TO HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
in the cause of
FATHER NICHOLAS GRUNER, S.T.L., S.T.D.,
CARDINAL DARIO CASTRILLÓN HOYOS
under cann. 1389, 1390, 1391, 1401, 1405 and 1406 of the
1983 Code of Canon Law
|His Holiness John Paul II
|December 20, 2000
Together with this letter is
my formal Canonical Complaint against Cardinal CASTRILLÓN HOYOS. This
brings to three the total number of complaints I have personally filed with
Your Holiness in due legal form and according to the norms of the 1983 Code of
Canon Law which Your Holiness himself promulgated. (The first complaint, dated
September 29, 1996, was handed to Your Holiness personally at your general
audience of November 20, 1996. The second complaint, dated November 22, 1999,
was sent to Your Holiness by registered mail from the Vatican Post Office on
December 3, 1999.)
Your Holiness has bound
himself to hear these canonical complaints under canons 1405, 1406 and 1506 of
the Code, which provide that you are the exclusive judge of penal cases against
Cardinals and Bishops, and that (under canon 1506) Your Holiness is deemed to
have admitted the 1996 and the 1999 complaints for adjudication by the Supreme
Pontiff, given that, under canon 1506,Your Holiness was duly reminded of his
obligation to decide the complaints and the required time has elapsed since the
formal reminder was sent to you. Thus, Your Holiness is bound before God and
man to render a decision.
Holy Father, your continued
failure to do anything goes against of the law you have promulgated. You leave
yourself open to the appearance of having two weights and two measures, given
that you proclaim the obligation of secular tribunals to do justice and respect
the dignity of the human person, yet do nothing in a matter involving human
rights, and infinitely more important, divine imperatives regarding the Message
of Fatima, even though the law you promulgated reserves this matter exclusively
to your decision.
I have now waited more than
four years for even a simple acknowledgment that my case is before you and is
being considered. Yet under canon 1506 you have bound yourself to hear
my claims in the first two complaints. Furthermore, justice requires that you
hear the third complaint, together with the first two, even before it is deemed
accepted under canon 1506 (as were the prior two complaints).
Regarding this present
complaint, I note in particular that since Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has
committed ecclesiastical crimes (including attempted extortion by means of a
baseless threat of excommunication, and falsely accusing me of forging
Secretariat of State documents), you are bound to hear this case by Canon 1452
' 1, since the Cardinal is your direct and immediate subject and since under
the Code of Canon Law, accusations of ecclesiastical crimes cannot be ignored.
They must be heard. By the same token, you are also bound to hear the criminal
charges in the complaints of November 1996 and November 1999, which are lodged
against Cardinal Innocenti, Cardinal Sanchez, Cardinal Agustoni, Archbishop
Sepe, Archbishop Grochelewski, and Bishop Forte.
Your Holiness, if you do not
acknowledge this request to me directly, either in person or by letter, I will
presume in charity that you are not being allowed to receive the letters I have
sent you regarding the adjudication of my complaints. In that case, I shall
have no alternative but to give permission to publish my correspondence and the
canonical complaints in certain journals to which I have consigned copies of
these documents. I trust I shall hear from Your Holiness within the next thirty
days, after which I shall presume that publication is the only remaining
Meanwhile, I will endeavor to
send this final letter via various channels in the hope that it might
reach Your Holiness within the next thirty days. Since I am under tremendous
pressure from the most recent illicit interventions against me and my
apostolate, I will not be able to wait any longer than thirty days before
making a public response to the public attacks against us. I am obliged in
conscience to do everything in my power to continue preaching the Message of
Fatima, for I am convinced that this world cannot long avoid the catastrophic
chastisement Our Lady of Fatima warned would be the ultimate consequence for
failing to heed Her requests.
yours in Jesus, Mary and Joseph
TO HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
in the cause of
FATHER NICHOLAS GRUNER, S.T.L., S.T.D.,
CARDINAL DARIO CASTRILLÓN HOYOS
Città Leonina I, 00193 Roma, Italy
under cann. 1389, 1390, 1391, 1401, 1405 and 1406 of the 1983 Code of
Most Holy Father:
This document serves as my
formal complaint and request for penal sanctions against CARDINAL DARIO
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS (hereafter the Respondent).
According to the 1983 Code of
Canon law promulgated by Your Holiness, the Supreme Pontiff alone hears
complaints of abuse of authority and other violations of ecclesiastical law
against Cardinals, legates of the Holy See and (in penal cases) bishops. Can.
1405, § 1, 2º, 3º. The incompetence of any other tribunal to
hear such complaints is absolute. Can. 1406, § 1. Thus, under the law
promulgated by Your Holiness himself, only Your Holiness can consider this
This complaint consists of
five parts: (1) a general factual background; (2) a specification of the
particular wrongs committed by the Respondent; (3) a discussion of
Respondents improper motives, as revealed in his own written statements;
(4) a summary and conclusion; and (5) a prayer for relief.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The prior canonical complaints regarding the attempted destruction
of my apostolate.
This complaint comes to Your
Holiness against a background of systematic abuse of authority by former
Prefects and Secretaries of the Congregation for the Clergy and the Apostolic
Signatura. The parties involved in this abuse of authority and the many details
of their misconduct are set forth in combined recourses and canonical
complaints received by Your Holiness in November 1996 and December 1999.
The admission of the canonical
complaints by Your Holiness, and the concomitant obligation of the named
prelates to join issue and respond to the complaints, was confirmed according
to Canon 1506, as noticed to Your Holiness (as formally brought to Your
Holiness attention) in my letter of April 20, 2000. I am still awaiting
action by Your Holiness on these complaints, as required by the Code of Canon
Law Your Holiness yourself has promulgated.
The Respondent, who is the
current Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, has joined this general
scheme and plan of systematic and deliberate abuse of authority by the named
prelates. The ultimate aim of this plan is to silence me and destroy my
apostolate, commonly known as the International Fatima Rosary Crusade, among
other titles (hereafter the Apostolate), even though there is no basis in the
law of the Church for prohibiting our activities. This scheme and plan involves
numerous illicit interventions without precedent in the living memory of the
Church. Although, as noted, the details of this scheme and plan are fully set
forth in the prior proceedings before Your Holiness, I summarize them briefly
B. My Apostolate Is Theologically Beyond Reproach.
The purpose of my apostolate
is to make Our Lady of Fatimas entire authentic message better known,
understood and appreciated within the Church so that its imperatives might
ultimately be followed for the good of the Church and the world. Thus, the
Apostolate engages in the frank public discussion within the Church of the
Message of Fatima, most notably its call for the Consecration of Russia to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary. Many millions of Catholics are convinced the
Consecration of Russia has yet to be done, because there has yet to be a solemn
and public act of Consecration of that particular nation by the Pope and
the worlds bishops acting together at the same time. In all the previous
Consecration ceremonies performed by Your Holiness, including those of 1982,
1984, and 2000, Russia has not been mentioned as the object of the Consecration
and the moral totality of the worlds bishops did not participate.
As a consequence, it is quite
apparent that Russia is not converting, as Our Lady promised it would if the
Consecration were done in the manner She requested. On the contrary, the
Catholic Church still suffers from official persecution in Russia and is
forbidden by law to make converts among the schismatic Orthodox, who adamantly
reject the papal primacy established by Our Lord Himself. As even the Russian
Orthodox patriarch of Russia has admitted, the moral, spiritual and material
condition of Russian society has been degenerating rapidly since the alleged
"fall of communism" in 1989, which some people confuse with the spiritual
conversion of the Russian people. There are more abortions in Russia today then
there were in 1984, the year of the alleged Consecration of Russiaa fact
which surely must grieve Your Holiness most acutely.
The Apostolate also promotes
its views on the Message of Fatima as it bears on certain prudential policies
and initiatives of the Vatican apparatus, especially the Vatican Secretariat of
State. These include Ostpolitik, a policy still at work in the
Vaticans refusal to condemn persecution of the Church in China or the
schism of the Chinese Communist-controlled "Patriotic Catholic Association,"
which has illicitly consecrated nearly 100 bishops in open opposition to Rome.
