THE LITTLE PEBBLE
and Natural Justice

by Fr. Malcolm Broussard
(Originally published in the Apocalyptic Ark Magazine, October 1997 Issue)

This article was written in 1997 as a defence of the Little Pebble against the Pastoral Statement of Bishop William Murray, published in the December 2, 1984 issue of his Diocesan Newspaper, The Catholic Weekly. The extracts are provided here and the body of the article follows.

"My teaching is not from Myself: it comes from the One who sent Me; and if anyone is prepared to do His Will, he will know whether My teaching is from God or whether My doctrine is My own. When a man’s doctrine is his own he is hoping to get honour for himself; but when he is working for the honour of the One who sent him, then he is sincere and by no means an impostor. Did not Moses give you the Law? And yet not one of you keeps the Law! Why do you want to kill me?" (John 8:16-19)

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ, I would like to help you to understand the virtue of obedience as it applies to the Little Pebble in relation to the Law of the Church.

The Bishop of Wollongong issued a public statement in 1984 against the Little Pebble and the Apparition near Nowra, N.S.W. This statement was first published in the Diocesan Newspaper The Catholic Weekly. Many Catholics and other Christians were confused by this statement. I would like to show by this letter that the Little Pebble has not been disobedient to his Bishop; nor has he been defiant of the Bishop’s authority. The Little Pebble could not obey this public statement because it was un- lawful. The pseudo-investigation of the Bishop was flawed through a defect of natural justice owed to the Little Pebble as a Catholic layman. His obedience was never compromised. He has repeatedly, over these years, requested a full investigation in order to defend his rights and vindicate his cause - but to no avail.

This situation has endured for many years. There has been no attempt by the Diocese to open an official canonica1 investigation. At this time the Little Pebble is under the advice of several Barristers who are advising him how to proceed in order to initiate a contentious trial of the issue according to the norms of Canon Law. I have divided the letter into two parts. I hope this letter is helpful to the reader.

In the history of the Catholic Church there have been many instances of private Revelations given by the Mother of God to ordinary people - often mere children. These events have had a profound effect upon nations and countries. "Prophecy", says Saint Thomas Aquinas, is directed to the knowledge of Divine Truth, by the contemplation of which we are not only instructed in faith, but also guided in our actions ... Wherefore at all times men were Divinely instructed about what they were to do, according as it was expedient for the spiritual welfare of the elect" (Summa Theologica, Part II-II Q.174, article 6). Thus it is by means of messages - often prophetic and with warnings of chastisements to come - given by the Mother of God, that the Church is renewed and reconciliation is fostered.

The messages always address particular needs of the Church at that time. An example would be the Apparitions of Our Lady to Saint Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes, France in 1858. Another example would be the Apparitions of Our Lady to the children in Fatima, Portugal, in 1917. The history of the Church abounds with examples of these Divine interventions.

In recent times, the Apparitions of Our Lady at Medjugorge have had a profound influence upon millions of pilgrims from around the world. The good fruits of the Apparitions at Medjugorge are abundant – and have been over many years, at that - yet the local Bishop of Bosnia-Herzcegovina decided from the beginning to go against the authenticity of the Apparition. This decision was announced through a formal investigation. The decree from the Bishop had little effect upon the pilgrims – both clergy and laity - from around the world who have continued to come to the Apparition site. A second canonical investigation was ordered - through a higher ecclesiastical tribunal which was asked to intervene – and this latter also ruled in the negative - against the authenticity. However, again this did nothing to stop the pilgrimages of laity and clergy from around the world. There are many Bishops who believe in this Apparition and support it, even though to this day the same negative conclusion against its authenticity remains in force. The fruits of this Apparition are worldwide and obvious to anyone with eyes to see!

His Holiness John Paul II gave a profound in- sight into the ever-present need for renewa1 and reconciliation within the Church when he spoke on the fundamental human right:

Similar to Medjugorge, and for the last 15 years, almost the same situation has existed with the Apparitions of the Mother of God to the Little Pebble in Australia. The Little Pebble has always been respectful of the Bishop of the Diocese of Wollongong. His actions have always been characterised by sincerity and mutual trust in the pastoral care of the Bishop. In fact there is nothing to the contrary, as our extensive files of correspondence with His Grace clearly show. The motive and intentions of the Little Pebble have always been upright and animated with a desire to advance in truth and love.

