I am not quite sure how to take this news. [via Jimmy Akin]
Fittingly, just ten days after the death of Sr Lucia dos Santos, the last survivor to witness the appearances of the Virgin Mary at the Portuguese town of Fatima in 1917, Mel Gibson has bought the rights to the book ‘Stealing from Angels’.
Brian Dullaghan’s novel tells the story of a young Irish man who escapes a dreary life in his hometown only to slip into a life of major crime in New York. Everything changes when he meets Maria and he jumps ship again, this time to Maria’s hometown in Italy. However, blissful happiness does not follow and when the couple are connected to the murder of Pope John Paul and the third secret of Fatima, things really implode.
‘Stealing from Angels’ is a work of fiction that tells the tale of a man who shoulders a huge secret and trusts no one.
I could find out hardly anything on this book which does not seem to have any customer reviews anywhere. The only mention of the book I found was a person who liked it and it reminded them of The Da Vinci Code. The author Brian Dullaghan has written another book called "Immaculate Heart" and the review for it starts "Shame on the Church – again" and the "People who bought this book also bought" section lists three of Dan Browns’ novels. Of course this is just a fictional novel (as if that mattered in Dan Brown’s case), yet any storyline that says Pope John Paul I was killed and talks about the third secret of Fatima is not bound to end well. Though it is interesting how a unknown book by an unknown author got the attention of Mel Gibson. Though maybe this movie will be a sequel to his other movie "Conspiracy Theory."
While listening to the Hugh Hewitt show the other day I was rather disappointed to hear what David Alan White (who is a Catholic) had to say. Usually when he is on the show it was one of my favorite segments. He is an instructor at the Naval Academy and usually talks on Shakespeare and other great literary authors. When asked about Mel’s new movie and Fatima he unfortunately when into conspiracy theory mode about the third secret not actually being revealed and how it was suppose to be revealed in 1960. He then gave a web URL for Fr. Gruner’s Fatima Crusader (I am not going to link to it). So I guess it is no surprise about where he got his information. Fr. Gruner is under a ‘a divinis’ suspension and has no faculties to give the sacraments. He is also behind the newspaper Catholic Family News of which I had the displeasure to read once.
It seems highly ironic that a disobedient priest is touting the message of Mary at Fatima. Let it be done according to my will is not exactly a Marian signature. It is quite apparent that he has twisted the words of Sister Lucia and he will not even take her word that the consecration to Russia was adequately performed. Progressives who look at the secular culture to replace the Gospel anger me, but what angers me even more is radical traditionalists who support much that is orthodox but go over the edge on some subjects; whether it is the Mass or a Marian apparition. This is probably because I am sympathetic so some of their complaints and when they start of go off the deep end it does not help the cause. Both progressives and radical traditionalists are really just two sides of the same coin of disobedience. Both wrap themselves as proclaiming that they alone know the truth and are fighting for the Church hierarchy to hear their message. Both are willing to downplay or to ignore what the Pope has said and some of them are willing to either go into schism or a virtual schism where they have all but departed from Church authority.
I just hope the Mel Gibson’s project will generate more light than heat on Fatima. Fatima is a reaffirmation of the Gospel and the message for us to fast and pray is nothing new. For a good web site on Fatima I would recommend Fr. Fox’s Fatima Family Apostolate (which has official Vatican encouragement).
My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love You! I ask pardon of You for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope and do not love You!
(Angel’s Prayer at Fatima)
13 comments
I totally agree with your sentiments regarding progressives and ultra-traditionalists because boths sides of the coin. To me, disobedience is disobedience; leaning more towrds the “right” isn’t more noble than the “left”.
Adam,
I would look at what Jimmy Akin has said on the subject.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea1.asp
I know of zero credible Catholic apologists that side with Fr. Gruner on this. Which is more credible that Fr. Gruner is wrong or that the Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr. Fox, and Sister Lucia are all lying?
You can not simply leave one Diocese and join another one without the permission of thier Bishop. This is a tactic liberal nuns have used to leave one order and then join a more permissive one.
Jeff,
1. I will read what Jimmy Akin has to say.
2. You’re right that the weight of the authority opposing Fr. Gruner would ordinarily convince a faithful Catholic to dismiss him. However, I don’t base my conclusions on Fr. Gruner’s authority (or lack thereof), but simply on the weight of the facts. There are many writers and speakers other than Fr. Gruner who concur with his opinions, although not all of them are what you would call “apologists”.