There is also the Vaticans deep involvement in the godless and positively
anti-Catholic United Nations, and other pernicious institutions of the rapidly
emerging New World Order. These institutions include a new International
Criminal Court (ICC), which would be controlled by the same forces that have
legalized abortion and destroyed Catholic social order in every nation. The
Vaticans diplomatic efforts through the Secretariat of State were
instrumental in obtaining approval of the first statutes for the ICC during the
recent meeting of future member nations in Rome itself. It now remains only for
a sufficient number of nations to ratify the ICC treaty, an undertaking which
is supported by the Vatican Secretariat of State. The ICC will undoubtedly
foster the worldwide regime of official state atheism, including abortion, and
many Catholic organizations are now calling for a movement to stop final
erection of the ICC.
Finally, there is the
Vaticans general line since the Council of pursuing what innumerable
recent Vatican pronouncements describe as "the civilization of love." This
novel idea does not involve the achievement of Catholic social order, or
anything approaching it, but rather the supposed cooperation of the "believers"
of all religions in creating a just societyas if a truly just society
were at all possible without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to
the teaching of His Church.
Your Holiness, we believe
these Vatican policies and initiatives are at odds with the Churchs
divine mission to bring every soul within her fold and thereby to establish the
Social Kingship of Christ in every nation.
First of all, as Your Holiness
well knows, the Church has defined infallibly in one solemn pronouncement after
another the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus estoutside
the Church there is no salvation. (Cfr. Council of Florence and the Bull
Unam Sanctum) Your predecessor Blessed Pius IX, whom you yourself have
beatified, warned the faithful in Singulari Quadem that they must not
preoccupy themselves with pointless speculation about the possibility of
salvation for those who are not formal members of the Catholic Church, since
only God knows whom He will save (in some extraordinary manner) from among the
great mass of humanity which has not exteriorly professed the Catholic faith.
For this reason, Blessed Pius IX exhorted the faithful to hold fast to the
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus est and to continue the divinely
appointed work of the Church in making disciples of all nations. As for the lot
of those who remain outside the visible Church, His Holiness warned that "all
further inquiry is unlawful."
Who can doubt the wisdom of
this admonition? Indeed, the Church has constantly and infallibly taught that
no one in this world (absent a special private revelation) can know with
absolute certainty the subjective state of any soul, much less whether a
souleven ones ownis numbered among the elect. Since it is not
possible for the Church to presume that anyone is either saved or damned, the
ministers of the Church are duty bound to seek the conversion of every man,
woman and child on the face of the earth, following Our Lords own
command: "Go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded thee. He who believes and is
baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned." (Mark
Following this command, the
Church has not only taught the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus through
the infallible definitions of her extraordinary magisterium, but has also
infallibly proposed through the constant teaching of her universal ordinary
magisterium the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ that is, the
duty of every nation, as well as every man, to profess the Catholic faith and
follow the law of Christ the King. As Your Holiness well knows, this teaching
is expounded in a marvelous manner in the encyclical Quas Primas, by
your predecessor of blessed memory, Pius XI, and is also found in the
encyclicals of Saint Pius X (Vehementer Nos), Pius IX (Qunta Cura and
the Syllabus of Errors), Leo XIII (Immortale Dei and Libertas
Humana), Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos) and others.
Morever, in his apostolic
letter against the French Sillonist movement Notre Charge
Apostolique, St. Pius X condemned the very notion of a pluralist social
order in which men of various religions agree to work for the common good and
build up an imaginary new civilization of peace and harmony, putting aside the
differences which divide them. Pius X contemptuously described this utopian
ideal as "a Democracy which will be neither Catholic nor Protestant, nor
Jewish. It will be a religion ... more universal than the Catholic Church,
uniting all men as brothers and comrades at last in the Kingdom of God
." His Holiness condemned this notion as a threat to the very mission of
the Church, reminding the bishops of France that the task of the Church is not
to pursue a non-Catholic utopia, which has never existed and never will exist,
but rather to work for the building of the only truly just civilization by
restoring Christendom and "the Catholic City."
Holy Father, it is one thing
to agree in principle to collaborate with non-Catholics of good will to uphold
the natural law in a society in which Catholics comprise a minority, and where
such collaboration would not pose any danger to the integrity of the Faith or
the salvation of souls. It is quite another, however, to present as some sort
of ideal a "civilization of love" in which there would be no objective duty on
the part of every member of society to embrace the one true religion the
whole and entire Catholic faith nor any duty on the part of temporal
authority to protect and defend that religion which God Himself commanded be
brought to every corner of the world.
Holy Father, in view of the
Churchs infallible teaching on these matters, is it not apparent that the
Vaticans post-conciliar policies of accommodation with the powers of the
world and its pursuit of a non-Catholic "civilization of love" are at odds with
the Message of Fatima? For the Message of Fatima is nothing other than a
heavenly recapitulation of the necessity of the Church for salvation and the
duty of the Church to establish the Social Kingship of Christ throughout the
"You have seen hell, where the
souls of poor sinners go. To save them God wishes to establish in the
world devotion to My Immaculate Heart . . . In the end, My Immaculate Heart
will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will
be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world."
As the words of Our Lady of
Fatima show beyond any doubt, the establishment of worldwide devotion precisely
to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is the very intention of God Himself in making
known the Message of Fatima. But the Immaculate Heart cannot triumph in this
manner until the Russian people embrace the Catholic Faith, since the Orthodox
churches do not admit the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and thus do not
have the Catholic Faith. Furthermore, because the Orthodox do not formally,
officially and publicly acknowledge the Immaculate Conception (even if some
individual members of the Orthodox do) the public cult and devotion to the
Immaculate Heart as Our Lord wills it, cannot be achieved ever under the
Orthodox churches. We must recall that Sister Lucy testified in a letter to her
confessor, dated May 18, 1936, Our Lord Himself told her: "I want My whole
Church to acknowledge that Consecration [of Russia] as a Triumph of the
Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its cult later on and put the
devotion to this Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart."
Now, if the Vaticans new
orientation, since the Council, does not represent some contradiction to the
perennial teaching of the Church on her own mission in this world then
it would have to be shown how this new orientation comports with the prior
teaching of the infallible extraordinary and universal ordinary Magisterium.
Only a further infallible definition by Your Holiness or his successor could
establish this new orientation as also the binding teaching of Holy
Church.1 Otherwise, it cannot be accepted, since it does not carry
the approval of the infallible Magisterium, but is found only in the opinions
of certain functionaries in the Vatican, or perhaps in views expressed even by
Your Holiness in speeches and other pronouncements that lack the character of
infallible Catholic doctrine addressed to the universal Church. This new
orientation stands as a complete novelty in the history of the Church, which
until recently never ceased to preach the objective necessity for membership in
the one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church by every man, and the profession of
the true Faith by every man for salvation.
What is more, since this novel
orientation works against the constant teaching and orientation of the Church,
one would have a duty to resist it, in keeping with the unanimous teaching of
the theologians and doctors of the Church (including St. Thomas Aquinas, St.
Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori and Suarez), that a subject may resist
a prelateeven the Supreme Pontiffwhen he says or does something
that threatens harm to souls or the common good of the Church.
All of this being so, no one
can sayindeed, no one has saidthat anything I have preached
or published over the years is contrary to the Faith. Quite the opposite: my
apostolate promotes the Faith in all its integrity, as well as pious practices
fully approved by the Church, most especially the Rosary and the brown and
green scapulars. Yet, as early as 1989, the Bishop of Avellino (in whose
diocese I was originally incardinated) was receiving what he called "worried
signals" from the Secretariat of State, about our perfectly lawful and
legitimate apostolate. Beginning in 1994, certain persons in the Secretariat of
State, combined with the former Prefects and Secretaries of the Congregation
for the Clergy and the Prefects and Secretaries of the Signatura, began to take
direct action in order to silence me and the Apostolate.
Footnote: 1. In view of the widespread confusion
on this point, it should be noted that this document is not suggesting that His
Holiness or any Pope can define a new doctrine that contradicts the previously
defined doctrine of the faith. As Vatican I solemnly taughtPapal
infallibility is not given so that the Pope can teach a new doctrine. "The
reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St.
Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His
revelation, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard
and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down
through the apostles." (Emphasis added) Denzinger 1836
C. The Plan to Silence the Apostolate.
Recognizing that no law of the
Church prohibited our activities, these persons contrived an illicit canonical
ploy which they hoped would destroy the Apostolate: The former Prefect of the
Congregation pressured the Bishop of Avellino to recall me from Canada (where I
had been living with his permission since 1978) unless I could find another
bishop to incardinate me. Then high ranking persons in the Congregation for the
Clergy (with the help of the nuncios) illegally and deliberately blocked my
incardination by a series of benevolent bishops, while directing the Bishop of
Avellino not to excardinate me under any circumstances. Having unlawfully
interfered with the rights of four bishops in the matter of my
excardination/incardination, the Congregation declared that I had "failed" to
find another bishop and was therefore guilty of being in an "irregular
This immoral and illicit
canonical ploy was combined with "announcements" in LOsservatore
Romano and on Vatican Radio urging the entire Church to shun any conference
conducted by the Apostolate. Similar communications were carried to every
bishop in the world in the diplomatic pouches of the nuncios, who also sought
to prevent bishops from obtaining travel visas to attend the Apostolates
These actions against me have
no known precedent in Church history. Not even notorious heretics who condemn
Your Holiness in public pronouncements have been treated in this manner by
Vatican officials. Clearly, the motive for these actions can only be
suppression of the Message of Fatima, since there is nothing else about my work
which is controversial. This was made quite clear at the Vatican press
conference of June 26, 2000 concerning publication of the vision associated
with the Third Secret of Fatima: the entire conference was organized around the
theme that the Third Secret relates only to past events, that Russia has been
validly consecrated and that nothing remains of the Message of Fatima but a
call to personal holiness. Cardinal Ratzinger took the occasion to mention me
by name, suggesting that "the Magisterium" has declared that Russia has already
been validly consecrated. Of course, Your Holiness has never said so himself in
any magisterial pronouncement addressed to the universal Church.
Of course Your Holiness has
never said that "the Magisterium" declares the Consecration to have been done.
In fact, to my knowledge Your Holiness has never made any statement to the
public that Russia has been validly consecrated. On the contrary, before more
than 200,000 people in St. Peters Square on March 25, 1984, (as reported
in the LOsservatore Romano in the March 26-27 Italian edition)
Your Holiness, addressing himself to Our Lady of Fatima, stated as follows:
"Enlighten especially the peoples whose consecration and entrusting you are
awaiting from us" ("Illumina specialmente i popoli di cui tu aspetti la nostra
consacrazione e il nostro affidamento"). You uttered these words, in a
departure from the printed text, after you had just consecrated the
world to the Immaculate Heart. That is, you acknowledged before the world that
what you had just done on March 25, 1984 was still not what Our Lady of Fatima
had requested concerning Russia.
Several hours after the Act
of Consecration of the World on March 25, 1984, while inside St.
Peters Basilica, Your Holiness (again addressing yourself to Our Lady of
Fatima) stated before 10,000 people that: "We wished to choose this Sunday, the
Third Sunday of Lent, 1984 still within the Holy Year of Redemption
for the act of entrusting and consecration of the world, of the great
human family, of all peoples, especially those who have a very great need of
this consecration and entrustment, of those peoples for whom You
Yourself are awaiting our act of consecration and entrusting". (But any
person who has studied the matter knows that Our Lady of Fatima specifically
asked for the consecration of only one country ... Russia.) Your Holiness, you
then said, "We have been able to do all this according to our poor human
possibilities and the measure of human weakness but with immense confidence in
Your maternal solicitude". This was reported in the Italian Catholic
Bishops official newspaper Avvenire, dated March 27, 1984, on page
Obviously these remarks by
Your Holiness lead many to the conclusion that Your Holiness himself does not
believe that he has been able to accomplish what Our Lady requested of you
concerning the Consecration of Russia. Accordingly, I say with all respect that
it is incumbent upon you, Your Holiness, either to do precisely what Our Lady
requested or else pronounce with the full authority of your infallible
magisterium that you have fulfilled Her request. With respect, Holy Father,
neither Cardinal Ratzinger nor Archbishop Bertone nor anyone else can remove
the burden from you by offering the opinion that the Consecration has been
done, for no one but Your Holiness has the authority to settle this
Meanwhile, the condition of
the world continues to deteriorate by the hour. In Russia the abortion
holocaust not only continues but grows worse. As for the condition of the
Church in Russia, two of Russias apostolic administrators (the Church is
even afraid to establish a Catholic diocese in Russia lest the Orthodox object)
have been told that they must marry Russian women if they wish to remain
in the country. Holy Father, your own bishops are being told by civil
authorities that they must violate their vows of chastity in order to remain in
Your Holiness, nothing
could be clearer than that there is still a need for the work of our
Apostolate. No authority in the Church can require the faithful to ignore
the evidence of their senses or to suspend the use of their reason. The First
Vatican Council infallibly decreed that there is no contradiction between faith
and reason. It is reason which demonstrates that our views about the Message of
Fatima are correct. It is reason, viewing the evident facts, which causes so
many members of the faithful, including more than 1000 members of the Catholic
episcopate and 40 percent of the Cardinals, to support the Apostolates
As Your Holiness knows,
despite the unprecedented abuses of power designed to destroy my reputation and
the work of the Apostolate, the Archbishop of Hyderabad proceeded to
incardinate me, and he has affirmed his decree of incardination in a subsequent
decree. His Grace (along with 26 other bishops, 1900 priests and religious and
16,000 members of the laity) has also signed an Open Letter to Your Holiness
which was published on April 2, 1998 in Il Messaggero. The Open Letter
protests the scheme and plan to silence me and the Apostolate, while true
enemies of the Church within the priesthood are allowed to attack her with
impunity in every nation.
On November 22, 1999 I made
recourse to Your Holiness from the latest decree of the Signatura in my case,
which purports to uphold the order to return to Avellino based on nothing more
than my alleged "irregular condition." This "irregular condition" was created
and imposed upon me by the above mentioned prelates, who have systematically
abused the authority of their offices within the Congregation for the Clergy,
(acting according to the same "worried signals" of the Vatican Secretariat of
State cited by the Bishop of Avellino in 1989).
Finally, as noted in my
recourse to Your Holiness, the latest decree of the Signatura boldly declares
that the successive Prefects and Secretaries of the Congregation for the Clergy
involved in this scheme and plan had the right to engage in these unprecedented
interventions because they allegedly possess the ordinary vicariate power
and jurisdiction of the Pope and are the "hierarchical superior" of every
bishop. As my recourse to Your Holiness explains, this novel theory (which
appears to have been developed solely for my case) is a direct attack on the
divine constitution of the Church. (This heretical theory may also explain
other abuses which are now coming to light in the Catholic press.)
II. THE WRONGS COMMITTED BY RESPONDENT
The Respondent has made his
own peculiar contributions to this scheme and plan. Since his appointment as
Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy in 1996, the Respondent has
undertaken the following illicit actions against me:
A. Respondent threatens me with excommunication if I do not
abandon a perfectly legitimate civil proceeding in which he has no right to
Ten years ago I instituted a
suit for libel against Monsignor Alan R.A. McCormack, former Vice-Chancellor of
the Archdiocese of Toronto. This civil proceeding is fully permissible under
natural law and the 1983 Code of Canon Law Your Holiness himself promulgated.
Indeed, today there are innumerable pending claims in the civil
tribunals throughout the world against priests, monsignors and even bishops who
are accused of abusing their authority in ways which violate the civil law and
the legitimate civil rights of persons.
My own proceeding is based on
Msgr. McCormacks false statements in 1990 regarding my canonical status.
These statements falsely implied that I was a suspended or imposter cleric,
when only two months before the Bishop of Avellino had issued a certificate of
good standing to me and renewed my permission to reside in Canada.
Msgr. McCormacks libels
were circulated in secular newspapers throughout North America, where they were
read and believed by millions of people. The damage to my reputation and the
Apostolates good name is incalculable. It was only for the sake of the
Apostolate that I took this action in the first placebut only after Msgr.
McCormack had refused my repeated requests to make a retraction.
