|
|||||
|
An Interview with Father Nicholas Gruner In this article, the introduction is by Francis Alban. Questions and comments by Francis Alban are in italic print. Responses by Father Gruner are in regular print. Sub-titles were added by the editor. Ten years of serving Our Lady of Fatima had made Father Nicholas Gruner a household word around the world by the mid ’80’s. His Fatima Crusader now had a readership of over one million souls. He had logged months touring with the Pilgrim Virgin Statue. Hundreds of thousands of rosaries, scapulars and devotional booklets were in the hands of the needy, and the poor were having the Gospel preached to them through these instruments his work had generated. But the shadows of Church and State politics that had been deepening all round his Apostolate seemed suddenly ever more charged and dark. Yet nothing in the Apostolate’s history so far even suggested that a rest or a lull in its agenda was in the offing. What would the trajectory of the Apostolate be in the next few years? Recently, on a May 13th anniversary of the first Fatima apparition, Father Gruner sat in the living room of his modest quarters in Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada, and looked back over those crucial years. To best underscore the reason and the need for his Apostolate’s continued drive, he verbally scanned the state of the Church in our day. With the comforting rays of a classical Canadian sunset warming the library titles, he addressed the issue at the heart of the consecration dilemma — the question of the actual influence John Paul II has on his bishops. “If the Pope needs to order the bishops to consecrate Russia with him on the same day in their own cathedrals around the world, what kind of motivation is he going to provide them? What kind of co-operation will he receive from some of his bureaucrats in the Vatican? Father Gruner examined the quandary through the prism of salvation history. “Before original sin Adam had perfect control of his faculties. One can say Adam was not tempted to over-eat because his appetite was so subject to his reason. It was obedient to his reason, as were all his faculties. Thus, after he ate enough, the appetite simply turned off until it was needed again. If he needed sleep, he didn’t say wait, I’ve got to do this last job and stay up three more hours. His every faculty was so obedient that it was not a question of his members saying but I want to go this direction, I want to go that direction. “Today, after original sin, without grace and without mortification, none of us would have any control. “We see the case of people who drink too much, who are not faithful to their wives or husbands, not because they don’t realize there’s something wrong, but because of original sin their appetites have not been reined in by their reason. But Adam initially did not have that struggle. What happened after original sin? He no longer obeyed his reason. His eyes wanted to see what they should not see, his ears to hear what they should not hear, and his wife did not want to obey him either. Her own faculties did not want to obey her. These are the effects of original sin. “Sickness comes about because of disorder, because the agent of sickness does not obey the higher faculty. Ultimately, this is what is happening in the Church. The disobedient bureaucrats have not obeyed God, so they are reaping the reward. “They tell God, ‘This is our church now. You’re up in Heaven, we’re going to do things our way. We’re not going to listen to the voice of prophecy, we’re not going to reveal the Third Secret, we’re not going to consecrate Russia, we’re just going to do our own thing.’ At the same time, they say to their inferiors, ‘you down there, you must obey me.’ Diabolical Disorientation“Since Our Lady’s message, which is obligatory to obey, has been largely ignored by those in authority, the Church is suffering diabolical disorientation. People may do their best resisting the disorientation but they don’t have the specifics, they’re not canonists, they’re not theologians, they simply intuit that something is wrong. “Let me share with you a key to understanding much of the disunity and division that has invaded the Church since 1960. I was in the seminary in Montreal when I made one of my biggest discoveries during my theological training. “In January of 1967, the Vicar General of the diocese of Montreal put
out a statement in which the basic impression created in the mind of the
reader was that priests Nicholas Gruner, like thousands of other people, read that letter and
understood that it was his obligation under obedience to not promote
Garabandal in the diocese. Then he read it a second time.
“I realized that no order was contained in it whatsoever. In my
thorough Germanic nature, I went to the Vice Chancellor of the diocese of
Montreal and I said, ‘Do I understand this letter correctly or not?’ I
told him it appears to give an order, but upon careful reading it is clear
that no order is given. His answer was extremely enlightening. He said,
‘Yes, we wrote it that way on purpose.’
“It took me some time to think about it but I finally realized the
implication of such a diabolical technique. I realized I was not bound to
obey such an order ‘not given’. In Canon Law a person in authority has to
give an order and not simply imply he has given one. Second, the person
giving an order has to take personal responsibility for giving the order.
In this case it was obvious, by the Msgr.’s own admission, that they had
purposely written the letter in such a way as to give the appearance of an
order, without having actually given it, so when proven wrong they can
state they never forebade its promotion.”