Regarding the Pope, I don’t think he has personally said anything one way or the other about either the consecration or the secret; he has left that to the curia, although he apparently doesn’t disapprove of what they have said. However, the Pope is also on record in 1984, AFTER the consecration, as having referred to Russia as “the peoples whose consecration you [the Blessed Virgin] are awaiting.” Ratzinger has also contradicted himself; at one time he said things about the 3rd secret such as the quote in my previous post, whereas now he reveals a third secret that contains nothing like what he and other prelates have previously said; and Ratzinger’s interpretation of the vision in the secret has been rejected as nonsense even by secular news agencies. Dozens more examples of this sort can be given for various Vatican authorities.
Thus the issue of authority is not Fr Gruner against the Vatican, but rather the Vatican against itself. For years the authorities implied certain facts about the secret and the consecration, whereas now they claim something entirely opposite. Which Vatican should we believe?
Regarding Sr. Lucia, as I said in the previous post, she has also appeared to contradict herself, and the crucial point is that she was isolated in her convent. If there are Vatican authorities malicious enough to encourage a false impression among the faithful, then it is no stretch to assume that these same authorities have either (a) forged documents by Sr. Lucia, or (b) fed her false information to make her believe the consecration had taken place, or both. At least one document allegedly by Sr. Lucia was proved to be a forgery, and the Portuguese translator who often translated for Sr. Lucia’s visitors has been shown to be a deceitful character.
Regarding apologists, I think the reason why many Catholic apologists disagree with Fr. Gruner is that, justifiably, they do not want to believe, as you say, that the Pope, Ratzinger, etc. are lying. However, I have never seen one of these apologists actually succeed in refuting these arguments. Also, do you not consider Bob Sungenis credible? (Apart from geocentrism, that is; when he is in his element, i.e. faith-related questions.) He is far from an “ultra-traditionalist” wacko; on his website (catholicintl.com) he has emphatically and charitably defended the Holy Father’s authority against SSPX and sedevacantist proponents, yet at the same time he rejects the “official” interpretation of Fatima.
3. Regarding Fr. Gruner’s incardination, I have no idea what the Canon Law says about this issue or whether the proper procedures were followed, so, as I said, I think the charitable course of action is to assume he is in good standing until more evidence comes to light. Even if he is suspended, that does not a priori make his opinions untrue.
Jeff,
I have read Jimmy Akin’s article, and most of what he explains about Fatima is, of course, beautiful and inspiring and true. However, I do not find his apologetics arguments convincing; he simply repeats the official interpretation of Fatima and does not confront the arguments against it. My numbers below refer to the “Apologetic Fallout” section at the end of the article.
1. “Has the Vatican revealed the whole of the secret?” Mr. Akin’s answer here is his strongest point, i.e. the appeal to Pope John Paul II’s moral character. Nobody wants to believe that the Pope is lying. However, there are several theoretical possibilities: it is possible for the Pope to be lying, even if we believe he is a saint; it is possible for the Pope himself to be deceived, even if we believe that he has sufficient control over his underlings; it is possible for the Pope to be honestly mistaken, even if we believe he is a brilliant thinker. These may be remote possibilities, but the dictum of Sherlock Holmes remains true: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. In this case, we are not forced to judge the Holy Father’s soul, since there could be other explanations of the dilemma.
Regarding the question of whether the Vatican has revealed the whole of the secret, there is abundant evidence, including quotes from Sr. Lucia herself, that there are two parts to the third secret, one which “concerns the Pope” (presumably the vision revealed in 2000), and the other being the continuation of the words “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.” Since we still do not know the continuation of those words, the only possible conclusions are: either the Vatican is incorrect now when it claims the whole secret was revealed, or the published statements of Sr. Lucia from several decades ago are false.
2. Mr. Akin’s comments here make no sense, and his interpretation here is evidently just his own personal theory, since he does not attempt to justify it. Not only do the narratives of the second and third secrets not flow seamlessly; they are actually two entirely separate genres of revelation. The second secret ends with a QUOTE by the Blessed Virgin, whereas the third secret is a VISION shown by the Blessed Virgin. Sr. Lucia quoted Our Lady as saying, at the end of the second secret, “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved; etc… Do not tell this to anybody. Francisco, yes, you may tell him.” Obviously the “etc.” indicates that there are more WORDS that she spoke, not just a VISION that she showed.
3. The first quote from Sr. Lucia given by Mr. Akin explains why she did not reveal the third secret between 1917 and 1960. However, it does not imply that it was okay to wait until 2000. For the Blessed Virgin asked in 1917 that Sr. Lucia not reveal the secret, but in another apparition to Sr. Lucia in 1944, she asked her to write down the third secret and requested that the Holy Father reveal it to the world not later than 1960, because “it would be clearer then.” Pope John XXIII had a different opinion than Our Lady, saying that the secret is “not for our pontificate” and forbidding Sr. Lucia to speak publicly about Fatima.