The Little Pebble has never been bitter at the lack of procedural fairness in the Bishop’s pseudo-investigation of 1984. He has never insulted the Bishop or his authority; on the contrary, he has always expressed a filial affection for the Bishop over the years. The only disappointment the Little Pebble felt over these years is that there has never been any attempt to even open a dialogue. There was only a "policy statement" by the Bishop that was presented to his Diocesan newspaper - the Catholic Weekly in 1984. This statement did not inflict any canonical censure upon the Little Pebble and had the authority only of opinion - giving a warning to Catholics to avoid going to the Apparition site and not to believe in the Little Pebble. To this day [1997] there has been no investigation with all the safeguards provided in Canon Law. I will explain more on this subject a little further on in this letter. History shows, that in almost all cases of Apparitions of this type, there was unjust religious and civil opposition:

(a) to the event itself;

(b) and to the Seer(s);

(c) as well as the devotion of the people that grew up as a fruit of the Apparition.

The opposition to the Apparitions given to the Little Pebble have been blatantly unjust, even to the extent of undermining the progress of the events. Again, His Holiness highlighted this central theme of reform in the history of the Church:

The history of the Apparition - and the evidence of good fruits over a 15 year period – require a just evaluation of the nature of the Apparition as well as the Catholic identity of the Little Pebble. The Apparitions and messages from the Mother of God have never been a threat to the Pastors of the Church; rather, they served as a means of helping the Bishop and priests of the Diocese to fulfil their mission in these difficult times. However, because of the negative judgment of the Bishop’s 1984 public statement, over the years the News Media have become involved, causing more calumny and confusion because of their biased reporting and obnoxious methods of obtaining news! Finally and sadly – and often enough in the past -there was harm caused by certain clergy opposed to the Apparition, to the detriment of the Seer and followers of the Apparition – this by the very ones in charge of supporting the works of God through their pastoral care.

The subject of this letter concerns the nature and extent of obedience to lawful authority in the Catholic Church within the context of an Apparition. I would like to maintain and prove that the Little Pebble has not been disobedient to his Bishop. The primary reason for this is because the public statement of Bishop William Murray in 1984 was gravely "unlawful" within the meaning of Canon 50 and Canon 221. As a consequence, and at the very least - the public statement was a doubtful "Law" according to Canon 14. This assertion can be demonstrated by a closer look at the canonical rights of the Little Pebble to a fair hearing and fair investigation in this contentious matter. Procedural fairness or natural justice is of prime importance for any investigation into the probative evidence and claims of the Little Pebble. Failure on the part of the Bishop to provide for the corroboration of evidence is a major defect of natural justice and an error of Law within the meaning of Canon 1572. We must go back to the beginning, because it is here that errors of Law and Fact were made in the 1984 public statement of the Bishop of Wollongong. These same errors remain to this day and are responsible for the continued escalation of false labelling in the News Media. The Little Pebble’s reputation has been harmed by the calumny and slander generated by the News Media over these many years. Some extracts from Bishop Murray’s public statement of 1984 are set below:

In May 1984, the Little Pebble delivered three messages to the Bishop of Wollongong – His Grace, William Murray. He spoke to the Bishop for thirty minutes. His Grace said that he would study them. He sent these messages to a theologian in Sydney. In November 1984, Bishop Murray contacted the Little Pebble to advise him of his findings. His Grace said that he was going to make a public statement on the 2nd of December regarding the messages – depending on whether the Apparitions were going to become public as planned by the Little Pebble on the 8th of December. There was no change in plans. There was a public Apparition and gathering of pilgrims on the 8th of December. The Bishop issued his pastoral letter by means of his Diocesan Newspaper, The Catholic Weekly. After appealing to Canon 823 as a justification to use his authority to issue this public statement, the Bishop listed his opinions about the Little Pebble. What conclusions can be drawn from such a statement?