The library interior altered as the sunset darkened. Father Gruner
thought aloud about the whole nature of subversion.
“Jesus tells us in St. John’s gospel that the shepherd is the one that
comes through the gate, but the thief climbs up another way.(1)
“In Isaias, God, speaking to the prophet says, ‘I have not spoken in
secret, in a dark place of the earth.’ In other words, God, and those who
act authoritatively in God’s stead, must be willing to publicly take
responsibility for what they say and do.(2)
“Whereas a subversive, whether in the Church or the State, such as
Masons, do not give their orders in the open and they do not take personal
responsibility for the orders they give.
“To this day, some bureaucrats, even in the Vatican, craft a document
to give the impression of issuing an order without any order actually
being given. This is not an accident or sloppiness but it is a subversive
technique. It doesn’t look like it at first. The technique is diabolical.
This is also a schismatic practice. Schism in Greek means ‘to tear apart’.
Today it means to tear apart the unity of the Church. When authority gives
such non-orders, the faithful are divided. Those faithful who think they
must be obedient to the ‘non-order’ frequently misjudge the other faithful
who are astute enough to not fall for the ‘non-order’. Thus many good
priests and faithful in the Church are forced to work against faithful
who, out of misguided loyalty to the ‘non-order’, put obstacles in their
way. The same technique was used regarding the Novus Ordo.
“In 1969, the New Mass was ‘promulgated’ in such a way as to give the
impression that the New Mass was what priests must now say and that the
old Mass was forbidden.
“But look closely and you will find that there was no order given, that
no law was passed and that it is not binding.
“Nevertheless, you now have people saying, ‘I will not attend the
Tridentine Mass’, and they say to those on the other side, ‘You are
disobedient. How can you call yourself Catholic and disobey the
order of the Pope?’ The confusion was deliberately caused.”
One week after making this statement, Father Gruner’s opinion
regarding the legality of the old Mass received forceful support from a
high-profile Vatican official. On May 20, 1995, Alfons Cardinal
Stickler, speaking before several hundred lay people, canon lawyers
and priests at Fort Lee, New Jersey, confirmed that in 1986, a papal
commission of nine Cardinals appointed by Pope John Paul II found that the
Tridentine Mass was perfectly legal and in force and that no Pope or any
other competent authority had forbidden it from being said by any Catholic
priest.
“The technique is diabolical,” Father Gruner continued, “and has set up
within the Body of the Church, two opposing factions. There is a battle
within the Body of the Church because of the technique. The members of the
Mystical Body are warring against one another because of it. You
cannot give two contradictory orders and expect the body politic to live
in peace as God intended them to. Let me explain:
“If a father tells his two oldest sons to paint the living room green
and then outside their hearing tells the next two sons to paint it red and
then hides himself so that neither the first sons nor the second sons can
find him, you have massive confusion.
“Both sets go off and paint the same living room, each one fights
against the other because each is being obedient to the father. But the
father gave contradictory orders which causes in turn the sons to fight,
to break up, to tear apart unity which should be in the family. The
father’s orders would be causing a schism in the family. Such orders are
wrong. If done deliberately by the father, they are sinful. It is clearly
an abuse of authority.
“You still get the same result if, instead of giving directly
contradictory orders, he spoke in such a way as to deliberately mislead
his sons into thinking he gave orders binding them to do a certain thing,
but some sons were astute enough to realize he had not actually given an
order and these sons were actually able to realize that the ‘implied’
order was sinfully imprudent and were able to realize that their father
did not have authority for such orders, and that is why he spoke that way,
whereas, on the other side, there were other sons who were not so astute
and felt bound to obey this ‘implied’ order. Then the sons would still be
at loggerheads. Still a schism is caused by the deliberately schismatic
command and the father would be guilty of sin for doing such a thing to
his children. This is what is happening in the Church today. Let me give
an example to illustrate what is happening:
“My mother judged me for years as not being obedient because I ignored
that bogus Chancery letter in Montreal. She did not tell me of her
judgment but held it against me for several years. It only came up when we
were discussing something else and I explained that I was truly not
disobedient because the Chancery never gave a binding order as I explained
above. She became angry with the Chancery officials for having perpetrated
this lie upon her.”
Gradually the weight of the chaos in the Church seemed to bear down
on the darkening evening itself, as it had on the very Faith through
heresy, apostasy, schism.