The second quote here from Sr. Lucia through Msgr. Bertone is suspicious, because it contradicts what Sr. Lucia had said in the past, as just mentioned. Either we are to believe that Sr. Lucia reverses her own memories of past events, or else one or the other citation is fraudulent. There is no other possibility.
4. Of course Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement here is true, in that Mary’s fiat was a supreme triumph of her Immmaculate Heart. However, this cannot be all that the term “triumph of the Immaculate Heart” refers to in the context of Fatima. In context, the message was “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.” Thus the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, in this particular instance, obviously refers to the conversion of Russia and the period of peace in the world. One doesn’t need to be a theologian to see that this is the plain sense of the words. The issue at stake here is whether the “triumph of the Immaculate Heart” has indeed occurred; and thus whether the Fatima message belongs entirely to the past.
5. Regarding the interpretation of the vision in the third secret, I have no doubt that the Holy Father’s life was saved in 1981 by Our Lady of Fatima, if he believes this to be so, but this is far from saying that the third secret refers to the assassination attempt. This is the substance of the official interpretation of the third secret, and this interpretation (which is not even remotely infallible, in the sense of being guaranteed by Heaven) is widely seen as a forced attempt to consign the message of Fatima to the past. Maybe it is not impossible that the vision of the DEATH of the Pope and of the MANY OTHER BISHOPS, PRIESTS, RELIGIOUS, AND LAY PEOPLE could be identified with an UNSUCCESSFUL ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT at the Pope, but there are other, richer, and more likely interpretations possible. I have seen several speculations on the Web, the gist of which is that the Pope and other figures of the faithful represent the faithful remnant of the Church, who are spiritually massacred by their enemies inside or outside the Church. It has also been widely conjectured, both before and after 2000, that the third secret refers to the Great Apostasy foretold by St. Paul. Many of the symbolic details of the vision have been tied to these interpretations Perhaps the vision can only be explained as the events of the future unfold, or when the rest of the third secret, if it exists, is revealed.
The official interpretation of the third secret is also so prosaic that it could not possibly account for the solemn and fearful importance that was attached to the third secret by Sr. Lucy, by Our Lady, and by all Popes since John XXIII.
By the way, most of the facts that I have been referring to are mentioned on this page: http://www.fatima.org/essentials/opposed/croncover.asp
See also: http://www.fatima.org/thirdsecret/
In order to defend the Vatican’s actions, one must prove that most of the facts mentioned on these pages, and documented from 1917 onward, are false. This is what I have not seen anyone even attempt to accomplish.
I hate to keep posting repeatedly, but it seems that my first post has disappeared. I hope that nothing I said could be construed as uncharitable and warrant the deletion of the post. I was just trying to present objective facts to indicate that a legitimate debate on this issue exists; and I thought that this Comments area was suitable for the discussion or debate of the topic of the main post.
Sorry about that Adam, I was cleaning up some comment spam and I must have got overzealous with the delete button. I have no problem with what you are saying especially since you seem to be trull willing to have a real conversation on the subject.
Here was your first post which I copied from my email folder.
________________________________________
Jeff,
I don’t know what to think of Father Gruner’s character or canonical status, but I think you’re being unfairly dismissive of both him and his Fatima arguments.
I think every source agrees that the reason why Father Gruner was allegedly suspended had nothing to do with his particular opinions about Fatima; it was simply because his ordinary, a Bishop in Italy, had asked him to return to Italy from his apostolate in Canada, and Fr. Gruner did not go. He defends himself in this regard by saying it was legally impossible for him to get a visa to enter Italy (or something to that effect). This is a moot point now, because, Fr. Gruner claims, the Bishop of Hyderabad, India incardinated him in his diocese. Therefore Fr. Gruner is no longer under the authority of the Italian Bishop, and his new Bishop is allowing him to continue his apostolate in Canada.
The only evidence offered by those who claim Fr. Gruner is suspended is a letter indicating that an unnamed Vatican authority has “confirmed” that Fr. Gruner is suspended. I don’t know that anyone has ever produced a copy of an actual SIGNED DECREE of suspension, or refuted Fr. Gruner’s claim that he is now under the authority of the Bishop of Hyderabad. It is not difficult to believe that some unnamed “Vatican authorities” may wish to discredit Fr. Gruner by giving a false impression that he is suspended, because, regardless of the merits of his arguments about Fatima, he is surely considered a threat by some in the Vatican.
Therefore, I think the charitable course of action is to assume that Fr. Gruner is a priest in good standing, unless it is proven otherwise.
