You know, I am more saying what I am in sympathy for the people especially devoted to this than otherwise.
I don’t
have anything invested particularly in Fr. Gruner either (he is not alone in his view, there are huge amounts of people not related to him). But some very devout and caring good people do. People it’s hard not to love. But some people don’t treat them kindly, but reserve for them the treatment of heretics.
And I don’t want to leave that article hanging. His treatment, on the face of it, appears to have been disproportionate – why? How many priests do you know who have committed all sorts of abuses has this happened to? And what was his… abuse? A *manufactured *one – It was -created-. In other words, equal justice is promised, but one side is given a pass, the other the opposite.
It reminds me** how Latin mass loving priests who give the wrong sermons can be treated by a diocese.**
One of the things to do before taking a stand is to look at it from different perspectives.
Approaching that article from a different perspective and seeing what could be said. I highly recommend this. Keep holding your disagreement, but read the article on the other side and see what points could be made. You’ll understand the other view a lot better.
Reading the other perspectives puts that article in perspective, and makes some key points detrimental to it and its methodology, and the unsubstantiated ad hominen bit.
But without even reading the other perspectives Fr. Gruner’s treatment stands as glaringly different than other priests who have problems. And there is only one obvious reason. And is that reason a crime?
That you send police to break up rosary marches? It reminds me of Notre Dame’s treatment of the pro-life marchers.
Can we deny there is systematic unequal treatment of those with traditional or related views and those with the opposite, at the moment in the Church? Don’t we see it regularly in practice everyday?
Now, we assume that there can be no mistakes in suspensions but that is not the case. Look at Padre Pio – Fr. Gruner is not Padre Pio. But that doesn’t mean he’s evil. It simply means he has made a different decision, which may or may not be entirely defensible. But I do have the hope that at least he is in good faith in it, I don’t see sufficient evidence to assume otherwise. If someone politically in higher power than you does break the system to shut you down, and badmouths you to all his friends so convincing others of your dastardliness – are you obliged to obey it? What if tomorrow you personally were excommunicated for something you did not do, and not given due process as provided by Canon Law, and prevented from even following it without giving up your rights to correct the accusation – because someone wanted you to not say something completely unrelated to the excommunication. Would you keep talking, or would you not? Would it be just not to heed the excommunication or would it not? I don’t know. But even if the weight comes in on heeding it, I can sympathize with someone who makes the call that it doesn’t after something like that. I’m not saying this is along the lines of what happened here, but it -is not impossible-. There -is- a case that could be made.
Well, enough about Fr. Gruner… this is about Fatima, not about him…
The article was focused on him a good deal too much.
When I’ve seen the before and after of what happened to the Fatima cathedral… one can see there’re problems in how it is being cared for.
I’ve listened to some of the Fatima Challenge online, and the parts of which I did I found interesting and filled in some blanks, and I’ve seen before and afters of the Fatima cathedrals - horrifying really - like something out of Emmerich –
talked about here.
In other words, with folks who would do this in charge of the matter now, one could rightly be suspicious of their judgement on some of it.
‘Pope Benedict XVI, on his way to Portugal to mark the 93rd anniversary of the May 13, 1917 apparition of Our Lady, agreed with what was said at the conference; what this apostolate has been saying for many years: The Third Secret is not about the past, but about what is happening now and what is to come.“Whoever thinks the prophetic mission of Fatima is over is deceived.”’
I’ve seen some speculation that Cardinal Ratzinger put all the weight on Sodano he could when the ‘official’ interpretation of Fatima came out. Cardinal Sodano’s judgement in other official areas has been shown to be quite humanly flawed (Fr. Maciel), so… the possibility for revision remains.
… I am somewhat in wonderment how I got involved in this thread… There, that is my attempt at an even handed treatment of the matter. I am not threatened by the idea that there could be a screw up or multiple screw ups on high on this matter, nor are any emotions loyalty felt at all involved (it isn’t
. I don’t bring ‘It’s the Vatican or the highway’ emotional defenses into this because I don’t feel there’s a threat there. I am just trying to view the matter in a good perspective weighing what’s really pertinent and concerned about the people who have made a simple request… for prayers… which should harm no one, and which when done would foster unity…
A small price to pay. Price?
