Apparently, someone informed you that Father Gruner is under some sort of penalty imposed
upon him by “the Vatican.” That is simply not the case. This appears to be a reference to
outdated canonical proceedings engineered by the same Vatican Secretary of State,
Cardinal Sodano, who covered up the scandal of Father Maciel for decades until he was
overruled and then removed from office by Pope Benedict.
In order to silence Father Gruner’s Fatima apostolate in the 1990s, Sodano attempted to
force Father's return to the Diocese of Avelino, where he was ordained in the 1970s, by
having the Bishop of Avellino demand that Father be incardinated in another diocese by a
bishop friendly to his work or else return to Avellino after his long and fully approved
residence in Canada to conduct the apostolate. (Any return to Italy would have been
precluded by Italian immigration law, in any event.)
Sodano then tried to prevent Father Gruner's incardination in any other diocese, so that the
Bishop of Avvelino could then “suspend” him for “disobedience” to the very command
Sodano was preventing Father from obeying. But Sodano’s plan failed when the
Archbishop of Hyderabad incardinated Father Gruner in 1995 with a decree
protesting that “evil forces [i.e. Sodano] cannot destroy your work of love,” and the
Archbishop later affirmed his decree despite Vatican pressure to rescind it. Copies of these
docuмents have been published to the world by Father Gruner.
The canonical proceedings to which the Archdiocese of Milan seems to be referring, which
related entirely to Father Gruner’s non-existent “failure” to be incardinated by another
bishop, were rendered moot by the incardination in Hyderabad. The Vatican itself has
never imposed any penalty of any kind on Father Gruner, but rather the proceedings
point only to the Bishop of Avellino’s order (instigated by Sodano) that Father Gruner
be incardinated elsewhere, which order Father Gruner obeyed despite Sodano’s attempt to
prevent him from obeying it. The Bishop of Avellino was advised of the new incardination
and 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 as
a whole, became moot when Father Gruner was incardinated in Hyderabad).
I know these things because I am intimately familiar with the acts of the canonical
proceedings and have written numerous docuмents which are part of those proceedings
and can be found in the Vatican archives.
The question you should address to the Archdiocese of Milan is simply this: “What offense
is Father Gruner said to have committed?” You will find that the answer is none at all. The
entire “case” of Father Gruner reduces to Cardinal Sodano's attempt to prevent him from
being incardinated so that he could be “suspended” for not being incardinated. The
attempt failed, Father Gruner is incardinated, and today he is under no suspension or
penalty of any kind.