In March of this year the
civil tribunal refused to dismiss my claim, rightly recognizing that it
involved grave damage to my reputation in civil society and was not simply a
Church matter. During the ten years the suit was pending, no one in the
Vatican had objected to it. Meanwhile, however, Monsignor McCormack had
become a Vatican employee in one of the Congregations. This perhaps explains
what happened after the civil tribunal refused to dismiss my claim and
scheduled a trial for August of this year.
On June 5, 2000, about two
months before trial, Respondent sent me a letter in which, while shamelessly
invoking Our Lord and Our Lady and the "Spirit of the Jubilee," he threatens me
with excommunication if I do not accede to his demand that I abandon the suit
before it went to trial. (Tab 9)*
*Note: All the Tab numbers refer
to further documentation sent with this document to His Holiness, Pope John
Paul II, on December 20, 2000.
Respondents June 5 letter states the threat as
"Besides, this situation is
aggravated by the civil process pending before the Provincial Tribunal of
Ontario. This cause, independently of the results that you will be able to
have, will not fail to generate further tensions right at the moment in which
the current Jubilee Year promotes significant gestures of reconciliation and
communion. It would really be sad if, in such circumstances, instead of being
able to reach a solution to this old and tormented affair, you should give to
public opinion the bad example of a judicial conflict in the civil forum and,
as a consequence, you should ultimately proceed on the canonical level
even unto the penalty of excommunication." (Emphasis added)
[Inoltre, questa sua
situazione è agravata dal processo civil pendente presso il Tribunale
Sarebbe davvero triste che, in tali
circonstanze, anziché poter addivenire ad una soluzione della annosa e
tormentata vicenda, si dovesse dare allopinione pubblica il cattivo
essempio di uno scontro giudiziario in foro civile, e, di consequenza, si
dovesse ulteriormente procedere sul piano canonico anche fino all pena della
] (Tab 9)
openly confirmed his groundless and extortionate threat of excommunication in a
July 6 communiqué which he directed the Apostolic Nuncio to circulate to
all the bishops of the Philippines:
"In the spirit of the Jubilee
Year, the Congregation for the Clergy, through the Apostolic Nuncio in Canada,
wrote to Father Gruner on June 5, 2000, admonishing him to undertake to
withdraw his civil litigation and to undertake to reconcile
himself with ecclesiastical authorities. The same letter warned that
failure to do so would provoke additional canonical procedures against
him, up to and including the penalty of
excommunication." (Emphasis added)
In response to his threat of
excommunication, I wrote to Respondent on July 11 and July 12, 2000, offering
to withdraw the civil proceeding if his threat were also formally withdrawn. I
also requested a meeting with Respondent in an effort to resolve the civil
proceeding and all related matters. (Tab 7 for both letters)
In reply, Respondent sent me a
letter dated August 8, 2000 in which he states that he cannot discuss the civil
proceeding with me because the Congregation has no competence in these matters
and that he must maintain strictly the distinction between the civil and
ecclesiastical forums. (Tab 6) Thus, after attempting to interfere in my
legitimate civil proceeding by making an extortionate threat of excommunication
if I did not abandon the lawsuit, Respondent admitted he had no right to meddle
in the matter in the first place. He thus admits to his own hypocrisy,
mendacity and abuse of power.
Respondent knows there is no
canonical basis for his threat of excommunication. Not even heretics and sexual
deviants in the priesthood have been threatened with this ultimate penalty. If
I were excommunicated, I would be the only priest in the history of the
post-Vatican II Church to be excommunicated by a sentence of the Vatican. Yet I
have violated no law of the Church nor committed any offense against faith or
morals. What could be more absurd and unjust than this, Holy Father?
Respondent compounded his
abuse of power by publicizing his threat to excommunicate me through the nuncio
to the Philippines, with the obvious intention of increasing its illicitly
coercive effect upon me. Merely to make this threat in private was
unconscionable. That Respondent would publicize it is an abuse of power
without parallel in the modern Church history.
B. The Respondent has used the Apostolic Nuncios of the Philippines,
India and Papua New Guinea to deliver communiqués which falsely accuse
me of criminal activity and contain many other false statements concerning my
canonical status and the work of the Apostolate.
(Copies of these communiqués are found at Tabs 1,
2 and 3.)
These communiqués are
either written by Respondent himself, or by a nuncio or a nuncial employee at
Respondents direction. The falsity of these communiqués is amply
demonstrated in the Apostolates Formal Response of July 28, 2000, to the
July 6, 2000, communiqué of the Philippine Nuncio, as well as our letter
in response to the acting Papal Nuncio of Papua New Guinea. (Tabs 4 and 5).
The communiqués contain
the following falsehoods, among others:
1. The communiqué to the bishops of the Philippines falsely
claims that in 1989 I used "forged Secretariat of State documents
imply endorsement" of the Apostolate.
Holy Father, there are no such
"forged Secretariat of State documents." The allegation is a pure invention
and a demonstrable lie.
If such forged documents
really existed, I would have been ordered to cease using them eleven years ago,
when the Nuncio claims they first appeared. I was never notified of any "forged
Secretariat of State documents" because they do not exist.
In my letters to Respondent on
July 12, August 31 and September 16, 2000, I brought this false allegation of
criminal activity to his attention. He has thus far failed to retract the
accusation or to make restitution for having falsely accused me of a crime.
This Respondents libel
has been circulated far beyond the Philippines via the Internet and otherwise.
For example, we have received information that the libel is being circulated in
2. All three communiqués imply that I and the Apostolate lack
required "ecclesiastical approval" to "organize his [Father Gruners]
conferences" for bishops, priests and laity held in various countries to
promote the Message of Fatima.
Respondent is certainly aware
that this implied accusation is false. Under the 1983 Code of Canon Law
promulgated by Your Holiness himself (not to mention the natural law) there
is absolutely no requirement for "ecclesiastical approval" of conferences on
Fatima or any other subject of concern to Catholics.
Nor is there any requirement
for "ecclesiastical approval" of my personal participation in such conferences,
or in the activities of this organization as a whole. See canons 208-228, in
particular, cc. 212, 215, 278, 299. In fact (as Respondent well knows from
reading the acts of my case) upon my election to the Board of Directors of
this organization, Your Holiness himself conveyed his congratulations through
his personal secretary.
Holy Father, you know better
than anyone that today in the Church there are thousands of private
associations of clergy and laity operating without "ecclesiastical approval" of
any kind and in perfect conformity with the law of the Church.
To accuse someone of
functioning without "ecclesiastical approval" when no such approval is
necessary is to commit calumny by means of the deliberate use of a half-truth.
The accusation is also an outright lie in the sense that the Code of Canon Law
in and of itself grants "ecclesiastical approval" for private associations of
clergy and laity, and episcopal attendance at private conferences arranged by
such associations, without any need whatever for formal approval by any Church
authority. Cfr. Canons 215 and 212.
Oddly enough, the prelates who
have attempted to interdict our Fatima conferences by various illicit means did
nothing to stop Bishop Lucker from attending a recent conference of the
heretical Call to Action movement in the United States. But such is the
double-standard which animates all of the interventions against our apostolate.
It seems that the only thing which truly alarms these prelates is the prospect
of a spreading awareness of the authentic Message of Fatima.
3. Respondent publishes the false accusation that the
Apostolates activities are of "dubious orthodoxy."
Here the Respondent, acting
through the Philippine Nuncios July 6 communiqué, refers to a
circular letter to the worlds bishops issued by Cardinal Gantin in 1996.
The only such letter from Cardinal Gantin that we know of makes no reference to
"dubious orthodoxy." In fact, Cardinal Gantins letter mentions only the
alleged lack of "ecclesiastical approval" for the Apostolates activities,
which approval is not required in the first place. As noted already, no
one has ever accused me or the apostolate of a lack of orthodoxy.
Respondents attempt to put such an accusation in the mouth of Cardinal
Gantin is despicable.
In March of 1997 the
Apostolate replied to Cardinal Gantins letter by registered mail,
demonstrating that his implied accusation of canonical impropriety was false,
and posing certain queries to His Eminence. Cardinal Gantin has never replied
to the registered letternot even after it was published in 90,000 copies
of the book Fatima Priest over the past three years.
