law and the new Cuelgamuros Foundation would conflict with the Concordat by attempting to introduce civil uses within a space protected canonically and legally as a Catholic temple.
The State cannot unilaterally alter the condition of the Basilica
The reports also emphasize that, in accordance with the Code of Canon Law, a sacred place can only lose its religious status through an express decision by the competent ecclesiastical authority.
This means that, even if the State modified or repealed civil norms related to the Valley, the Basilica would remain legally a Catholic temple as long as the Holy See did not formally decide to reduce it to profane uses.
For the jurists, the State cannot unilaterally alter that situation through domestic legislation, as the agreements with the Holy See have the rank of international treaty and are also protected by Article 96 of the Constitution.
The experts also argue that imposing a civil use on the Basilica would directly affect the fundamental right to freedom of religion recognized in Article 16 of the Spanish Constitution.
New arguments against the resignification of the Valley
The emergence of these opinions adds new legal elements to the growing battle over the future of the Valley of the Fallen.
The lawsuits presented and disseminated by Religión Confidencial now question substantive aspects related to the legal competence of the involved ecclesiastical authorities, the canonical autonomy of the Benedictine abbey, and the limits that the Concordat imposes on the State’s actions over places of worship.