Last Saturday at breakfast I was pleasantly surprised to find several references to me in elDiario.es. I am convinced that your readers will be interested in hearing the other bell, and forming their own opinion about the dispute between the author of the book “Opus” and those of us who defend Luis Valls Taberner and the foundations he created. “From the clash of ideas comes light”, say the French, and this can be an example of civilized discussion.
I start with what I agree with the author: my name is Yago de la Cierva and I am from Opus Dei. I don’t send anything there, but I have been with conviction, for many years, and I think not only my relatives, colleagues and friends know it, but also the media. When I directed World Youth Day in 2011 at the request of the archdiocese of Madrid, I had about 80 meetings with journalists, and I think that at the end they asked me not to insist on it anymore. There is little news here, but it is true.
I also agree with you that I am dedicated to the communication of companies and organizations. I would like them to call me in times of peace, but it is more common to do so when they go through reputational crisis situations like this: what to do when faced with false accusations. Consultants are called companies, but also non-profit organizations, which often do not have professionals in their communication departments.
The author of the article (whom I do not consider an “enemy”, but rather an opponent in an open debate) quotes several phrases of mine, with which I totally agree, perhaps because they are mine: the importance of transparency, the need to assume own responsibilities, etc. Totally true: I said it, I stand by it and I will continue to recommend it to whoever wants to listen to me.
It is also true that the foundations that Luis Valls Taberner created when he was president of Banco Popular have hired me to advise them on how to respond to the serious accusations contained in a book and repeated in a roadshow by the Spanish media that wanted to listen to him. There is not much news here either, because when speaking to journalists I introduce myself saying: I am the spokesperson for the foundations that Luis Valls created. One hundred percent true.
From this point, our paths diverge. The initiative has always been taken by the other party. The author knocked on the doors of the foundations to ask for information about Luis Valls because “he found him a fascinating person” and wanted to write a biography. He was given all the information he requested (which was already published) in the order he wanted. Then he disappeared… and we found out about him because of his offensive posts on
We got the text of the book thanks to eBay, because they didn’t want to share it. I understood it after reading it. What is less understandable is that he says out there that he had delivered it, because it is false. In the context of the controversy, it is just a little lie from a six-year-old boy caught with chocolate chips on his cheeks who says that he was not the one who ate the chocolates, but… Why lie about such a small thing? Maybe it’s a sign of what was coming next.
The author says: “the book is extremely respectful of Luis Valls-Taberner, who is described as a devout and kind Catholic.” That is why I dare to ask readers: is it respectful to say of a banker that he has manipulated the bank he ran for his own interests, diverting “billions of millions” (sic) towards Opus Dei, in money laundering operations and of illegal transfers to the whole world?
I do not doubt that the author views Luis Valls with sympathy. But it accuses him of hundreds of extremely serious crimes, and probably of the most reprehensible behavior that can be attributed to a banker: stealing from his shareholders, involving the bank’s directors in countless illegal behaviors, betraying the trust of his employees and his clients, deceive the Bank of Spain and the governments in power…
They are accusations that denigrate a person, without providing a single piece of information about what they say. What’s more, silencing the testimonies of everyone who has conveyed a favorable opinion to Luis Valls. 500 pages of attacks, none of defense. It’s like writing the history of Betis asking only Sevilla fans.
Worse still: he spoke with some Betics, but deleted their testimonies because they did not corroborate his prejudices. The author could use himself as an example of that bad journalism that is portrayed in the phrase, “don’t let the facts ruin a good story.”
To give one example out of a thousand: during the last fifty years, foundations received an average of 11 million euros annually, from amounts that came from the waiver of their fees by the directors. It seems that it seems little, because the author speaks of “one hundred million a year.” Adding a zero is not serious, but incomprehensible in a financial journalist.
In communication we know that there is nothing better than presenting yourself as a victim to capture benevolence. That is why he says that I am at “the center of a disinformation campaign so that the media’s attention does not fall on the serious accusations contained in my book.” Wow, you missed it: the book does contain serious accusations. Furthermore, a review of the newspaper archive shows that the foundations began to speak after the author spoke to different Spanish media. After, not before.
The author mentions that my “accomplices” have been the ABCCope, The Debate and New Lifebecause they have echoed my response to the book. Leaving aside that I would never dare to say that their accomplices are the Planeta publishing house and the newspaper The CountryDoes it make sense to accuse an organization because it defends itself? Does he alone have the right to speak? Because he’s English and I’m not?
The reason why the foundations have come out in defense of Luis Valls – who died in 2006 – is to give a voice to the thousands of managers and employees who worked with him, the hundreds of journalists who knew him, the numerous banking colleagues and the regulators who treated him, the thousands of people who benefited from the philanthropic actions he promoted, the politicians – starting with the Communist Party – and the trade unionists who appreciated him… Many have called us to thank us for the gesture of going out and defending who they consider an admirable guy. Not a “devout and kind Christian” (but a criminal), but a thorough banker, a generous philanthropist ahead of his time, and an excellent person.
For the moment we are not going to go to court: it is slow, expensive, and usually ineffective in defending a good reputation. In addition, it would force us to divert funds from social causes to pay lawyers. For this reason, since there is freedom of expression in this country (although the author feels bad), we prefer to clarify things for anyone who, in good faith, has repeated their accusations in bad faith.
Anyone who wants to know the real Luis Valls Taberner without wooden glasses can go to his website, www.luisvallstaberner.es, where you will find what those who knew him think of him. And I am very grateful to elDiario.es for the good journalistic work of those who offer the two versions in a controversy, so that the reader can decide.
I leave a lot out because their fiercest criticism is directed at Opus Dei, but… Opus has not appointed me as its spokesperson, and I will not say anything on its behalf. Whoever wants to know what the Work has responded to will find it at www.opusdei.es. But I recognize that the author’s quote that appears as the title of his article, “for years it has been taboo to criticize Opus Dei in Spain,” has caused me to laugh out loud.
#Reply #Yago #Cierva #column #years #taboo #criticize #Opus #Dei #Spain #time
