FATIMA PRIEST: The Biography of Father Nicholas Gruner

Appendix VIII

Because the Apostolic Signature allowed its preliminary decision to be broadcast widely, it is necessary to publish here two documents that were instrumental in reopening that decision. These documents help set the record straight at this time of the ever coming closer final showdown between certain Vatican bureaucrats who apparently answer to no one and the full Fatima Message as given by Our Lady.

SUPREME TRIBUNAL OF THE APOSTOLIC SIGNATURA

An Appeal from a Decree of the Congresso, dated May 15, 1995,

Refusing to Admit this Cause for Discussion by the Judges of the Plenaria

Protocol No. 25250/94 C.A.

-by-

[SUBMITTED ALSO UNDER Protocol No. 96002069]

Father Nicholas Gruner, S.T.L.; S.T.D. [Cand.]

Recurrent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Recurrent hereby appeals from a decree of the Congresso, dated May 15, 1995, and received by recurrent on October 28, 1996, refusing to admit this recourse for discussion to the judges of the Plenaria.

Recurrent hereby affirms that he has made this recourse within 90 days of his reception of the decree from his former advocate, Carlo Tricerri, who did not advise recurrent of the existence of the decree or provide him with a copy of it until October 28, 1996. On November 15, 1996 recurrent advised this Tribunal that he would file this recourse within 90 days of October 28, to which advice he received no objection from the Tribunal.

Recurrent affirms he was ignorant of how to appeal to the Plenaria, but has relied entirely upon his advocate, who never advised recurrent of the applicable time limits and procedures, and never took an appeal from the decree. [After he received the decree, recurrent was advised by a canonist that 90 days is the time limit for this appeal.] Based on advice from another advocate of this Tribunal, recurrent believes advocate Tricerri was unable to render effective legal assistance in this matter because of debilitating illness. Accordingly, recurrent hereby discharges advocate Tricerri from the cause and reserves the right to find a new advocate.

The decree sub judice leaves intact an order issued on January 31, 1994 by the Bishop of Avellino, His Excellency Antonio Forte. Said order directs recurrent to return from Canada to the Diocese of Avellino after an approved absence of over 16 years, without just cause, and canonically admonishes recurrent for completely unspecified “outrages” and “scandals”.

b>Reliance Upon Related Recourse

For purposes of this appeal, recurrent hereby incorporates by reference, as if completely restated here, the facts and legal arguments contained in the related recourse already pending before this Tribunal under Protocol No. 96002069. A copy of the related recourse is affixed hereto.

II. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

Recurrent appeals said decree on the following grounds:

A. In general, as to the decree itself:

(1) The decree served as the procedural predicate for a subsequent order by the Bishop of Avellino, issued May 16, 1996, which relies upon the decree and orders recurrent to return to Avellino in 29 days under penalty of suspension. Accordingly, the related recourse should be stayed until this recourse is decided.

(2) The decree is the obvious product of blatant bias and marked hostility on the part of the Prefect of this Tribunal, who has been working behind the scenes since at least 1989 to arrange the exile of recurrent to Avellino, even though three successive bishops of Avellino had no grievance against recurrent and no reason of their own to recall him.

Civil litigation in Canada has uncovered a letter from the Prefect to the Bishop of Avellino, dated October 27, 1989, in which the Prefect privately advises the Bishop to revoke recurrent’s permission to reside outside the Diocese of Avellino and to threaten him with suspension and ultimately reduction to the lay state. Said letter instructs the Bishop to pretend that the idea of recalling and canonically punishing recurrent was the Bishop’s own, and not the Prefect’s. (Despite this letter, recurrent’s permission to reside outside the Diocese of Avellino was not revoked until the above-noted order of Bishop Forte, dated January 31, 1994.)

(3) The decree contains no fewer than 12 manifest errors of fact and law. The decree uses these errors to support its false conclusions (both express and implicit) that recurrent’s permission to live outside the Diocese of Avellino was revoked in 1989, that he was disobedient to legitimate precepts of his superiors, that he was deprived of “faculties”, that he waived his right to be incardinated in an Indian diocese, that he has been living in Canada and conducting his apostolate in violation of the law of the Church.

(4) The decree, with all of its errors, was evidently released by this Tribunal for publication and distribution throughout North America, despite the supposed confidentiality of proceedings in the Signatura. The decree must be amended to reflect the true facts and law so as to restore recurrent’s good name and priestly reputation.

