|
 |
Chronology of the Facts
Two Decades of Vatican
Machinations
 Fr. Gruner's
difficulties with Vatican officials originated back in the late seventies, when
the late Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, then the Vatican's Secretary of State,
became the chief architect of the Church's "Ostpolitik," or Eastern policy.
This was an outgrowth of the notorious Vatican-Moscow Agreement, which sought
to moderate the treatment of Catholics within the communist bloc by
soft-pedaling the Church's opposition to communism. In common with many other
Catholics, Fr. Gruner found this approach morally repugnant, and he spoke out
strongly against it. Opposition to communism as a moral evil has always been a
fundamental part of the Fatima Crusade. As the chief proponent of accommodation
with Moscow, Cardinal Casaroli found Fr. Gruner's persistent criticism
troublesome, and looked for a way to silence him.
|
Cardinal Agostino Casaroli |
Lacking any official basis for moving against the "Fatima
Priest," Cardinal Casaroli chose an indirect course of action. Archbishop
Angelo Palmas, who had worked closely with Cardinal Casaroli on the elaboration
of "Ostpolitik," was by 1981 serving as ProNuncio to Ottawa. Acting on Cardinal
Casaroli's instructions, ProNuncio Palmas met with Cardinal Silvio Oddi, then
Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, to complain about Fr. Gruner. He
implied that Fr. Gruner was a renegade priest, and claimed that no Canadian
bishop would incardinate him. These unfounded allegations planted the seeds
that were to grow into today's threatened suspension by the Apostolic
Signatura.
Cardinal Oddi, however, was unreceptive to the ProNuncio's advice
at that time, and the Congregation took no action on the matter. The rest of
the decade of the eighties was to pass before Cardinal Casaroli's poisoned
seeds bore fruit. Meanwhile, the Fatima movement continued to grow, and Fr.
Gruner continued to campaign tirelessly for the Consecration of Russia
according to Our Lady of Fatima's instructions. He also continued to denounce
the Vatican-Moscow Agreement.
In 1989, a new
and more overt effort to silence Fr. Gruner began. The first move was a letter
from the new Bishop of Avellino, Gerardo Pierro. Bishop Pierro was the
successor to Bishop Pasquale Venezia, who ordained Fr. Gruner in 1976, and from
whom he had written permission to work outside the diocese. Now, Bishop Pierro
threatened to revoke that permission. Saying that he was responding to concerns
expressed by the Vatican Secretary of State, Bishop Pierro wrote to both Fr.
Gruner and the Bishop of St. Catharines, Ontario, the diocese where Fr. Gruner
resides. Fr. Gruner could be incardinated by Bishop Fulton, the letters
advised, but only on the condition that he abandon his Fatima apostolate.
Otherwise, the implied threat was that he must return to Avellino immediately.
The Vatican laid bare its real intentions:
be silent about Fatima, or else.
In making this
quid-pro-quo proposition via Bishops Pierro and Fulton, the office of the
Secretary of State laid bare its real intentions. It was not seeking simply to
arrange for Fr. Gruner's incardination in a Canadian diocese. That could easily
be accomplished without any other terms or conditions attached. Nor was the
objective to return Fr. Gruner to Avellino to serve some useful purpose there.
In the context of the offer, returning to Avellino was not presented as a
useful alternative at all; rather, it was a potential punishment for failing to
comply with the real objective, namely, that Fr. Gruner abandon the Fatima
apostolate. That, unmistakably, was the ultimate edict: be silent about Fatima,
or else.
In
the belief that the matter might best be resolved in a face-to-face meeting,
Fr. Gruner arranged to visit Bishop Pierro in Avellino two months later. He was
accompanied by Fr. Paul Kramer, an Italian-speaking associate. In their
interview, Bishop Pierro acknowledged Fr. Gruner's continuing permission to
work outside the diocese, which he later confirmed in writing. The bishop also
made an astonishing admission to the two priests. He told them that, if the
Vatican ordered him to suspend Fr. Gruner, he would do it, even though he
believed it would be a mortal sin! As events unfolded, Bishop Pierro was to be
spared this agonizing decision.
The long hand of Vatican officialdom
surfaces in Toronto.
A few months
later, the long hand of Vatican officialdom surfaced in a new location, the
archdiocese of Toronto. Monsignor Allan McCormack, then chancellor of the
archdiocese, sent an "advisory" memorandum to every priest saying that Fr.
