Tuesday, 28 November 2000

Father John Woods

Parish Centre

100 Casey Crescent

CALWELL ACT 2905

Dear Fr. Woods,

Greetings. It is the first time for me to write to you directly. I wanted to respond to your letter dated 20 November 2000 addressed to Mr. William Kamm. I am grateful for your explanation regarding Canons 1732 - 1739 and your inclusion of Canon 57 as relevant to Mr. Kamm's case.

Mr. Kamm and I have always been under the impression that the Trial of the Issue was already underway all these years beginning with the initial letter of Bishop Wilson of September 1998. As stated in this letter, Bishop Wilson planned to investigate the claims of Mr. Kamm. We waited for one full year for further advise and counsel from the Bishop as to how to proceed from our part. No advise or counsel was sent or given. Thus the shock when the Decree of September 27, 1999 was issued by Bishop Wilson. There was never any investigation of Mr. Kamm, and we discovered in the later correspondence that Bishop Wilson had not convened the Commission! We were kept in the dark about the Commission, even though Mr. Kamm sent a huge volume of documentation to Bishop Wilson during that year. Through all these many months to the present, Mr. Kamm has tried in everyway to comply with the initiatives of Bishop Wilson.

Had Mr. Kamm been advised by an Advocate, he would have then known how and by what Canons to proceed. This was never done -- we received no guidance whatsoever. Mr. Kamm was forced to act quickly (within the time frame for an Appeal) to have Recourse against this Decree. The Bishop wanted to shut down the Order of Saint Charbel. This was an improper exercise of power by Bishop Wilson which was not warranted nor justified by any Commission findings!! Thus, we tried to read the relevant Canons as we understood them from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Mr. Kamm's use of the word "approval" never had the meaning to which you attributed to it. He and I have always been aware that according to Canon 605, this requirement was reserved to the Holy See. This is precisely because Mr. Kamm has long ago classified the Order's basic identity as a "new form of consecrated life". Mr. Kamm was well aware that the Order is not simply a new Institute. This is abundantly documented in the Order's documents. Bishop Wilson made an error of fact on this point. He has only wanted help from Bishop Wilson within the meaning of Canon 605. To be given a chance to prove itself.

I am not a Canon Lawyer. However, I would like to take issue with you on several points. You refer to Canon 57. I cannot see your application to Mr. Kamm. This Canon clearly refers to those who request a Decree from the lawful authority. Mr. Kamm has never requested a Decree from Bishop Wilson! He has only requested recourse against the Decree of Bishop Wilson. Therefore, your reference on page 2 is in error:

"Insofar as you have received no response from the Bishop to your appeal, then the presumption in law is that his response is in the negative."

Your misapplication of Canon 57 is an important point, Fr. Woods because it makes your reference to the "no response" of Bishop Wilson as a "presumption of law" meaningless. In my opinion this undermines your argument based upon Bishop Wilson's inaction.

Secondly, you referred to the fact that Mr. Kamm inappropriately used certain Canons in his petition. It is clear from Canon 1734 that the only requirement for requesting recourse (Appeal) against a Decree is that it be in writing. It does not stipulate that it is necessary to apply the appropriate Canons to the issue. If that were so, an Advocate would have been necessary to help Mr. Kamm frame his petition. Again, if that were so, why was not Mr. Kamm informed of the canonical requirements for writing a petition which is based on the appropriate Canons? Consequently, where does the Advocate fit in? Who is supposed to help Mr. Kamm frame the petition? Why was an Advocate not offered to Mr. Kamm in September 1999? This would be a lack of procedural fairness would it not? Thus I maintain that your statement that Mr. Kamm used the inappropriate Canons -- begs the real question. The heart of the matter is that Mr. Kamm wrote a petition requesting recourse (Appeal) against the Decree. Bishop Wilson did not act upon this petition and thus violated Canon 1737. This brings me to the next point.

Thirdly, on page one of your letter you offer a reason for Bishop Wilson's inaction regarding Mr. Kamm's petition for recourse (Appeal) against the Decree -- the following:

"Your confusion of the appropriate basis of recourse may be at the basis of the Bishop's inaction in this regard. Besides, your letter of 30 September indicated that copies were already forwarded to the Bishop's superiors. This would explain Fr. Kevin Matthews inquiry as to whether you forwarded your appeal to the Bishop's superiors."