B. In particular, as to the decree itself:

(1) The decree falsely accuses recurrent of “de facto independence” from ecclesiastical authority, when there is no factual dispute [see related recourse] that recurrent had both express and tacit permission from three successive Bishops of Avellino and various local ordinaries in Canada to reside in Canada and conduct his work there for over sixteen years. Furthermore, there is no such offense as being “de facto independent” from a bishop. It is perfectly legitimate to maintain incardination strictly as a conditio iuris while residing permanently outside the diocese of ordination with the bishop*s permission, as the Congregation for the Clergy implicitly conceded in the related recourse. [It must be noted that the identical phrase “de facto independence” appears in the aforementioned 1989 letter of the Prefect, directing the Bishop of Avellino to revoke recurrent’s longstanding permission to reside in Canada while pretending that this action was taken on the Bishop’s own initiative.]

(2) The decree falsely implies that recurrent’s apostolate has been conducted without some necessary “canonical recognition” and is an unlawful “private initiative”. Absolutely no canonical recognition is required for recurrent’s apostolate, and there is nothing unlawful about a “private initiative” by a priest in the field of apostolic work. [Can. 278] What is more, recurrent’s apostolate was conducted with the express and tacit permission referred to above.

(3) The decree falsely accuses recurrent of disobeying a “precept” of the Papal nuncio, when no such precept was ever given, as the nuncio admitted in a letter and in a tape-recorded conversation.

(4) The decree falsely accuses recurrent of disobeying a “command” of the Congregation for the Clergy to be incardinated elsewhere or return to Avellino, and of ignoring a canonical admonition by the Congregation in that regard. In fact, the “command” and “admonition” were issued by the Prefect of the Congregation at the time (Cardinal Innocenti) in an ultra vires manner, usurping the authority of the local ordinary, who had issued no command or admonition himself. [See Can. 1339 §1] Accordingly, the “command” and “admonition” were dropped by Innocenti after recurrent objected in writing and appealed to the Pope. None of these facts is mentioned in the decree.

(5) The decree falsely states that plaintiff’s permission to live outside of Canada was revoked by the Bishop of Avellino on November 15, 1989, when in fact it was not revoked until January 31, 1994 by the aforesaid order of Bishop Forte. The letter of November 15, 1989 makes no demand that recurrent return to Canada, and subsequent letters from successive Bishops of Avellino clearly presume the continuation of recurrent*s 1978 permission to live outside the Diocese of Avellino. This false finding of “fact” is used by the decree to give the impression that recurrent was a “vagus” priest from 1989 to 1994, and that he was contumaciously refusing during that time a lawful order to return. There simply was no order to return, nor any revocation of the permission to remain outside the diocese, until January 31, 1994.

(6) The decree falsely states that by letter of July 18, 1989, the Bishop of Avellino at the time, His Excellency Gerardo Pierro, revoked “all faculties” he had given to recurrent, but the decree fails to note the obvious point that recurrent had no faculties in the Diocese of Avellino in the first place, and that the letter was, therefore, quite meaningless. Yet, said letter does affirm recurrent’s continued permission to reside in Canada while seeking a benevolent bishop to incardinate him elsewhere.

(7) The decree falsely states that recurrent failed to “contest” the so-called “revocation of all faculties” referred to in the previous paragraph, when there were no faculties to revoke and nothing to contest—as confirmed by the advice of a professor of canon law consulted by recurrent at the time the July 18, 1989 letter was issued.

(8) The decree falsely states that recurrent failed to “contest” a so-called “refused incardination” by Bishop Rego of India, when in fact there is no provision in the Code of Canon Law for contesting a Bishop’s refusal to incardinate. Furthermore, Bishop Rego withdrew his offer of incardination only because of ultra vires interventions by the then Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation for the Clergy, who systematically blocked recurrent’s incardination by a series of benevolent bishops, which this Tribunal knows but which the decree does not reveal.

(9) The decree falsely asserts that recurrent failed to make recourse against the canonical admonition and threat of penal process contained in Bishop Forte’s January 31, 1994 order to return, when the brief submitted to this Tribunal by recurrent’s advocate, Carlo Tricerri, clearly objects to the miramur and threat of penal process as being utterly without foundation under Cann. 1339 and 1341, there having been no episcopal investigation, let alone proof, of the required, “scandal”, “proximate danger of scandal” or other grounds for issuing an admonition under said canons.