“Schism,” Father Gruner explained “means to tear apart and usually
schism is understood that someone does not recognize legitimate Church
authority. But authority can also be guilty of schism by giving orders
that are illegal or given in such a way as to cause division among the
faithful, as I explained before. St. Augustine says, ‘In essentials we
must have unity, in non-essentials we have liberty, and in all
things have charity.’ Garabandal is not an essential. I had the right to
promote it and my mother had the right not to do so if she chose. This
deceiving letter caused a division between a son and his mother. This
technique is immoral, yet it is too widely used by some Churchmen in
authority.
“Who’s at fault? God does not contradict in dogma. He cannot
contradict a truth, neither can God contradict in orders. God is not at
fault in this but those who abuse their positions of authority clearly are
at fault.
“God the Sanctifier does not contradict God the Creator. There is
only one God. God is the author of nature and grace. This is the basis of
the theological principle ‘grace builds on nature.’
“The true Church cannot give contradictory orders. This technique has
been used to destroy the Church from within. The individuals who have been
employing this technique consider themselves more intelligent than
the average guy. But they are working for the devil. The Church is not the
bureaucrats’ plaything. These bureaucrats have caused a virtual schism.
They are tearing apart the Body of the Church by this technique of giving
the impression of issuing an order but not issuing it.
“God, the Creator, God, the Sanctifier, created the Church. He did not
make the laws of the Church in contradiction to the natural law. All
public authority in Church or State in promulgating law must respect the
natural law governing men. Grace builds on nature, as St. Thomas teaches.
“It is a principle of natural law that no Catholic philosopher, no
Catholic Theologian would deny—that for a law, any kind of a law, to be
truly law it must be promulgated; if a law is not promulgated(3) then it
does not bind in conscience, and we need not obey it.
“Thus, in the example given above about the Montreal chancery, I was
totally not bound by that ‘non-order’. I was free to disobey. Similarly, I
am not bound by the non-command which passes for a law — to not say the
Tridentine Mass.
“Such orders are clearly causing division in the body of the faithful.
Such divisions are obviously and clearly against the common good and it is
clearly the abuse of authority by those in authority which is causing
these divisions.
“Our Lord said, ‘Let your words be yes for yes and no for no,
anything else comes from the evil one.’ (Cf. Matt 5:37, James 5:12)
“This is particularly true in the office of a public authority whether
it be the pope or the governor or a judge or a legislator. This seems to
be a terrible persecution for the Church, this double talk that’s going
on. With this persecution of the Church, you are being persecuted, I am
being persecuted.”
Thirty years after Vatican II ended, one of its most vital decisions
was shaping the possible destiny of this Fatima Apostolate.
"When Vatican II refused to invoke its authority to teach infallibly,
it was not being fully magisterial, plain and simple. In short, it was not
accepting full responsibility. As a result, there are people in the Church
who feel Vatican II is the only definitive Council despite the fact that
the Council Fathers themselves clearly pointed out that it is not
infallible in many things. As a matter of fact, some Vatican II
interpretations are clearly heretical. Post-Vatican II Catholics, because
of their own ignorance of the facts, erroneously think that the Catholic
faithful who hold closely to the infallible definitions of Trent and
Vatican I are somehow 'outside the Church' and accuse them of being
against the Pope. They even go so far as to 'self-righteously' punish
those Catholics who are faithful to the infallible Magisterium. All this
would not be taking place had the teaching authority of Vatican II taken
full responsibility and taught only those things it was certain of, in
clear language, and invoked its infallible authority. "The Vatican-Moscow Agreement, concocted in secret, is another example
of them refusing to take public responsibility. Part of the Agreement is
not to talk about it. What government has the authority to make something
binding on the members of an institution without it being public? This
secret Agreement, which attempts to bind the Church into silence before
grave moral evil, is clearly against the Common Good, the Natural Law, and
the Divine Positive Law. "What is missing is the responsibility to the Common Good. Even a Pope,
if he were to give an order contradicting the Common Good of the Church,
then that order would not be binding. St. Paul makes it clear. No Pope has
the right to be silent or to command silence in face of apostasy, schism
or heresy against God, Christ and the Church.4 "A good Catholic philosopher could prove by the light of reason alone
that each of us is obliged to help the Common Good, or the Common Wealth
as it is sometimes called, by our work, actions, and words and by avoiding
anything that would harm it. "First, it should be obvious that each member of a city, a family, a
country, should not do anything that will harm the Common Good. "Second, he should also do all he can to help the Common Good to the