Gruner's status as a priest was "irregular," and discouraging support of the
Fatima movement, headquartered in nearby Fort Erie. Stories in the Canadian and
American Catholic press based on the Monsignor's advice implied that Fr. Gruner
was a "vagus," or renegade priest—echoing ProNuncio Palmas' original and
utterly false allegation back in 1981. After being repeatedly frustrated in his
attempts to meet with Msgr. McCormack's superior, Toronto's Archbishop Aloysius
Ambrozic, Fr. Gruner took the only action left to him, and filed a civil libel
suit in Toronto, which is still pending.
Other forms of
overt and covert interference with the work of the Fatima apostolate soon
followed. When Fr. Gruner organized, at Fatima in the autumn of 1992, one of
the largest private conferences of Catholic bishops ever held, powerful Vatican
officials opposed the event in several ways. L'Osservatore Romano
published a prior announcement to the effect that the conference was not
officially authorized, even though such authorization is neither required nor
given for such events. Both the Bishop of Fatima and the Director of the Fatima
Shrine, with the obvious backing of certain Vatican officials, openly denounced
the conference. Fr. Gruner succeeded in mollifying these local prelates,
merging the Fatima event with a smaller conference they had organized, but this
peace was short-lived. At the Fatima Shrine a few days later, Fr. Gruner was
physically attacked by two men. One of the men was questioned immediately after
the incident, and admitted that he was employed by the Shrine's Rector,
Monsignor Luciano Guerra. Msgr. Guerra's only response to inquiries was to
suggest that the attack was staged by Fr. Gruner to obtain publicity.
On Vatican orders, a new Bishop of Avellino
blocks excardination.
Less than a year
later, in the summer of 1993, Fr. Gruner obtained an offer of incardination
from Bishop Gilbert Rego of the diocese of Simla and Chandigarh, India, whom he
had met at the Fatima conference. It now appeared that Fr. Gruner would achieve
incardination outside Avellino, as Bishop Pierro had repeatedly urged him to
do. But Bishop Pierro was no longer in Avellino. Accordingly, Fr. Gruner wrote
to his successor, Bishop Antonio Forte, requesting excardination from his
diocese, which is normally a simple formality.
Three months
later, he still had received no reply from Bishop Forte. Finally, a colleague,
Fr. Paul Trinchard, was able to visit the Bishop in Avellino. A brief
conversation there elicited a letter from the Bishop to Fr. Gruner, which was
delivered a few weeks later. Much to Fr. Gruner's surprise, this letter advised
that Bishop Forte declined to give a decision on the excardination. As
justification for this unusual action (or inaction) he cited a direct order
from Archbishop Crescenzio Sepe in the Vatican.
Like Archbishop Palmas, Archbishop Sepe also
worked closely on "Ostpolitik" with Cardinal Casaroli, and shares his distaste
for opponents of a soft line on communism. As of 1993, Archbishop Sepe was the
de facto head of the Congregation for the Clergy. His instructions to Bishop
Forte to withhold excardination were entirely outside his jurisdiction in that
office, and had no legal validity. Nevertheless, Bishop Forte followed his
instructions, and refused to act.
Early in 1994,
Fr. Gruner once more returned to Avellino, and met with Bishop Forte in an
attempt to resolve the matter. The bishop confirmed that Fr. Gruner remained a
priest in good standing at that point, and directed him to return to Canada. He
would be advised of further developments, he was told, by means of a letter.
Threats contrary to canon law, illicit
abuses ordered rather than prevented.
When the promised letter arrived three weeks later, it delivered a
profound shock. It contained a direct order from Bishop Forte to abandon the
Fatima apostolate and return to Avellino, or face suspension of priestly
faculties. Fr. Gruner describes himself as "scandalized" to find a bishop
writing such a letter, threatening action clearly contrary to canon law.
"To suspend a
priest," explains Fr. Gruner, "a crime must have been committed, it must become
the subject of a court case, and there must be a hearing. None of these things
has happened, yet they threaten to impose the penalty anyway. The letter treats
suspension as if it were simply a weapon in their hands, which they can use
whenever they like, without any justification in canon law." Fr. Gruner
responded to Bishop Forte with a detailed defense of his position, which he
carefully prepared in consultation with several canon lawyers. When 30 days
elapsed without a reply from Bishop Forte, Fr. Gruner was obliged to file a
formal appeal against the order, as required by canon law. Filing this appeal
suspends the effect of the bishop's order until the appeal is processed,
allowing Fr. Gruner to continue the work of his apostolate.