(10) The decree falsely states that recurrent’s forced return to Avellino did not involve a canonical penalty from which a recourse would lie, when in fact loss of residence and exile to a foreign diocese (which had denied recurrent any canonical mission and allowed him to establish his roots in Canada) are clearly penalties under Cann. 1336, §1, 1, for example.

(11) The decree falsely states that there was “just cause” for recalling recurrent to Avellino because he “after so many years has not yet been incardinated in another diocese”. This Tribunal is well aware that the former Prefect and current Secretary of the Congregation for the Clergy—through illicit, extra-canonical private interventions kept hidden from the record of these proceedings—have systematically blocked recurrent’s incardination by a series of benevolent bishops who wished to foster his apostolate. This fact was not disputed by said prelates in the related recourse when it came before them. This Tribunal is also aware that said prelates have even attempted to coerce the Archbishop of Hyderabad into withdrawing his formal decree incardinating recurrent in his Archdiocese, which decree explicitly refers to a conspiracy by said prelates to deny recurrent his rights with respect to incardination by a benevolent bishop.

(12) The decree falsely states that there was “just cause” for recalling recurrent to Avellino because he was conducting “his own private work” “de facto independently of the legitimate ecclesiastical authority”. As already noted, three successive bishops of Avellino freely allowed recurrent to engage in the apostolate for over sixteen years without objection; the apostolate also received express and tacit permission from various local ordinaries in Canada; and the phrase “de facto independent” is, in any event, quite meaningless and of no import canonically. Moreover, Can. 278 envisions the establishment and conduct of private associations for pious works by secular priests, without need of formal canonical recognition or approval.

C. In particular, as to the underlying order of Bishop Forte:

While this Tribunal’s competence in contentious-administrative recourses is limited to the question whether the law was violated by the administrative act of a bishop, the norms governing contentious-administrative recourses do permit recourse from the substance of a bishop’s administrative decision, as a violation of the law in decernendo, if

“[I]t could be proven that the reasons given by the bishop were substantially unfounded ... [or] if canon law requires specific reasons for a particular type of decision ... and it could be proven that such requirements were not observed.” [Norm 1(c)]

This case involves palpable violation of the law both in decernendo and in procedendo by the Bishop of Avellino for the following reasons:

(1) Successive Bishops of Avellino admitted to recurrent that they themselves had no grievances against him and no reason to recall him to Avellino, but were acting solely at the behest of the aforesaid prelates. [Cfr. undisputed statement of facts in related recourse.] Thus, the January 31, 1994 order to return was admittedly without foundation, and therefore a per se violation of the law in decernendo.

Recurrent and three successive bishops of Avellino had clearly established a modus vivendi of many years duration which is not uncommon for priests today: Recurrent’s incardination in Avellino was maintained strictly as a conditio iuris while he was permitted to pursue his legitimate apostolic work. Indeed, the Diocese of Avellino manifestly never had need of recurrent’s physical presence since he had never been given any canonical mission in the diocese. What is more, as noted in the factual recitation of the related recourse, it was impossible for recurrent to have a canonical mission in Avellino since he could not speak the dialect, was not permitted to hear confessions, and could not even deliver a sermon unless it was first totally written out by recurrent in Italian (in which he has never been completely fluent, let alone able to write ecclesiastical prose).

The aforementioned letter sent by the Prefect of this Tribunal to the Bishop of Avellino in 1989 proves conclusively that there would never have been a revocation of recurrent’s permission to live outside the diocese had it not been instigated and orchestrated by the Prefect as part of a preconceived plan to silence recurrent and abolish his apostolate because it promotes legitimate views concerning the Message of Fatima which certain members of the Vatican apparatus, including the Prefect, vehemently oppose. [Cfr. related recourse]

In short, there was, by the Bishop’s own undisputed admission in the related recourse, no “just cause” for recalling recurrent to Avellino pursuant to Can. 271§3.

(2) Since recurrent’s “failure” to be incardinated by another bishop was caused entirely by the ultra vires interventions and abuse of authority by the aforesaid members of the Congregation for the Clergy, with the evident collaboration of the Prefect of this Congregation, the “failure” to be incardinated was not “just cause” recalling recurrent to Avellino after an approved absence of over sixteen years.