extent his other duties to God and neighbor allow. "To prove this, at least in part, what would happen to our society if
people were allowed to act in such a way as to harm public good -- so long
as their lying or cheating did not harm identifiable individuals alone,
but only a group? "If God made individuals, He also made society. Man is meant to live in
society. God did not want us to live all alone. Society, to survive, needs
certain rules to be obeyed by all, even when they are sometimes
inconvenient, even costly, to some individuals who practice them. "Society cannot exist if all members only look out for their own
interests, and take advantage of all the rest of the members of
society. "Such an attitude cannot be justified on the grounds of taking care of
a family, or an exclusive group of friends, when it causes the rest of
society to lose their wealth, their freedom, their lives, and most
important, their souls. "We are our brother's keeper. We must respect his freedom and
independence but we must also look out for his interests if Providence
puts events, people or things in our path that impact on our neighbor's
good. "It is not only true for my neighbor whom I know or meet occasionaly,
but for all my fellow men in my community, country, world, and especially,
as St. Paul admonishes, for all who belong to the household of the
Faith.5 "By the light of revelation, we know that God the Father appointed God
the Son, Redeemer of all mankind, as "King of kings and Lord of lords."6
Thus all presidents, kings, lords, judges, legislators, officials and
bureaucrats must obey the King of kings, Christ the Lord, in Church
matters and in civil matters, upholding the right to property, life, and
freedom in general, and also in particular instances. "Thus the common citizen must vote for those legislators and presidents
and Prime Ministers that uphold the law of God and vote against those that
would attack the law of God. "It is what we pray for every day when we say the Rosary. Every day we
say, 'Thy Kingdom come.' If we really mean this, that we pray for the
coming of Christ's Kingdom on earth, we must work and speak and pray for
the Common Good. "We are not only praying for the coming of mankind into Christ's
kingdom in Heaven. We are also praying for His kingdom here on earth,
because Jesus taught us to pray 'Thy will be done on earth as it is in
Heaven.' "On the contrary, a subversive group attacks the very basis of
authority. The very nature of a secret society is you don't know who the
authority is, what doctrine it is upholding. In the Natural Law, which God
has instilled into the very fabric of society, authority, responsibility
and accountability go together. A person can't have authority without
responsibility. That's in the Natural Law. This is how God created public
authority to operate both in the Church and in the State. By 'giving orders without giving them', in the short term, the public
authority seems to get the benefit of giving an order without taking
responsibility for it. In the long term, such governance is destructive of
authority and divides members of the Church. 'A house divided against
itself cannot stand.'...Jesus said. "Our duty is to build up the House of the Faith, not tear it down. Our
duty is to build up the welfare of society as well. The directives of Our
Lady of Fatima are the most perfect means of doing both. "In continuing to promote the full Message of Fatima, I am only
fulfilling my obligation to the Common Good. Yet I am not the only one who
has this duty. Everyone is bound to contribute to the Common Good. If this
was more generally understood, then many more people would promote the
Fatima Message, perhaps not to the extent that I am, but in whatever
capacity they were able. "The issue of the Common Good is a vital subject that is much neglected
these days. It needs to be more widely known in order to correct a
multitude of false ideas that work toward the detriment of public welfare,
the de-Christianization of society, and prevent Our Lady's requests from
being fulfilled. "This is not just a particular fancy of mine. The Common Good is of
such significance that it actually is a vital component to what makes a
just law. So it is necessary to address the issue of the Common Good first
in regard to law, our obligation to it, and especially how it relates to
Fatima. "Catholic moral theology of all time teaches that there are four
components to a just law. "A just law is: 1) an ordination of reason, 2) for the Common Good, 3) which is promulgated, 4) by the person who has care of the community.7 "If any one of these four 'ingredients' is missing, then there is no
true law and we are free to disregard it. "So we can see how important is the Common Good. Any act of legislation
that is not for the Common Good is not a genuine law. So as I mentioned
before, even if a Pope were to give an order which went against the Common
Good of the Church, then that order would not be binding. "So then, not only is the Common Good a constitutive part of law and
society, but it is something to which everyone must contribute, be they
those who govern, or those who are governed. "Our obligation to the Common Good is twofold. Not only may we not do
anything that hinders the Common Good, but we must do all we can to
advance the Common Good. "Of course, in order to keep our balance, we must point out that there
is a hierarchy of personal responsibility which includes the Common Good.