Furthermore, it should be
noted that in December of 1998 I wrote to the Congregation for the Clergy and
the Apostolic Signatura, requesting copies of approximately 15 more "circular
letters" concerning me and the Apostolate of which we were previously unaware.
The existence of these letters, which have been circulated behind my back and
some of them for more than ten years, by various nuncios, was first revealed by
the Promoter of Justice in a 1998 document he filed during the proceedings
before the Signatura. So it seems that secret accusations conveyed by nuncios
have been added to the array of unprecedented interventions against me.
To date, my requests to the
Signatura and the Respondent for copies of these secret missives, which
requests I made more than two years ago, have gone unanswered.
4. Respondent publishes the falsehood that I was acting in "open
defiance of the Holy Sees directives" in 1996.
This is another demonstrable
lie in the July 6 communiqué. I have never been given any "directive" of
the Holy See. There were no "directives of the Holy See" requiring any action
by me as of 1996, nor or at any other time thereafter.
I have never "defied" any
"directive" of "the Holy See." "The Holy See" itself has never issued me any
directive. Rather, the Congregation for the Clergy has merely upheld a
purported directive of the Bishop of Avellino, not "the Holy See," that I
return there after an approved absence of 18 years. As I have already noted,
until recently, the Congregation consistently took the position that the order
to return to Avellino was the Bishops own idea and not the result of its
own illicit interference behind the scenes. I have made recourse from the
Bishops order to return. There is no "defiance" or "disobedience" to the
Holy See in making a canonical recourse against a bishops unjust
Therefore, it is simply a lie
to say that in 1996 I was "defying" a "directive of the Holy See."
5. The Respondent publishes the falsehood that I was "suspended a
divinis" by the Bishop of Avellino on May 16, 1996.
This demonstrable lie is
contained in all three communiqués.
As Respondent certainly knows,
the Bishop of Avellinos decree of May 16, 1996 only threatened the
penalty of suspension if I did not return to Avellino within 29 days, after an
approved absence of 18 years. Since I pursued timely canonical recourses from
that order, under Canon 1647 the operation of any threatened penalty was
suspended. Those recourses are still pending in the Apostolic Signatura,
although it is rumored that there is some new decree which I have yet to
receive (if it exists). Therefore, it is a lie to say that I was suspended a
divinis in 1996.
6. The Respondent publishes the falsehood that the Apostolic
Signatura has definitively concluded all of my hierarchical recourses.
This falsehood is likewise
contained in all three nuncial communiqués. It is obviously intended to
create the false impression that I have been deprived of any and all canonical
grounds for contesting the illicit actions against me.
In truth, there is still
pending before the Apostolic Signatura a petition for restitutio in
integrum or, in the alternative, a declaration of nullity. I have heard
from third parties that the Signatura has issued a document regarding my
petition, but I have yet to receive it from anyone. Although I requested a copy
of this rumored decree by letter of November 5, 2000 to the Apostolic
Signatura, I have not heard from the Tribunal as of this date.
My petition notes that the
only allegation now remaining against me, after years of canonical proceedings,
is that my "condition" was "irregular" and needed to be "corrected" by the
Bishop of Avellino. This alleged "irregular condition" consists of nothing more
than my residing in Canada with the written permission of the Bishop of
Avellino (as well as my subsequent Ordinary), while being engaged in an
apostolate which does not require ecclesiastical approval and which I had the
canonical and natural right to conduct. Cfr. cc. 215, 278, 299. In other words,
Holy Father, there is nothing irregular about my "irregular condition."
My petition for
restitutio further notes that the order that I return to Avellino and
reside there permanently (after an approved absence of some 22 years) is
patently illegal. I am not an Italian citizen but a citizen of Canada. The
Bishop of Avellino never took any measures to obtain a proper entry visa for
me, even assuming he had the right to order me to return, which he does not.
Thus, the order to return violates Italian civil law on immigration, by which
the Church agrees to be bound. If I were to attempt to comply with the
bishops illegal order to take up residence in Italy without the proper
visa, I would be deported immediately at the point of entry, unless I were to
lie about the purpose of my visit.
In any case, I am now
incardinated in the Archdiocese of Hyderabad. Both the Signatura and the Bishop
of Avellino were provided with copies of the Archbishop of Hyderabads
pertinent decrees in the latter part of 1999, and neither the bishop nor the
Tribunal has since expressed any objection. Under apparent prodding from
Respondent, however, the Bishop of Avellino (in August 2000) issued a letter
that simply ignores my incardination in Hyderabad and suggests that I should
enter Italy as an illegal alien, without regard to the requirements of Italian
immigration law. I wrote to the Bishop of Avellino on September 16, 2000,
pointing out that his order is legally (under both civil and canon law) and
morally impossible to obey. He has not replied. (Tab 8)
7. The Respondent publishes the falsehood that the Apostolic
Signatura has "settled" my well-founded claims regarding abuse of power by him
and his collaborators.
The nuncial communiqués
the Respondent has caused to be issued all falsely assert that the Apostolic
Signatura has "settled" my factual and legal contentions regarding the abuse of
power in my case, which I have set forth in my 82-page reply to the Promoter of
Justice. In truth, the Signatura declined to address those contentions,
stating only that its failure to consider my reply does not mean that it admits
that my contentions are true. In addition to establishing the systematic abuse
of power against me, my reply also conclusively demonstrates that the
Promoters document is filled with false, misleading and factually
inaccurate statements about me and the apostolate which are gravely damaging to
my reputation and standing as a priest.
Instead of addressing the
merits of my reply, the Signatura simply ignored all my responses I had raised
and ignored all of the rebuttals I had given, while stating that its failure to
address those issues and my rebuttals does not mean that it agreed with
anything I had to say. Meanwhile, the Signatura has effectively abandoned the
Promoters document implicitly recognizing that I had refuted it
yet does not have the decency to retract any of the Promoters
falsehoods and inaccuracies, or to order the Promoter to do so, thereby leaving
his grossly flawed document as part of the record in my case.
On November 22, 1999, I
formally requested Your Holiness that Your Holiness himself consider my
contentions concerning the abuses of power in this case, as well as my
demonstration of the Promoters falsehoods and inaccuracies, none of which
have been retracted. Therefore, it is quite false to say that issues I have
raised in my 82-page reply (and in related documents) have all been resolved by
the Signaturas decrees in this case.
Neither has the Signatura
"settled" the fundamental question of how the Bishop of Avellino could order me
to become a permanent resident of Italy in violation of Italian immigration
law, even if he were still my bishop, which he is not.
Also not "settled" are the
allegations in the two separate canonical petitions lodged with Your Holiness.
Both petitions (one in my name and one in the name of the Apostolate) were
delivered personally to Your Holiness on November 20, 1996. A third petition
sent to Your Holiness on or about November 22, 1999, and its acceptance as a
case pending before the Supreme Pontiff was confirmed by a registered letter
from me, dated April 20, 2000, citing can. 1506, under which acceptance of the
case is now mandated by the Code of Canon Law which Your Holiness himself
These petitions, reserved
exclusively to the Supreme Pontiff under cc. 1405, 1406, cite abuses of power
by the Prefects and Secretaries of the Congregation for the Clergy and the
Signatura who have been involved in the totally unprecedented process described
here: namely, preventing my lawful incardination by three different benevolent
bishops, followed by accusations that I have not "obeyed" because I have
"failed" to find another bishop, followed by a sentence of exile for my
"failure" to "obey." These illicit measures were combined with equally
unprecedented attempts to de facto interdict the Apostolate throughout
the world without any canonical grounds or due process of law.
Therefore, it is quite false
to state that the petitions I have lodged with Your Holiness have been
"settled" by any decree of the Signatura.
8. The Respondent publishes a false characterization of the civil
proceeding I instituted in Toronto.
The communiqués falsely
claim that I have brought suit against the Archbishop of Toronto, when in truth
the only defendant is the former Vice Chancellor, Msgr. McCormack. This lie is
obviously designed to provoke outrage against me by creating the false
impression that I have sued an Archbishop in the civil tribunal.