It is of utmost importance to note that there is no dispute in the related recourse that recurrent’s incardination by a series of benevolent bishops was systematically obstructed by the aforesaid members of the Congregation for the Clergy through unprecedented extra-canonical, secretive means (and with the evident collaboration of the Prefect of this Tribunal, who himself initiated the process of unjustly recalling recurrent to Avellino with his letter to the Bishop of Avellino of October 27, 1989). Indeed, even when recurrent succeeded in obtaining a formal decree of incardination from the Archbishop of Hyderabad, said prelates refused to accept it, and privately intervened once again to block recurrent’s incardination by yet another benevolent bishop.

It is manifest, therefore, that recurrent’s so-called “failure” to be incardinated in another diocese was not just cause for recalling recurrent since recurrent was indisputably not at fault for “failing” to be incardinated.

(3) Recurrent was manifestly not a “vagus” priest as falsely stated in the January 31, 1994 order.

The January 31, 1994 order manifestly errs when it asserts that recurrent must return to Avellino because he was a “vagus” priest. It is undisputed that recurrent had written permission to live outside the diocese as of the date of the order, and this permission negates as a matter of law the claim that recurrent was a “vagus”.

(4) There was manifestly no basis for the canonical admonition and threat of penal process contained in the January 31, 1994 order.

On its face, the January 31, 1994 order fails to meet even the minimum requirements for the issuance of a canonical admonition and threat of penal process under Cann. 1339 and 1341. These canons, read together, require the following elements to be established before the admonition can be issued:

— the existence of a “scandal” caused by the cleric, “serious disturbance of public order”, some other offense, or proximate occasion of an offense, or serious suspicion of same after an investigation,

— prior efforts at fraternal correction or reproof.

The order specifies no “scandal”, “serious disturbance of public order”, offense or proximate offense whatsoever. [The only effort to provide any evidence in support of the admonition was Bishop Forte’s reference to a complaint in 1978(!) from an unnamed party concerning some unspecified dispute within recurrent’s own apostolate — which letter had never before been mentioned.] Indeed, it was not disputed in the related recourse that some two weeks before the order was issued Bishop Forte admitted to recurrent that he had no grievance against recurrent. The admonition of January 31, 1994 appears suddenly, as if from nowhere.

Of course, the record in this cause and in the related recourse is devoid of any prior effort at fraternal correction or reproof, as required by cited canons, because the completely unspecified “scandals” and “outrages” mentioned in the January 31, 1994 order had never been mentioned even once in the preceding sixteen years. There were in fact no scandals or outrages to mention.

For these reasons there was also no basis for the threat of penal process. Can. 1318 precludes a threat of latae sententiae penalties (under Can. 1341), except for “outstanding and malicious offenses”. No offenses, let alone malicious offenses, were specified in the January 31, 1994 order or any other pronouncement of the Bishop of Avellino. In fact, recurrent has never been charged with any canonical offense whatsoever in the entire 20 years of his priestly life.

Thus, it is beyond dispute that Bishop Forte had no basis for issuing a canonical admonition and threat of penal process.

D. Request for Recusal

For the reasons set forth above, and in the related recourse, recurrent respectfully demands that the Prefect of this Tribunal recuse himself from this matter both as a matter of natural equity and pursuant to Can. 1447, 1448, or be removed from the case pursuant to recurrent’s demand under Can. 1449.

E. Request for Documents

Recurrent respectfully requests that this Tribunal make available for inspection and copying by recurrent’s advocate all correspondence and other communications between the Prefect, the successive Bishops of Avellino and any of the bishops who have offered incardination to recurrent at any time, and all such correspondence by the former Prefect and current Secretary of the Congregation for the Clergy, as well as any “declarations” or other documents pertaining to recurrent issued by this Tribunal, the Congregation for the Clergy or the Bishop of Avellino.

II. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, recurrent respectfully requests the following relief:

(A) A stay of the related recourse until this recourse is decided;

(B) Recusal of the Prefect from any further involvement in this recourse;

(D) Revocation of the decree sub judice and the underlying order of Bishop Forte;

(E) An order of this Tribunal directing the Prefect of this Tribunal, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and its current Secretary, and their various collaborators, whomever they may be, from any further interference in recurrent’s incardination by any and all benevolent bishops who will accept him;

(F) An order of this Tribunal directing the Bishop of Avellino to grant excardination to recurrent in favor of the Archbishop of Hyderabad or any other benevolent bishop who offers incardination;

(G) An award of damages in favor of recurrent and against the Prefect of this Tribunal, His Eminence G. Agustoni, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, His Eminence Jose Sanchez, and its current Secretary, His Excellency C. Sepe, the current Bishop of Avellino, His Excellency Antonio Forte, and their collaborators, for abuse of ecclesiastical authority and violation of law, both in procedendo and in decernendo, and transferring this matter to the First See to the extent that the claim for damages involves Cardinals.