Unfortunately, Vatican interference with that work also continued. When a new
Fatima conference of bishops was organized for the autumn of 1994 in Mexico, it
quickly came under bureaucratic attack. This time, the action came directly
from the Vatican Secretary of State, via the network of Nuncios in capitals
around the world. The Nuncios sent letters to all Catholic bishops, advising
that the Fatima conference was not approved by the Vatican, and discouraging
attendance. The effect of this letter on attendance was substantial, but it
angered some of those who were not intimidated.
Meanwhile,
Archbishop Sepe was continuing to abuse his authority in the Vatican by
blocking a second offer of incardination made to Fr. Gruner. In a letter
delivered in May of 1994, Bishop Manoel Pestana of Anapolis, Brazil, officially
offered to incardinate him in that diocese, effective July 16. However, three
days before this could take effect, Fr. Gruner received another letter from
Bishop Pestana. In it, the bishop advised that he was withdrawing his
incardination offer. Bishop Pestana explained he did this as a result of the
intervention of Archbishop Sepe of the Congregation for the Clergy.
Official abuses denounced, but the Holy
Father ignores an appeal.
In an effort to
bring the machinations of these officials to the attention of the Holy Father,
an open letter to the Pope was published in the summer of 1995 in Rome's
largest daily newspaper, Il Messaggero. It appealed to the Pope,
well-known to be a Fatima believer, to put an end to this bureaucratic
interference and injustice. It also invited His Holiness to attend a third
Fatima conference, which was to be held in Rome itself some time in 1996. The
letter aroused considerable comment in the Italian media, but the Vatican made
no official comment.
Towards the end of 1995, Fr. Gruner received a
third offer of incardination, and this time, the Vatican seemed powerless to
block it. On November 4, 1995, an official decree of incardination was received
by Fr. Gruner from Archbishop Saminini Arulappa of Hyderabad, India. No
additional document of excardination from the current Bishop of Avellino was
required, since a letter from the previous bishop in 1989 had already given
assent to Fr. Gruner's accepting incardination elsewhere. Under canon law, Fr.
Gruner was now incardinated in Hyderabad, not Avellino, and he had his bishop's
express permission to continue his Fatima apostolate as before, based in Fort
Erie, Ontario.
Meanwhile,
Archbishop Sepe turned his attention to attempting to sabotage the planned
Fatima conference in Rome. In January of 1996, he issued a letter to all
bishops from the Congregation for the Clergy in which he described Fr. Gruner's
activities as "harmful," called his defense of his Fatima apostolate "a
regrettable situation," and urged bishops not to "make matters worse" by
attending the conference.
Incardination Challenged on Fabricated
Grounds.
The Congregation
for the Clergy also moved promptly to challenge Fr. Gruner's new incardination,
claiming that the current Bishop of Avellino had revoked the previous bishop's
assent to excardination. No document supporting this claim exists. To justify
its position, the Congregation offered the twisted argument that the new Bishop
of Avellino intended to revoke Fr. Gruner's excardination in a letter he had
written in 1994, even though the letter in question makes no mention of this
subject. To believe the Congregation's claim, it is also necessary to believe
that Bishop Forte of Avellino does not know what he intends until he is told
after the fact what the Congregation wishes him to intend! Based on this
fabricated argument, the Congregation issued a ruling to the effect that Fr.
Gruner's incardination in Hyderabad was "tamquam non existans," meaning that
its status is as if it did not exist. Fr. Gruner has, of course, appealed this
ruling, and until the appeal is settled, he remains officially incardinated in
Hyderabad.
In the autumn of 1996, Fr. Gruner's Vatican opponents made a second
move to pre-empt the planned Fatima conference in Rome. This time, a letter to
all Catholic bishops was issued from the offices of the highly influential
Congregation for Bishops, urging them not to attend an "absolutely
unauthorized" event. The letter was signed by Cardinal Bernardin Gantin, who is
now a member of the Signatura panel judging Fr. Gruner's case.
The outcome of
these increasingly complicated machinations is still in doubt. Numerous
irregularities in the way Vatican officials have proceeded against Fr. Gruner
have created substantial grounds for appeal to the supreme court of the Church,
the Apostolic Signatura. Unfortunately, all indications are that the Vatican's
system of justice is as flawed at this highest level as it is at lower levels.
Return to
Table of Contents
|
|
 Printer friendly
|
|