is Honour, Pete Vere, JCL, presiding…
For some Catholics, there are three things in life
that seem inevitable: death, taxes, and fundraising letters
from Fr. Nicholas detailing the latest alleged "conspiracy"
that is attempting to silence him. Thus Fr. Gruner's
latest missive, dated the Feast of the Holy Innocents, is no
different from the usual fare.
Many Wanderer readers will recall that not
too many years ago, the Apostolic Signatura upheld Fr.
Nicholas Gruner's suspension from his priestly faculties. The
Signatura is the Church's highest court of appeal, short of
the Holy Father himself. News of this suspension was
made public in an official press release, which in part stated:
The Congregation for the Clergy, upon the mandate
from a higher authority, wishes to state that Rev. Nicholas
Gruner is under an a divinis suspension, which has
been confirmed by a definitive sentence of the Supreme
Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.
In response to this suspension from a competent
Church authority, Fr. Gruner offers us the following
official statement:
The law of God and Canon Law itself states
clearly (see Canons 221, 1321 and 1323) that no priest
in the Catholic Church can be suspended a divinis,
or penalized with any other ecclesiastical penalty, if that
priest has not committed a crime or transgression of Church
law or precept. Since no such crime or transgression
has ever been committed by or attributed to Father Gruner,
it is absolutely clear and certain that he is not suspended
from the priesthood. Anyone, of any rank whatsoever,
who says he is suspended is either ignorant of the facts,
misled or outright malicious.
Now Fr. Gruner claims that he has committed no
crime or transgression, despite the fact the Church says
differently. Fr. Gruner also claims that anyone who
appears to contradict him is either ignorant of the facts,
misled or outright malicious. Given the fact that
Fr. Gruner's suspension was upheld by a sentence of the
Apostolic Signatura, this is simply amazing. Since
all sentences rendered by a competent Church tribunal
contain a section clearly laying out the facts, Fr. Gruner
should perhaps either read or re-read the facts section
of the Signatura's sentence before putting forward such
claims.
As for the canons cited by Fr. Gruner, Canon
1321 basically provides that no one can be punished
unless he has actually committed some offense with malice
or culpability. To refresh our memories, Fr.
Gruner was ordered by his legitimate ecclesiastical
superior to return to the diocese of his incardination. Keep
in mind that he made a solemn promise or vow to serve this
diocese when he was ordained. He was also warned that
failure to return to his diocese of incardination would
result in his suspension a divinis.
He did not undertake the action required of him,
and subsequently his competent ecclesiastical superior
followed through with the threatened suspension. Additionally,
paragraph three of this same canon states:
Where there has been an external violation,
imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise.
Some argue that Fr. Gruner's imputability appears
otherwise, however, it obviously did not appear to be such
in the judgement of the Apostolic Signatura. As
Catholics, we should charitably presume that the Signatura
knew all the facts when adjudicating Fr. Gruner's case, and
that these facts are aptly summarized in the Signatura's
judicial sentence.
Additionally, Fr. Gruner mentions canon 1323. This
canon lists a number of exempting causes from canonical
penalties. In the experience of the present authors, one
of the exempting causes that Fr. Gruner's supporters have cited
in past is the one concerning "reason of necessity or grave
inconvenience." Nevertheless, this canon also specifies that
neither applies if "the act is intrinsically evil or tends
to be harmful to souls." Given that Christ instituted the
Church as a hierarchy, is not disobedience to the lawful command
of one's ecclesiastical superior harmful to souls?
Or is Fr. Gruner somehow exempt from the vow or
promise of obedience he took at ordination? In
essence, Fr. Gruner's disobedience to legitimate Church
authority seems rather jarring when one considers the
example of those who played a key role in the Fatima
apparition. From Holy Scripture, we know that the
Blessed Virgin said "fiat" when approached by the
Archangel Gabriel and asked to bear God the Son in her
most blessed womb. As for Sister Lucia, the last
living seer to receive Our Lady's message at Fatima, she
has lived her life as a holy example of faithful submission
and obedience to legitimate Church authority. As
an aside, perhaps the lidless eyes among some of Fr.
Gruner's followers could explain how the obedience shown
by Sister Lucia toward her hierarchical superiors in any
way differs from that which these same folks denigrate
as "neo-Catholic"?
Thirdly, Fr. Gruner refers to canon 221. In
the past, some of his defenders have referred to paragraph
three of this canon, which states:
Christ's faithful have the right that no canonical
penalties be inflicted upon them except in accordance with the law.
Yet Pope John Paul II has entrusted the Apostolic
Signatura, and not Fr. Gruner and his supporters, with the
competency to adjudicate this matter on behalf of the
Church. Therefore, the penalty inflicted upon Fr.
Gruner has been upheld in complete accordance with both
the letter and the spirit of canon 221.
Having addressed these canonical issues, let us
now take a moment and consider how a faithful son of the
Church might act when a superior imposes a penalty. While
few rejoice in having a censure imposed upon them, how one
deals with the censure should be consistent with our Catholic
tradition of obedience. Unfortunately, Fr. Gruner's
method of dealing with his censure appears to have more in
common with the ways of Hans Kung, Charles Curran, and
Leonard Boff. In each of these cases, any action taken
by the Holy See was followed by public wrangling and/or
disputing in a manner that often appeared to accuse the
Holy See of acting in bad faith. How then does a
Catholic informed by the Tradition act? Here is one
example:
St. Gerard lived between 1727 and 1755. He
entered the Redemptorist community in 1748 as a lay-brother
and gave his profession four years later to St. Alphonsus
Ligouri - the founder of the community. He became
known for great holiness and charity and he also demonstrated
the gifts of prophecy. He was sought after as a
spiritual advisor, although he was not a priest. However,
when a woman he had helped to enter a convent failed in
her profession, she lashed out at St. Gerard and falsely
accused him of fornication and lechery. Gerard made
no answer to the charges, and was all but expelled from
the community as a result. The woman later recanted
upon her death-bed.
Upon learning of this, St. Alphonsus asked St.
Gerard why he had remained silent. St. Gerard replied
that he believed this is what was required of him in the
face of unjust accusations. He cited for his model
Our Lord who was silent upon Pilate's inquiry as to the
charges against Him. He also cited the rule of the
Redemptorists, which he believed stated that one was not
to defend oneself from the charges of their superior. He
died shortly after being cleared of all charges.
Fr. Gruner does not appear cut from the same
cloth as St. Gerard. Nor does he seem to have been
cut from the same cloth as Sister Lucia of Fatima, whom
as we previously mentioned, has lived her life as a
holy example of faithful submission and obedience to
legitimate Church authority.
So, yes Virginia, the Catholic Church has
suspended Fr. Nicholas from his priestly faculties. And
in following the Fatima message one must choose between Fr.
Gruner's example of disobedience to legitimate ecclesiastical
authority, or Sister Lucy's heroic example of obedience to
the Church during a difficult time in Church
history. Personally, Sister Lucy's example seems much
more convincing and in keeping with the authentic Fatima
message, as she was one of the three children chosen by
the Blessed Mother of Christ to receive this important
private revelation.
Shawn McElhinney & Pete Vere, JCL
April 12, 2003
Originally published in March 6, 2003 edition of
The Wanderer.
