FMC: Nicholas Gruner Spoke But Didn't Act As Priest

So. Addressing one topic flying around the internet today. FMC today released a statement detailing their speakers for the last years. Of particular interest is Fr. Nicholas Gruner.

FMC says:
December 2013 – Fr. Nicholas Gruner, founder and director of the International Fatima Rosary Crusade, lectured on the Message of Fatima and its relevance today.

Note: In the days prior to the arrival of Fr. Gruner for his lecture, the College was made aware of allegations that Fr. Gruner had been suspended a divinis. After investigating the public record of this matter and obtaining an explanation directly from Fr. Gruner himself, the College learned that no Bishop has ever issued a sentence suspending Father a divinis, and that Father has two separate letters from the Archbishop of Hyderabad confirming (1995) and reaffirming (1999) his incardination in that diocese. In any event, Father was coming to our campus to speak on the message of Fatima, and not to exercise any priestly ministries. Thus, the College proceeded with the event.
So this leads to more questions. First off, the Apostolic Signatura has confirmed the suspension of Fr. Gruner a divinis. No ifs ands or buts, regardless of what Fr. Gruner says.

It is an incredibly bad idea to have such a man speak at your school.

Maybe I am reading into things too much, but I think the wording here leaves wiggle room. Perhaps Fr. Gruner did not exercise any priestly ministries during the "event," but did he at any time while on campus or in the chapel? That would be an easy thing to clear up. The passive language quoted above is not unequivocal on the matter, but they need to be.

If Gruner said mass there, the Bishop is right to be concerned. That is not to say that the remedy is appropriate or not, but serious concern would be appropriate.

It would have been very easy for FMC to say, Fr. Gruner did not say mass here. That they have not is troublesome.

However, their list of priests that have publicly said mass does not include Gruner and includes this statement.
No public Mass of any Form has ever been offered in the College chapel by a priest lacking regular faculties. Over the past three years, the College has been privileged to host priests as overnight visitors to our campus, many of whom used the Chapel to offer private Masses, including priests from the Friars of the Immaculate, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter.

Reiterating my previous position. The Bishop is in the best position to clear all this up stating clearly why he did this, how it is intended to remedy a problem, and the authority under which he made the decision.
*subhead*Did he or didn't he?.*subhead*


  1. If Nicholas Gruner spoke, he spoke with some degree of authority. The only authority he would have, is that which would have been given to him, which is his faculties and power to function as a Catholic priest. His suspension -- as the Romans say, "Nemo judex causa sua." -- removes that authority, thus his pretense for presenting himself as an authority. Add to that the prospect of confusion and/or scandal among the faithful, and the College was clearly in error.

    Not to mention really, REALLY dumb!

    Having said that, why did the bishop react as he did? It's anybody's guess, and most won't be very good ones. One remote possibility, given his prerogative over the celebration of Mass at private oratories regardless of the form, is that he availed himself of the only expedient means of getting the College's attention, as to the seriousness of the matter.

    Because if you have the nerve to enact a policy to require a third person as a witness to any private conversation between a male and female student -- it's in their handbook, look it up -- there's not too much you won't have the nerve to do.

  2. By 'you' above, I mean Patrick Archbold. Pat is missing the point. You ought to let the Bishop do his job. He knows a hell of a lot more about this that you do. Or Rorate.

  3. David L. Alexander said:

    "Add to that the prospect of confusion and/or scandal among the faithful, and the College was clearly in error.

    Not to mention really, REALLY dumb!"

    The b*stards! Why didn't they just put on play like all the other "catholic" colleges like, "The V*gin* Monologues"!!

  4. Gruner is there, along with Fr. Pfeiffer...the same Fr. Pfeiffer who (steady, now) accuses Pope Benedict XVI of participating in ritual infant sacrifice to Moloch.

    Guilt by association.

  5. Two issues are being erroneously linked or conflated: the first is the matter of any wrongdoing on the part of the relevant authorities of FM College; and the second is the one that is of relevance to all Catholics, and that is the purported prohibition of the traditional Mass per se, and the mandatory substitution of the traditional Mass by the New Mass, clearly in the way of a penalty. The link of that prohibition with "the good of your soul" emphasises the attitude to the sacred Mass of all Ages that all bishops are bound to honour and defend.

  6. Patrick, in your previous post you refer to the Bishop's letter as being unclear. It wasn't public communication, it was followup communication to a meeting. It wasn't intended to be public but was made so by someone at FMC. Which is difficult for the Bishop.

    Secondly, when in authority, there are limits to the transparency you can allow. For example, the Bishop has to ensure that the good reputation of individuals/institutions be protected. So if errors are not public, he may not be able to pronounce them.

    Though that may only apply in decisions of employment/candidacy...