The July 6 communiqué
falsely suggests that the proceeding against Msgr. McCormack was commenced
during my recourses before the Congregation and the Signatura ("Regretfully, in
the meantime, Father Gruner initiated a civil proceeding
"). The false
implication is that I commenced the civil proceeding to retaliate for the
unprecedented canonical interventions against me. In truth, the civil
proceeding was commenced ten years ago, long before the canonical
interventions or my recourses against them.
9. The Respondent hypocritically justifies his many false statements
as necessary for the good of the Church.
Respondent, through the
various nuncios, claims that he and his collaborators have acted against me in
order to "safeguard ecclesiastical discipline" and with "exclusive regard to
the salus animarum (the salvation of souls)." Holy Father, I must say
that in view of the state of the Church today it is hard to believe the
Respondent expects this statement to be taken seriously.
Your Holiness, the faithful
everywhere know that throughout the world the Mystical Body of Christ is being
wounded grievously by innumerable clerical scandals involving heresy and
unspeakable immorality. Clerics who prey on small boys are transferred from
diocese to diocese and parish to parish for years, and the Congregation for the
Clergy does nothing about them until civil suits are filed and the matter
becomes a public scandal. Open heretics are allowed to preach against Catholic
doctrine and dogma for decades without suffering any penalty from a Vatican
congregation, and even if they do eventually receive some minimal punishment,
they are allowed to remain priests in good standing. They are never required to
retract the heresies they have preached and published in books and journals.
They are even allowed to continue expressing their lying opinions.
Even though the Church is
afflicted by true enemies of the Faith on every continent, the Respondent
seriously suggests that I must be suspended and even excommunicated when I have
violated no law of the Church and committed no offense against faith or morals.
On the contrary, I have always defended the Catholic Faith and promoted
good morals by preaching and teaching the Message of Fatima, with its call for
penance, the Rosary and the Communions of Reparation on the First Saturdays.
What is more, the Apostolate has distributed millions of brown and green
scapulars which (by the promise of Our Lady) save properly disposed souls from
Hell and produce miraculous conversions.
Holy Father, I ask you to
consider the intolerable hypocrisy of those who do nothing (or next to nothing)
about the true enemies of the Faith within the Church, while abusing the power
of their high offices to persecute me in this unprecedented manner, claiming to
act for the good of souls and ecclesiastical discipline. Does Respondent really
believe he is acting for the good of souls and to preserve ecclesiastical
discipline when he does nothing about the evils which afflict the Church, while
persecuting one priest who promotes the Message of Fatima, distributes
scapulars and encourages devotion to Our Lady? If this is Respondents
notion of serving the Church, then he is a positive danger to souls. This is
yet another reason Respondent must be removed from office.
In the midst of a total
collapse of Church discipline, they pursue me with boundless energy while
indolently ignoring those who undermine the good order of the Church in every
nation and in virtually every diocese.
In the midst of a loss of
faith throughout the Church, they seriously suggest that the salvation of souls
requires them to condemn me and my apostolate before the entire Church, yet
they take no such action against countless clerics who threaten the welfare of
souls with heretical preaching or immoral behavior.
Holy Father, what is to
explain this insane disparity of treatment? There can only be one answer: the
Message of Fatima.
C. Respondent wrongfully usurps the power and authority of the Vicar
of Christ, claiming to be a de facto Pope in his dealings with priests
As noted in my recourse of
November 22, 1999, when the Signatura was unable to deny any longer the illicit
sub rosa interventions of the Congregation aimed at preventing my
incardination by any benevolent bishop in the world, it finally resorted to an
utterly novel theory. In its decree of July 10, 1999 (issued September 3,
1999), the Signatura declared that the Congregation for the Clergy was
entitled to prevent any bishop from incardinating me because the
Congregation possesses the "ordinary vicariate power" of Your Holiness
himself, and is therefore the "hierarchical superior" of every bishop in
the Church. According to this novel theory the Congregation for the Clergy
is the Supreme Pontiff, for all practical purposes.
The mendacity of this belated
claim of "vicariate" papal authority is shown amply in my recourse of November
22, 1999, which makes note of the fact that neither Respondent nor any of his
predecessors ever made such a claim during the previous five years of canonical
proceedings. On the contrary, at all times the Congregation implicitly denied
its extra-canonical interventions and pretended it was merely upholding the
will of the Bishop of Avellino. Yet it is undisputed that the bishop frankly
admitted to me that he had no will of his own in this matter, and had
no grievance against me, but was merely responding to coercion from the
Congregation (which in turn was doing the bidding of the Vatican Secretariat of
The notion that Respondent is
a surrogate Pope who may interfere at will in the process of
excardination-incardination, even without any specific delegation of authority
from Your Holiness, obviously does violence to the divine constitution of the
Church. For the Churchs divine constitution is based upon the divinely
conferred right of each bishop to rule his own diocese as a successor of the
apostles. This de fide truth was solemnly proclaimed by the First
There is no question that Your
Holiness himself has direct and immediate jurisdiction over every member of the
Church, including every bishop, or that he can assign certain tasks of
governance to the heads of Vatican congregations. But this does not, and
cannot, mean that the head of every Vatican congregation exercises your
personal and direct jurisdiction so as to become a de facto Pope.
The result would be a disastrous proliferation of de facto Popes in the
Vatican and the reduction of bishops to mere subordinates of Vatican
congregations. Your own authority would thus be squandered and divided among
various fallible men whose aims might be, and often are, at war with each other
and (as the long history of the Church shows us) at variance with truth and
Holy Father, I feel it is not
out of hand to say that Respondents hugely expansive view of his own
power savors of heresy because it undermines the Churchs divine
constitution. And since this notion smacks of heresy, it leads to de
facto schism, since heresy always causes division among the faithful.
In this case, a kind of
schismatic division is also introduced into the proper relation between a
priest and his bishop, driving a wedge between them simply in order to serve
the personal agenda of Respondent and his collaborators in the Vatican
apparatus. That agenda is one of human policies and geopolitical dealings with
the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev, rather than the advance of the Catholic Faith
into Russia and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary throughout the
world. It seems that to serve this agenda, Respondent and his collaborators are
willing to distort and even destroy (if necessary) the divine constitution of
I hope and pray that Your
Holiness has not directed Respondent and his predecessors and collaborators to
conduct themselves in this way. Even if their actions had been personally
authorized by Your Holiness himself they would still constitute an immoral
abuse of authority.
I say to Your Holiness in all
humility and respect that not even the Supreme Pontiff would have the moral
right to command a priest to do something, prevent the priest from obeying that
command, and then accuse the priest of "disobedience." Yet that is precisely
what has occurred in my case: I was ordered to correct my "irregular situation"
by finding another bishop to incardinate me. Each time I found a willing
bishop, I was prevented from effectuating the incardination by the very people
who issued the orderwith your "vicariate" authority, as they now claim. I
was then accused of "disobeying" the order to find another bishop and of
"failing" to correct my "irregular condition."
Your Holiness, no one, not
even a Pope, has the right to abuse his authority in this way. No one, not even
a pope, has the right to manipulate and torture one of his own subjects, like a
cat with a mouse. If indeed these actions against me were by your own explicit
command or with your approval, then I am compelled to say that they would bring
disgrace upon you. This would be all the more true given that these actions are
clearly directed toward suppression of the authentic Message of Our Lady of
Fatima, to whom Your Holiness professes to have dedicated his entire
I cannot, and will not,
presume that Your Holiness would engage in such an abuse of authority and steep
himself in such hypocrisy. Yet without some concrete sign from Your Holiness
that my pleas have been heard and will be granted, how am I to avoid the
ultimate conclusion that what has been done to me has been done by your
command? And if that be true, what choice would I have but to resist such an
abuse of papal authority, following all the doctors and theologians of the
Church, mentioned above, who unanimously counsel such resistance even against
the Supreme Pontiff when he acts in a manner that poses a threat to souls or to
the common good of the Church? God grant that I will never have to engage in
such resistance, and that my spiritual father will come to my aid rather than
assisting in my persecution by remaining silent.