One has one's duty to God first of all; duty to one's soul second of all;
duty to one's own personal well-being and after one's soul and the soul of
one's neighbor, particularly one's family and friends. Finally, there is
the duty to the Common Good.8 "The Common Good actively involves our neighbor, those men or women and
children who in some way or other God puts on our path, whether they live
next door to us, whether they work at the same job as we do, or whether we
sit on the same bus with them going to work, or whether we see them at
church on Sunday. Somewhere or other we are in contact with them; somehow
or other because of physical location or because of the kind of work we
do, some specific person is a neighbor to us. Most important, our duty to
the Common Good not only involves the neighbor whom we meet, but the
neighbor whom we shall never meet. "For example, if I am preparing to vote in an election, I cannot vote
for a pro-abortionist. A certain pro-abortionist may have a great plan for
saving employment, but I cannot vote for a pro-abortionist because he is
doing something that is intrinsically evil, i.e., using the position of
legislator to do evil to thousands of babies. My obligation to the Common
Good requires that my co-worker, my brother, sister, aunt or cousin might
be puzzled by my choice in voting, I still am bound to do the right thing
in the fear of God for the sake of the natural and supernatural welfare of
individuals and society. "It does not matter that I probably will never meet the children I save
by voting pro-life. I am still responsible before God to protect them by
whatever actions I take, however small, in the public domain. "Most of us fail in our obligation to the Common Good of both the
Church and the State because we falsely believe that public welfare is
solely a matter for the authorities. In the State, there is the notion
that only rulers and politicians are responsible for the Common Good. In
the Church, there is the idea that only the Pope, Cardinals, bishops and
priests are responsible for the Common Good. In both cases, the average
layman operates on the premise that because he cannot do a lot, therefore
he may do nothing. Sometimes this incorrect notion is the result of
misinformation, sometimes it is due to disinformation (that is the
deliberate efforts of enemies to spread falsehood under the guise of
information). Whatever its cause, this false mind-set must be fought
against. In the case of Fatima, it has disastrous consequences. "Of course, more is expected of those who have wealth, power,
influence, prestige, to uphold the Common Good. But because we may not be
in positions of authority, power or influence, that does not mean we can
do nothing. It does not mean we have nothing to contribute. We are never
excused from working toward the Common Good. "Moreover, this duty does not only extend to our peers and those over
whom we have authority, but we must even rebuke our superiors if
necessary, if our superiors are acting to the detriment of the Common
Good, providing it is done with due regard for persons and positions. St.
Paul had to rebuke St. Peter, the first Pope, when he 'walked not in
truth'.9 And Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that it is sometimes the duty of
the inferior to either disobey or correct the superior10 if the Common
Good calls for it. "St. Robert Bellarmine says that we must positively resist those
policies of people in authority which go against the Common Good.11 "All this, of course, must be done in charity, since knowledge and
action without charity is destructive. "On the other hand, charity, to be effective, must be based on truth.
Without the truth in the mind of the charitable person, his efforts to
build up the Church are often doomed to failure because of his lack of
knowledge. Much destruction has come to the Church and world because of
'misdirected charity', i.e., the toleration of behaviors and principles
that are destructive to the Church and society. Often, this misdirected
charity is the fruit of ignorance. Does not Scripture teach 'My people
perish for lack of knowledge'?12 "Now, charity and truth must be lived out. Charity and truth impose
certain duties upon us, and sometimes these duties are difficult. "Therefore, we must not stand by idly when a lie is told that affects
the Common Good or even the good of a smaller segment of society. Also, if
we know the truth that will significantly help our fellow man, we must
proclaim it, because by our silence, the good may be lost. "This is especially true for Catholics living in the 20th Century since
we now have the spiritual weapons God has given us that will infallibly
bring about His kingdom on earth. Because in our time, God has revealed in a public, prophetic revelation
His plan for world peace and the establishment of His kingdom on earth.
This plan was established from all eternity, but was made clearer in our
day through the Message of Fatima. "Never before in history, I think, has an apparition of Our Lady been
so identified with Sacred Scripture. Pope Paul VI clearly indicated his
thought that Our Lady's appearance and message of Fatima is a fulfillment
of biblical prophecy, namely Apocalypse, Chapter 12. He believed that Our
Lady of Fatima is what Saint John the Apostle saw in a prophetic vision
2000 years ago.13 Sister Lucy tells us the Third Secret is in the
Apocalypse, Chapters 7 to 13.14 Cardinal Ratzinger tells us he has read
the Third Secret and that it refers to the last times and that it is
contained in Sacred Scripture.15 "Clearly, if the Message of Fatima is part of Biblical prophecy it is
not simply a private revelation that can be ignored without sin." In his book "World Enslavement or Peace...It's Up to the Pope", Father
Gruner spent 50 pages demonstrating that even if Fatima is not contained
in Sacred Scripture, we are still bound under pain of sin to listen to and
obey Our Lady of Fatima's message and requests. This obligation, he
explained, extends to all of us: layperson, religious, priests, bishops
and even the Pope.
FOOTNOTES: |
|||||