Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Apparently, someone informed you that Father Gruner is under some sort of penalty imposedupon him by “the Vatican.” That is simply not the case. This appears to be a reference tooutdated canonical proceedings engineered by the same Vatican Secretary of State,Cardinal Sodano, who covered up the scandal of Father Maciel for decades until he wasoverruled and then removed from office by Pope Benedict.In order to silence Father Gruner’s Fatima apostolate in the 1990s, Sodano attempted toforce Father's return to the Diocese of Avelino, where he was ordained in the 1970s, byhaving the Bishop of Avellino demand that Father be incardinated in another diocese by abishop friendly to his work or else return to Avellino after his long and fully approvedresidence in Canada to conduct the apostolate. (Any return to Italy would have beenprecluded by Italian immigration law, in any event.)Sodano then tried to prevent Father Gruner's incardination in any other diocese, so that theBishop of Avvelino could then “suspend” him for “disobedience” to the very commandSodano was preventing Father from obeying. But Sodano’s plan failed when theArchbishop of Hyderabad incardinated Father Gruner in 1995 with a decreeprotesting that “evil forces [i.e. Sodano] cannot destroy your work of love,” and theArchbishop later affirmed his decree despite Vatican pressure to rescind it. Copies of thesedocuмents have been published to the world by Father Gruner.The canonical proceedings to which the Archdiocese of Milan seems to be referring, whichrelated entirely to Father Gruner’s non-existent “failure” to be incardinated by anotherbishop, were rendered moot by the incardination in Hyderabad. The Vatican itself hasnever imposed any penalty of any kind on Father Gruner, but rather the proceedingspoint only to the Bishop of Avellino’s order (instigated by Sodano) that Father Grunerbe incardinated elsewhere, which order Father Gruner obeyed despite Sodano’s attempt toprevent him from obeying it. The Bishop of Avellino was advised of the new incardinationand thereafter never took any action against Father Gruner. Nor did he ever “suspend”Father (having merely threatened to do so in a letter that, like the canonical proceedings asa whole, became moot when Father Gruner was incardinated in Hyderabad).I know these things because I am intimately familiar with the acts of the canonicalproceedings and have written numerous docuмents which are part of those proceedingsand can be found in the Vatican archives.The question you should address to the Archdiocese of Milan is simply this: “What offenseis Father Gruner said to have committed?” You will find that the answer is none at all. Theentire “case” of Father Gruner reduces to Cardinal Sodano's attempt to prevent him frombeing incardinated so that he could be “suspended” for not being incardinated. Theattempt failed, Father Gruner is incardinated, and today he is under no suspension orpenalty of any kind.