III. THE IMPROPER MOTIVES FOR RESPONDENTS
In one respect the
Respondents actions have produced a providential benefit. The
communiqués issued at Respondents behest reveal plainly, at long
last, what really motivates his illicit interventions against me, along with
those of his predecessors and collaborators: namely, a desire to suppress my
legitimate teaching and preaching on the Message of Fatima. The Respondent
openly admits this in his own statement defending his actions, which he caused
the Papal Nuncio to India to distribute to all the Indian bishops:
"2.4 Reducing the rich
doctrinal-catechetical content of the message [of Fatima] to some particular
aspects, often in an exploitative and imaginary way, not only creates confusion
among the faithful, but also weakens the message itself. For example, Rev.
Gruner directs his polemics against the Holy Father for supposedly not
fulfilling the Virgins request to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate
Heart. Actually, the act of consecration made by John Paul II on the 25th
March, 1984, has fulfilled all that was requested (by) the Holy Virgin. This is
repeatedly vouched for by Sr. Lucia herself." (Prot. No. 200000997, June 19,
2000) (Tab 8)
Here, finally, Respondent
abandons any pretense that the actions taken against me were motivated by a
need to correct my non-existent "irregular condition" or punish my non-existent
"disobedience." Here, finally, the Respondent admits that he hounds and
persecutes me because I will not subscribe to the fiction that Russia
has been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that the prophetic
warnings of the Message of Fatima may now be safely disregarded, even if our
senses tell us that the worlds condition grows worse by the hour.
Respondent falsely denounces my refusal to subscribe to this fiction as
"polemics against the Holy Father," even though I have written not one word
against Your Holiness.
Meanwhile, Respondent says
nothing and does nothing about the many priests who, like Hans Küng,
really do engage in polemics against Your Holiness. In addition to his
notorious denial of numerous doctrines of the faith, Küng has publicly
denounced Your Holiness as a despot who "rules in the spirit of the Spanish
Inquisition." Yet the Respondent has sent no communiqués to the bishops
of the world denouncing Küng. In fact, Küng remains a priest in good
standing in the Diocese of Basle.
In fact, during his entire
tenure as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, the Respondent has
never publicly condemned the heretical preaching or scandalous behavior
of any of the thousands of priests who deeply wound the Mystical Body
and destroy the credibility of the Church in the eyes of those outside her.
This state of affairs Respondent is evidently prepared to tolerate in silence,
despite his sacred obligation to maintain vigilance over the clergy. But when
it comes to a priest expressing the view that Russia has not yet been
consecrated to the Immaculate Heart, how quickly and decisively he acts
as if he has suddenly discovered a reason for the existence of his high office
in the Church!
And so it is now admitted that
I am to be condemned, suppressed and even excommunicated because I do not
accept the "consecration" of 1984 and the "official" declaration that
Fatimas prophetic warnings to the Church and the world need no longer
concern us because they are all in the past. Yet the facts cannot be made to
disappear as easily as one priest, Holy Father. And these are the facts:
Since the "consecration" of
1984 the holocaust of abortion has only intensified in Russia. There are now
two abortions for every live birth in Russia, and the Russian population is
dwindling at the rate of 2500 people per day. Life expectancy is declining, and
half of all Russian men die before the age of 60. Abortion, contraception,
divorce, alcoholism and violent crime are rapidly destroying what is left of
Russian society. No less than Alexander Solzhenitsyn has declared that Russian
democracy is a myth and that the demographic trends in Russia are very
The Catholic Church in Russia
today labors under government-imposed restrictions to which the Orthodox, the
Jews, the Muslims and the Hindus are not subject, including the prohibition of
Catholic "proselytization" among non-Catholics. As a result, there are almost
no converts to the Faith in Russia, but many thousands of converts to Islam, a
favored religion under Russias new laws on "freedom of conscience."
By every measure, then,
Russias spiritual and material condition has only worsened since 1984.
There is no sign of the conversion of Russia. Meanwhile, overt communism still
enslaves one third of the worlds population in Red China and elsewhere.
The Catholic Church in China has been forced underground. Bishops and priests
have been arrested and imprisoned for the "crime" of remaining in communion
with the Pope.
Infinitely greater than any
offense Respondent has committed against me is the offense of promoting the lie
that mere political changes in Russia constitute the conversion of Russia and
the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart as well as the period of peace promised by
Our Lady of Fatima. This great lie endangers the spiritual and the temporal
welfare of the whole world, because it lulls the world, and especially
Catholics, into a deadly sense of complacency. This lie is a blasphemy, because
it implies that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Maryan action of
God Himselfmeans nothing more than the alteration of a political system,
not the miraculous supernatural conversion of souls to the one true religion
and their turning away from abortion and the other grave sins still rampant in
Holy Father, it is evident to
millions of the faithful that the actions of your own subordinates only confirm
that the consecration has yet to be done. Consider that only seven months ago
many Vatican officials, including Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Sodano, were
in Fatima for the beatification of Jacinta and Francisco.Yet no Vatican
representative asked Sister Lucy herself if the Consecration was accomplished
in 1984, even though she was in their presence and available to speak! Instead,
the Vaticans official commentary on the Third Secret, published June 26,
2000, cites as the only evidence for the Consecration being done in 1984
a computer-generated letter supposedly signed by Sister Lucy in 1989 and mailed
to a person whom the commentary does not even identify. Holy Father, Sister
Lucy does not even use a computer! Her voluminous memoirs were written entirely
in her own handwriting, yet we are expected to believe that this cloistered nun
(who was then over 80 years old) used a computer terminal to type a one-page
letter! We are also expected to believe that this letter was composed by Sister
Lucy even though it contains errors of fact Sister Lucy herself would never
have madefor example, that Paul VI performed a "consecration" of the
world during his visit to Fatima on May 13, 1967, when this never happened.
Your Holiness, one of the
reasons Respondent and his collaborators seek to destroy me and the Apostolate
is that we pose to the public legitimate questions such as the following:
- Why does the Vatican commentary cite, as the only evidence that the
Consecration was done in 1984, an eleven-year-old computer-generated letter,
when Sister Lucy herself was available seven months ago to testify to the whole
- Although they have had every opportunity to do so, Cardinal
Ratzinger, Cardinal Sodano and the other Vatican officials who went to Fatima
for the beatifications on May 13, 2000 never asked Sister Lucy about the
alleged 1984 consecration. Why? Or did they perhaps ask her, only to
receive the answer they did not wish to hear?
- If the Consecration was really done in 1984, then why did Monsignor
Bertone fail to ask Sister Lucy to confirm this when he personally visited her
in Coimbra on April 27, 2000? Why does Monsignor Bertone rely on the same
eleven-year-old letter, addressed to an unknown person, as proof of a matter he
could have discussed with Sister Lucy only a few months ago?
Your Holiness, it is clear
that Respondent and his collaborators will stop at nothing to bury the Message
of Fatima so that the Vatican Secretariat of State can proceed unimpeded in its
approchement with the powers of the world. As Your Holiness is surely
aware, on June 27, 2000, the day after the vision contained in the Third Secret
was published and explained away as entirely a thing of the past, the Vatican
staged a press conference at which Mikhail Gorbachev was given a place of honor
between Cardinals Sodano and Silvestrini.
This press conference was
called to celebrate the publication of the late Cardinal Casarolis
memoirs concerning his policy of Ostopolitikthe non-condemnation
and non-confrontation of communist regimeswhich Cardinal Cassaroli
imposed when he was Secretary of State, and which Cardinal Sodano continues to
impose to this day in the Churchs dealings with communist China.
Mr. Gorbachev, who recently
admitted that he is still a Leninist, uses his Gorbachev Foundation to promote
a universal regime of abortion and contraception in order to eliminate four
billion people from the worlds population. Gorbachev stands for
everything Our Lady of Fatima came in the name of Heaven to oppose and warn
against. Yet Gorbachev, this false prophet of the very culture of death which
Your Holiness has so often condemned, was made the Vaticans guest of
honor and seated between two princes of the Church, only one day after the
Message of Fatima was consigned to the past.
This disgraceful event at the
Vatican is the very embodiment of the Vatican Secretariat of States
entire agenda since the Council, as I have described it in my introduction to
this complaint. Holy Father, was this not a most terrible insult to Our Lady
and Her divine Son?