The question of Fatima itself is more delicate, but it is easier to come to a definitive answer, because much more evidence exists. I think if people would actually go to Fr. Gruner’s website (fatima.org) and read his arguments, and then compare them with rebuttals on other websites, they will find Fr. Gruner’s arguments completely unanswerable. Consider these facts:
– Sr. Lucia stated, on several separate occasions after 1984, that the Holy Father’s 1984 consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart did not fulfill the request of Our Lady of Fatima. It was after 1989 that statements began appearing from Sr. Lucia, stating that the consecration WAS successful, and at least one of these was proved to be a complete forgery. Of course, all statements by Sr. Lucia passed through the hands of various authorities before being made public; she could never simply go on the news and say “The consecration was/was not accomplished.”
– If you look at the conditions actually required by the Blessed Virgin for the consecration of Russia, it is fairly obvious, from the standpoint of pure logic, that the 1984 consecration did not accomplish them. Even if the Holy Father intended to include Russia as part of “the world”, the fact remains that not all the Bishops of the world participated in their own dioceses, nor did the Holy Father order them to, and those bishops that did participate would not all have had the intention to consecrate Russia, because the Pope’s implicit reference to Russia was not in the prepared text of the consecration.
– The version of the Third Secret of Fatima published in 2000 does not account for the many previous statements made by prelates who had read the secret, nor does it explain why Pope John XXIII refused to reveal it in 1960, nor does it complete Sr. Lucia’s famous sentence “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved etc.” (Here are some quotes: “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” — Cardinal Ciappi, 1995. “[The secret contains warnings against] dangers to the Faith, the life of the Christian, and therefore the life of the world.” — Cardinal Ratzinger, 1984.)
The only difficulty with accepting Fr. Gruner’s logic is that it implies that some of the highest officials in the church are deliberately deceiving the faithful about the Fatima message, and nobody wants that to be true. But, the facts cannot lie. However, if anyone can convince me that I am wrong about this, I would be grateful.
As I was saying about a year ago – and I should be surprised if I don’t hold the record for greatest number of hysterical DIY anathemas hurled at me for it – I don’t have dealings with schismatics, and I should be ashamed to make an exception merely on account of this one particular schismatic’s being a movie star. I suppose it’s just possible that he bought the rights to prevent a movie’s being made of the novel. Given Gibson’s penchant for dodgy visions, however, I don’t build upon it.
Second Thoughts About Mel’s Take On Fatima.
Two days ago I expressed my pleasure at Mel Gibson buying the rights to “Stealing From Angels”, a novel dealing with the third prophesy of Fatima. I had some unexpressed concerns, particularly regarding comparisons of the novel to those of Dan Brown …
Regarding the information that has come up since 1917:
http://www.kevinsymonds.com/grunerresp.html
Peace!
-KJS
The logic of some of those who follow the Fatima messsge leaves me bewildered. What part of the Fatima message do we not understand? I can do no more than quote Our Lady of Fatima’s own words,
“I will come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart,—- if My requests are heeded there will be peace.” The optimum word in Her message is “peace”. At the present time there is war in Iraq, Iran, Israel,and there is ethnic cleansing in Africa, in other words, there is war in every corner of the world. There are body bags incoming from many parts of the world where American troops serve. The Consecration has been done, phooy–it has not been done or there would be peace in the world as Our Lady promised. Somebody is not telling the truth, and it’s not our Lady,for only She tells the truth.
Please, no more dancing around the issue, if there is war, the consecration has not been done, period, end of discussion.
As far as Father Gruner is concerned, you have not one piece if paper to prove he is not in good standing in the Catholic Church. Please give me the name of the person who signed and authorized a “divinis” suspension. Without that signature, you have no right to condemn him. I am disgusted when I read or hear when one Catholic trashes another Catholic without concret proof. For shame.
Don
The evidence supports Fr. Gruner over Fr. Fox.
http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/
Father Robert Fox
“Father Fox Continues to Defend the Indefensible”
Father Fox’s Modernist Assault on Fatima
“Facts Father Fox Continues to Ignore for 20 Years!”
“Father Fox’s Fabrications”
“Who is in Error: The Mother of God or Father Fox?”
“Update on the Plot to Silence Our Lady”
“The Fatima Consecration Hoax Continues”
“The Fatima Consecration Hoax”
Did Our Lady Speak to You of the Consecration of the World? “No, Never” … Sister Lucia of Fatima
“Sister Lucy Interviewed by Blue Army Insists 1984 Consecration Does Not Fulfill Our Lady of Fatima’s Request”
“The ‘Inventions’ of Maria do Fetal”
“The Plot (To Silence Our Lady) Thickens”
“The Plot to Silence Our Lady Continues: More Disinformation Against the Message of Our Lady of Fatima”
“Father Fox and The Wanderer Guilty of Disinformation Against Fatima”
THANKS, Adam! You’ve cleared up a lot of questions. If Gibson does a movie on this topic, it would certainly be of interest. Plus, it would be most unique.