Respectfully submitted this 27th day of January, 1997.

Father Nicholas Gruner, S.T.L., S.T.D. [Cand.], Recurrent

January 31, 1997
Feast of St. John Bosco

His Holiness Pope John Paul II

Vatican City 00120

Rome, Italy

Re: Recourses to Apostolic Signatura
Protocol No. 25250/94 C.A.
Protocol No. 96002069

Most Holy Father:

In the above-noted recourses now pending in the Supreme Apostolic Signatura, I have made a request that the Prefect of the Signatura, His Eminence Gilberto Cardinal Agustoni, be recused from judging either matter.

The reason I am constrained to write to Your Holiness regarding this request is that under the authentic interpretation of Canon 1449, which governs recusal of who judges are Cardinals in the Signatura, including the Prefect, the request for recusal must be addressed to the Supreme Pontiff (Response of the PCIV/67-84, 01-07-1976, AAS 68 (1976) 635, CLD 8 [1973-1977] 1091-1902) I make this request under Can. 1447 § 1 and 1449 on grounds of bias and marked hostility on the part of the Cardinal Prefect, and also on grounds of his disqualification under Can. 1447, in that he has already rendered one adverse decision against me in this matter and therefore cannot continue to judge the case now that it has come before him again.

Your Holiness has been made aware of the facts of my case in the recourse I lodged personally with Your Holiness through the intercession of two benevolent bishops on November 20, 1996, at the end of the General Audience that day. There is no need to rehearse those facts here.

Suffice it to say that I am compelled to seek recusal of the Cardinal-Prefect from judging my recourses, because the facts establish that since at least 1989 he has been working behind the scenes, outside the proper channels of Canon law, to silence me and abolish the perfectly legitimate apostolate in which I have been engaged since 1978.

I am attaching to this letter as prime evidence of my contention a private letter form the Cardinal-Prefect (then Secretary for the Congregation of the Clergy) to then Bishop of Avellino, His Excellency Gerardo Pierro, dated October 27, 1989. I was obviously never supposed to see this letter, but by Providence it was discovered in the course of civil litigation in Canada. In this letter then Archbishop Agustoni, who is supposed to be the impartial judge in my case, carefully outlines the “stages” (as he himself put it) by which I was to be recalled to Avellino without just cause, under threat of “reduction to the laystate” if necessary, after an approved absence of over 16 years - during which time I had based my whole priestly life on an apostolate which no Bishop of Avellino had ever forbade me to conduct.

The Cardinal’s letter concludes with the admonition that the Bishop of Avellino should pretend that the “stages” and decisions involved he presented as having originated in the mind of the Bishop, rather than being the plan of archbishop Agustoni. In this way, it was evidently hoped that Archbishop Agustoni could then judge any recourse I might make against what are really his own actions, while maintaining a false appearance of objectivity and fairness in his “deliberations”.

Your Holiness will note that the letter is couched in terms of apparent solicitude for my priestly welfare and the good of the Church, combined with the accusation that I have failed to find a benevolent bishop to incardinate me, so that all my problems are my own fault. But facts which have arisen since the Cardinal’s letter will, I am afraid, expose the insincerity of these expressed motives:

On November 4, 1995, Your Holiness, I was given a formal decree of incardination by Archbishop Saminini Arulappa of the Archdiocese of Hyderabad [second attachment], where my apostolate maintains an orphanage and where my priestly services and apostolic work are welcome by a very benevolent and holy prelate. The Archbishop has, in turn, been given a decree of excardination from the Diocese of Avellino, issued by Bishop Pierro a few months before Cardinal Agustoni began to interfere in my case with his 1989 letter.

This completed incardination into a “Third World” diocese in need of priests and financial support is precisely what Pastor Bonus* directs the Congregation for the Clergy to encourage. Yet the former Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Sanchez, and its current Secretary, Abp. Sepe, have simply declared that this incardination by a benevolent bishop is “tanquam non existens”. So, Your Holiness, even when I finally succeed in doing what they have consistently blocked me from doing for years — becoming incardinated by a benevolent bishop — they declare the incardination non-existent! It is this decision of the Congregation which now comes before Cardinal Agustoni as Prefect of the Signatura.

