The president of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, Luis Argüello, addressed this Sunday, May 3, in an extensive interview in ABC the upcoming visit of Pope Leo XIV to Spain, but it is in his responses about the Valley of the Fallen where the most relevant—and most problematic—elements of his approach are concentrated.
A de facto conditioned negotiation
Although Argüello denies that the Government has imposed explicit conditions, he does acknowledge sustained indirect pressure: “No, I have to be honest and say that this issue has never been put forward as a condition. But it is evident that, for some and others, the context of the Pope’s visit is present.” Even more so, he admits that the Executive has repeatedly taken these matters to Rome: “They have wanted to involve the Holy See, to force what they could tell us.”
This acknowledgment confirms that the issue of the Valley is not being resolved in a strictly national framework, but in a scenario in which the Holy See has been used as an indirect interlocutor to influence the position of the Spanish bishops.
The Valley: ambiguous formulations and implicit concessions
The core of the episcopal position is summarized in a phrase that Argüello himself presents as a common criterion: “We want the abbey to continue, for the basilica to remain a basilica, and for there to be independent access to that of the new building that is to be constructed.”
The statement, however, raises more questions than it resolves. Independent access to what? To a different space within the same complex? To a separate route for non-liturgical uses? The issue is not minor, because it de facto introduces the possibility of segmenting the precinct.
Argüello himself acknowledges that the current project does not even meet that minimum: “The current winning project respects the first two points and not the independent access.” That is, the only element that would mark a clear boundary between uses—if that was the intention—is not even guaranteed in the ongoing proposal.
In this context, the insistence that “the basilica remain a basilica” remains a more declarative than operational formulation. The architecture of the Valley is not modular or easily divisible. Introducing differentiated accesses implies accepting a functional duality that, in practice, can lead to a division of the space or a reinterpretation of the whole as a mixed place: partially liturgical, partially musealized or resignified.
Argüello also admits pressure from other actors: “There are other people […] who want no trace of Christian presence to remain, while others pretend that nothing should be touched.” The episcopal response is an intermediate path that seeks to preserve some elements—the cross, the monastic community—but that, at the same time, seems to assume the framework of intervention proposed by the Government.
Reconciliation as argument and limit
The archbishop appeals to the symbolic dimension of the Valley: “The sign of the cross and the sign of a monastic community […] is a sign that today remains fully valid.” And he adds that an eventual agreement could be “the occasion for a reconciling encounter.”
However, he introduces a significant statement: “In the Spain called of the Transition, this effort of reconciliation […] had been largely achieved.” The nuance is clear: that previous consensus is taken as eroded, and the current negotiation does not necessarily restore it, but may be contributing to redefining it in other terms.
Other fronts: political pressure and public discourse
On the political level, Argüello denounces a double standard regarding the Church’s intervention: “When we talk about certain matters they tell us we must be silent and when we talk about others they put a megaphone to us.” Even so, he delimits the role of the bishops to general principles, avoiding entering into concrete decisions, a line that in practice is difficult to sustain on issues like immigration or historical memory.
On this last point, also linked to the Pope’s visit to the Canary Islands, he insists on the need for broad agreements: “An issue that no state can solve in isolation.” But he acknowledges the existing political tensions, including direct accusations against the Church for its social action.
Overall, the interview leaves a precise conclusion: in the case of the Valley of the Fallen, the Episcopal Conference does not pose a frontal opposition, but a negotiation that accepts substantial elements of the governmental approach. The problem is that the key terms—like that “independent access”—are not clearly defined and may imply, in practice, a profound transformation of the original meaning of the whole without it being openly explained.