Your Holiness, the faithful
have other legitimate questions concerning the Consecration of Russia, which
the apostolate has not ceased to raise:
- What possible reason could there be for refusing to mention Russia in
the very consecration of Russia?
- Is it not ridiculous for Vatican officials to expend so many
thousands of words explaining why this one word cannot be uttered?
- Why not simply do exactly as Our Lady requested?
Indeed, in your own beautiful
sermon during the beatification ceremony this past May 13, you yourself, Holy
Father, expressly linked the Message of Fatima to the Book of the Apocalypse,
Chapter 12, verses 1-4. In your sermon at Fatima you declared that the
appearance of Our Lady of Fatima was nothing less than the fulfillment of the
biblical prophecy of the "Woman clothed with the sun" in Apocalypse 12:1. You
also drew our attention to verses 3 and 4, wherein we see the tail of the
dragon sweeping a third of the stars from heaven. We know that the common
interpretation of these verses is that the stars of heaven represent the
Catholic clergy. (See The Book of Destiny by Rev. Herman B. Kramer,
What were you trying to tell
us with this reference, Holy Father? Were you not suggesting that the story of
Fatima is far from over? Were you not warning us that we must be on our guard
against the many clergy who are doing the devils work in our time? And
who can seriously deny this, given the ever-deepening crisis of faith and
discipline in the Church, and the rapidly deteriorating condition of the world
at large? The almost daily news of scandal and malfeasance among the Catholic
priesthood tells us that you are right: many consecrated souls have indeed been
swept from heaven by the dragons tail.
Yet instead of addressing the
fall of so many consecrated souls, and the incalculable damage this disaster
has caused to the Church and the world, the Respondent and his collaborators
busy themselves with finding ways to destroy the good name of one priest from
Canada, whose only "offense" is to be outspoken about the very prophecy Your
Holiness himself has just proclaimed to the entire world.
Your Holiness, my work does
not bring me any material gain. I live in very modest circumstances, and could
live far more comfortably if I gave up this Apostolate. Nor do I derive any
pleasure from being unjustly denounced around the world by the Respondent and
his collaborators. Nevertheless, my conscience impels me to continue with my
work because, like millions of other Catholics, I continue to believe that the
Message of Fatima is a prophecy for our age which [as attested by Sister
Lucys own letter to Your Holiness in May 1982 and published by the
Vatican on June 26, 2000] has yet to be fulfilled.
communiqués accuse me of being "polemical" concerning the consecration
of Russia, but, Holy Father, any reasonable observer should be able to see that
the only polemics in this affair are coming from the Respondent and his
collaborators. For it takes a polemic indeed to explain why the Church cannot
simply do precisely as the Queen of Heaven requestedin a Message
authenticated by God Himself with the greatest public miracle in the history of
the world since the Resurrection.
Why Your Holiness has thus far
refrained from consecrating Russia in the manner Our Lady requested is a
question only Your Holiness can answer. But millions of Catholics around the
world continue to hope and pray that whatever impediment stands in the way of
the Consecration will be removed and Heavens request honored at long
last, for it is becoming apparent to more and more people that time is running
And this is why I go on with
my work, Holy Father, even under Respondents groundless threat of
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The Respondent enjoys a very
high position in the Church. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, he
is charged with the duty of protecting and defending the rights of the
clergy, not merely reviewing their obligations. (Pastor bonus, Art. 95)
The Respondents position requires that he exhibit exemplary prudence,
justice and composure in the exercise of his duties.
What is more, as Your Holiness
would know, the Council of Trent [quoted in Canon 2214 of the 1917 Code of
Canon Law] has stated the binding teaching of the Church on the proper relation
of bishops to their subjects:
"Bishops and all ordinaries
must be pastors not persecutors. They must rule their subjects, but not
dominate them. They must love their subjects as brothers and sons
[Meminerint Episcopi aliique Ordinarii se pastores non percussores esse, atque
ita praeesse, sibi subditis opportere, ut non in eis dominentur, sed illos
tamquaqm filios et fratres diligant
Respondent has made a mockery
of these sacred obligations of his. Instead of showing me brotherhood and
charity, he has done precisely what the Holy Council of Trent condemned: he has
sought to dominate and destroy me by brutishly abusing his authority and
spreading lies about me throughout the world. Enlisting the worldwide apparatus
of the Vatican Secretariat of State, and squandering the prestige of his office
in this illicit enterprise;
- He has falsely accused me of the crime of forgery in a public
ecclesiastical document, whose circulation he commanded.
- He has threatened me privately and publicly with a groundless
excommunication in order to extort my compliance with his unlawful and immoral
intervention in a civil forumonly to claim hypocritically later on that
he cannot discuss the matter with me because the civil forum is beyond his
jurisdiction! To threaten a priest who has done nothing wrong with the ultimate
penalty of expulsion from the Mystical Body, simply to gain an illicit temporal
advantage, is misconduct which in and of itself warrants Respondents
removal from office. Such misconduct has never been seen in the modern history
of the Church.
- He has published demonstrable lies about my canonical status and
Catholic orthodoxy in an effort to cause the whole Church to shun me and a
perfectly legitimate apostolate devoted to Our Lady of Fatima.
In summary, Respondent has
taken actions against me and the Apostolate he would never dare to take against
any of the notorious enemies of the Church, who operate freely within the ranks
of the sacred priesthood while Respondent does nothing to stop them.
behavior demonstrates that his motives are malicious. He seems to think it is
his personal mission to destroy me, no matter what means he must employ. He has
completely lost sight of the purpose of his office and the obligations of
utmost charity and justice it imposes upon him. Shamelessly invoking the name
of Our Lord and Our Lady in his extortionate correspondence, he cynically
cloaks his malicious abuse of power in the language of piety. In short, the
Respondent is simply out of control. His abuse of power and his naked hypocrisy
disgrace the office he holds and bring shame on the Church as a whole. Only
Your Holiness can rein him in and restore the dignity of his officeby
removing him from it.
Furthermore, not only
Respondent, but all those who have combined and conspired with him in his
activities, are liable to severe punishments, not excluding their removal from
office. Cfr. Canons 1329 and 1389-91.
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For all of the reasons I have
set forth here, and in my pending recourses and canonical complaints before
Your Holiness, I respectfully request the following relief:
A. Removal of Respondent, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, from office
for abuse of power as envisioned in can. 1389.
B. A decree of Your Holiness compelling Respondent to retract his false
allegation of forgery and the other false allegations he has made against me,
and further compelling him to make restitution by publicly proclaiming that I
am a priest in good standing who has committed no offense which would warrant
penal action against me, as envisioned in cann. 1390 and 1391.
C. A decree of Your Holiness compelling Respondent to publicly withdraw
his illicit threat of excommunication.
D. Public censure of Respondent by Your Holiness for his abuse of power,
as envisioned in can. 1390, §2.
E. Public censure and removal from office of all those who have
conspired and acted in concert with Respondent, as envisioned by the canons
cited in A-D and can. 1329.
Your Holiness now has before
him three canonical recourses/complaints from decrees and actions of Respondent
and his predecessors and collaborators, including this canonical complaint. The
documents I have lodged with Your Holiness demonstrate beyond any doubt an
utterly unprecedented pattern of abuse of power by high-ranking prelates who
claim to be acting in your name.
I remain hopeful that Your
Holiness will act to correct the unparalleled injustices being perpetrated in
your name. I also retain the hope that Your Holiness will remove the illicit
motive for these injustices by finally heeding the key imperative of the
Message of Fatima, which our adversaries have labored for so long to obscure
Humbly submitted this 20th day of December in the Year of Our Lord
Father Nicholas Gruner, S.T.L., S.T.D., (Cand.)
452 Kraft Rd.; Fort Erie; Ontario; Canada L2A 4M7
P.S. I trust that the three canonical complaints I have now lodged with
Your Holiness, and all of the accompanying documents and correspondence, are
sufficient to prove the allegations in this most recent canonical complaint
against Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos. If any of the documents I have lodged
with Your Holiness are missing, or if Your Holiness requires clarification of
any point, please let me know and I will forward the necessary documentation to
Your Holiness as soon as possible.
Table of Contents