If Cardinal Agustoni were truly concerned with my priestly welfare and the good of the Church, one would expect him to overrule the Congregation, declare my incardination in Hyderabad valid, and thereby fulfill the mandate of Pastor Bonus to assign priests to where they are needed and can have a canonical mission best suited to their particular gifts. Obviously, this will not happen: In 1995 Cardinal Agustoni sat in judgment on my first recourse against the order to return to Avellino even though it was he himself who had instigated the order. He then proceeded to issue an error-filled decree upholding the order to return as a valid exercise of the “bishop’s” discretion, when it was he himself who had told the bishop in a secret letter to order my return and to pretend that it was the bishop’s idea!

Your Holiness, how can I possibly expect justice now, from such a judge? Is it not completely clear that the Cardinal will simply confirm his own secret designs as expressed in 1989 and order me back to a diocese where it was impossible for me to have a canonical mission in the first place, and where the Bishop has never needed my services or given me any support in the past 20 years?

Permit me, Your Holiness, to quote from the decree of incardination issued by the most benevolent Archbishop of Hyderabad:

“Evil forces have conspired to put an end to your work of love. But you go ahead trusting in the Lord. His love is steadfast and He will never fail, though you may be subject to many a trial and even persecution. God will also give you great comfort and consolation through innumerable friends and well-wishers. Bureaucratic forces cannot stifle God’s work. It is my prayer that you continue in your God-given mission in spite of great opposition.”

You can see, Your Holiness, that there is an objective reality to the concerted illicit actions against me which have brought about my recourses, and also this request for recusal of the Cardinal Prefect from judging my case. The reality that I am being persecuted is readily seen by this distinguished prelate, who has been a bishop for 25 years, and he justly and fearlessly condemns it.

I will conclude, Your Holiness, by noting that in his secret 1989 letter outlining the plan for my “demise”, the Cardinal patronizingly refers to me as “a difficult subject”. No, Your Holiness, I am not a “difficult subject”. I am only a loyal priest who knows his God-given rights and is not afraid to exercise them — because he believes in conscience that the good of the Church, the salvation of souls and peace in the world are aided by the work of all the faithful, including myself, in promoting fearlessly and publicly the whole Message of Fatima. As Your Holiness himself said at Fulda, knowledge of the Fatima message brings with it a responsibility. Given what I know by God’s grace and His Providence, it is my duty to promote against all illicit opposition the Message of Fatima, despite my personal inclination to retreat and find some quiet haven away from the struggles my adversaries constantly impose upon me.

Your Holiness, the evidence speaks for itself. For Cardinal Agustoni to judge my recourses, even while he acts against me as an adverse party, would be a mockery of justice which would diminish substantially the credibility of the Signatura as a tribunal where priests can receive a fair hearing of their legitimate grievances against the abuse of power by prelates. Under Cann. 1447-48 the Cardinal should have recused himself in 1995, he did not. The case has come before him again, again he should recuse himself. He does not. Therefore, I must make this request.

Your Holiness, as my Father in the Faith, I am asking you for bread. I am begging you for the bread of a just hearing before an impartial judge. Please do not let them give me a scorpion instead.

In conclusion, I pray that Your Holiness will order the recusal of Cardinal Agustoni from my case — as only you are able to do under the law of the Church.

Humbly submitted,

Father Nicholas Gruner

*Pastor Bonus is a legal document published by Pope John Paul II outlining the various duties of the Vatican Congregations and courts.

P.S. I enclose as the third attachment my recourse to the Plenaria of the Signatura from Cardinal Agustoni’s decree of May 15, 1995 (received by me only on October 28, 1996), which decree is a monument to the hostility and bias of the Cardinal in my case. I pray you will read this recourse in full since it summarizes in detail how truth itself is perverted in the effort to silence me without canonical due process.

P.P.S. This letter includes three attachments:

1. Letter of Cardinal Agustoni to Bishop Pierro, dated October 27, 1989 (2 pp).

2. Decree of Incardination issued to me by Abp. Arulappa, dated November 4, 1995. (1 p.)

3. My most recent recourse to the Signatura, dated January 27, 1997 (9 pp) and attached prior recourse to the Signatura (39 pp.) and 23 attachments in two binders.

I will of course supply any additional documentation or explanations Your Holiness might require.

Continue ...