With due respect, I find this statement is not in accord with Canon 1737, which says that the Appeal MUST be forwarded by the Author of the Decree! Consequently, your statement about the probable reasons for the Bishop's inactivity is in fact a violation of Canon 1737. Is this not another defect of procedural fairness owed to Mr. Kamm?

The only reason that Mr. Kamm sent copies of his Appeal to higher authorities in the Church, is because Bishop Wilson required that the Order of Saint Charbel be shut down! This was unjust to begin with, as it pronounced judgment against one of the main fruits of authenticity for Mr. Kamm's claims -- before the Commission was even convened. In other words it contravened the purpose of the Commission!! Secondly, Mr. Kamm NEVER received acknowledgement from Bishop Wilson regarding the Appeal being forwarded to higher authority. This is an obvious defect of natural justice!! Also, on this point, during the whole year (1998-99) of waiting for any advise from Bishop Wilson -- Mr. Kamm was never told how to proceed in accordance with Law.

Lastly, I would like to address your conclusion on page 3 of your letter:

"And so, if you do not have a canonically founded basis to seek hierarchical recourse (and, in my considered opinion, you do not), then it is incumbent upon me as your Advocate to advise you that to ignore the Bishop's decree would place you in a position of public disregard of lawful ecclesiastical authority." [You referenced this text to your footnote on this same page which reads in part: "Recourse must be reasonable and according to the norms of law, i.e., resting on solid grounds and neither arbitrary nor founded on such arbitrary motives as whim or caprice"]

In summary, I find your conclusion is faulty because your earlier premises are false concerning Canon 57 and the idea of "no response = negative response". Further, I find your footnote should be applied to Bishop Wilson's obligation to advise Mr. Kamm how to write a petition of Recourse (Appeal) in order to meet the requirements you refer to which must be "according to the norms of law". As I said earlier, if this requirement were the case, then why is it not mentioned in Canon 1734? Secondly, then why was this lack of procedural fairness permitted -- no one advised Mr. Kamm of the requirements of law in framing a petition of recourse (Appeal)!

In conclusion you offer the point that Bishop Wilson issued his Decree in response to the "perceived ecclesiastical good" (Canon 223). I find this statement highly subjective -- by what criteria? Is this not begging the question? Is this not the purpose of the Commission's mandate -- to discover the issues of contention? Thus, just what is the "perceived ecclesiastical good" which is in danger from Mr. Kamm? How did Bishop Wilson arrive at this judgment? What Commission findings did he have at hand? The Commission had not been convened at this time!!

And finally, according to the Commentary on Canon 1482, which defines the functions of an Advocate, I wonder whether Mr. Kamm still has need of another Advocate -- as more than one is permissible? Please allow me to quote this commentary on Canon 1482:

"The function of the Advocate, on the other hand, consists of giving technical assistance and advice, examining and drawing up the different documents, undertaking the oral and written defence, and preparing the evidence, all of which might be described as juridical assessment work. More important than the advocate's personality is the technical juridical knowledge, the relevance of the advice, and the quality of the assistance. This function, therefore, can and should, at times, be discharged by several persons." (CODE OF CANON LAW ANNOTATED, University of Navarra; Saint Paul University; edited by E.Caparros, M.Theriault, J. Thorn; Wilson & Lafleur Limitee, Montreal, 1993)

I would like to recommend that another Advocate be assigned to assist your efforts to provide the necessary relevant advice and quality assistance through preparing the documents and evidence in favour of Mr. Kamm. He desires to comply fully with the process including the trial of the contentious issue. I feel that Mr. Kamm's claims and his case deserve an integral defence in accordance with Law within the meaning of Canon 221. If you think it appropriate, I would like to apply for the position of Procurator for Mr. Kamm. You mentioned in your letter that this was possible subject to Bishop Wilson's determination. I do not have a Degree in Canon Law. However, I am probably in the best position of knowledge and experience concerning Mr. Kamm's life, personality and history since 1987 when I arrived in Australia. I have been his spiritual director and confessor for this entire time period. Please advise accordingly.

May Jesus Bless you and Our Lady caress you tenderly.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Fr. Malcolm L. Broussard, Jr.

cc: Bishop Wilson and Fr. Kevin Matthews