The 1984 public statement from the Bishop is flawed on many grounds. He is obliged to repair the damage done within the meaning of Canon 128. I would like to propose the following corrections to his statement:

1. The Bishop concludes his "expert theological examination" with the ruling: that no supernatural significance can be attached to the messages of the Little Pebble. (extracted from Catholic Weekly Newspaper)

My answer: This is a ridiculous assessment! How is it possible to arrive at such a conclusion when the Bishop had only three messages to evaluate? Secondly, how is it possible to arrive at the truth without a serious examination of the Seer himself - the Little Pebble? This was never done. How could the Little Pebble be able to add precision to the dialogue when he was not even invited to be a subject of the investigation? He could not give any answers because there was no questions put to him. How is it possible to make such a judgment based on hearsay from prejudiced persons writing to the Bishop’s office?

This failure to ask for corroboration is a defect of natural justice – since the Bishop valued the prejudiced hearsay as "evidence" and did not treat the probative evidence of the Little Pebble as evidence at all. This was an error of Law within the meaning of Canon 1572 2º, 4º. There was also an error of Law within the meaning of Canon 50, and Canon 221.

2. The Bishop said that the messages "fail completely" when examined in the light of the criteria used by the Church for judging the authenticity of alleged super- natural phenomena. (extracted from Catholic Weekly Newspaper)

My answer: What criteria of the Church? Whose criteria? What theological tools were employed to study the "evidence"? His Holiness listed the criteria for judging these sort of charisms in a Wednesday public audience (cf. L’Osservatore Romano, No. 26, 1st July 1992). In Message 512, I have already developed in detail this accountability but with the opposite conclusions from the Bishop’s statement. The Bishop should have pointed out his criteria and the application to the facts, including the corroboration of the Little Pebble’s testimony – thus allowing the public to see the lawfulness of his application and his procedural fairness in arriving at his conclusions. Of course this was not done. The public would have been able to see clearly the reasons for his conclusion that the messages "fail completely". Furthermore, and more importantly, the Little Pebble himself deserved to know exactly how the messages "failed completely" for his own edification. This was never done. Thus the same error of Law within the meaning of Canon 1572, Canon 50 and Canon 221.

3. The Bishop said that the messages were not consistent with Sacred Scripture and the Church’s official interpretation of God’s Word. (extracted from Catholic Weekly Newspaper)

My answer: This is not a true statement because it does not distinguish with theological precision the truth from the error. By what criteria can such a judgement be made? What are the inconsistencies in question? Why is there no reference to the Catholic teaching about the development of doctrine? Why is there no specific reference to the Church’s official teachings? This is an error of fact because the Little Pebble was never allowed to give his testimony – to corroborate the evidence at hand, thus to answer directly the relevant questions of doubt. He could have explained other aspects about the messages that would have cleared up this negative assessment. There was also an error of Law here within the meaning of Canon 1572.

4. The Bishop said that the messages were a "cause of division in families and communities" and that he "had received numerous reports to this effect". Further, he concludes from this that the messages "have not originated in Heaven". (extracted from Catholic Weekly Newspaper)

My answer: What sort of criteria can this be, when the Holy Gospel itself is a cause of division in families and communities! If one looks at the history of other Apparitions like Lourdes and Fatima – to name but two – just to name a few – we can readily see how much division in families and communities occurred - not to mention the civil, public and religious authorities that were "offended" because of the events of the Apparitions! This assessment of the Bishop is simply not in conformity with the Christian experience! There are many texts in Scripture to indicate that one cannot serve two masters. It is fundamental to the Holy Gospel’s that a Christian, like Christ, is a sign of contradiction. This assessment is also an error of fact, because it is does not follow that the messages are not originating in Heaven as a consequence of division in families and communities. The division in the specific families might be stemming from other reasons – wherein the Apparitions only serve to be a scapegoat for their problems.

5. The Bishop maintains that the messages "do not confirm people in their knowledge and love of God"; rather, he says, they "stir up fear by concentrating upon the sensational, the unusual and upon fearsome predictions". (extracted from Catholic Weekly Newspaper)

My answer: This is a silly assessment because it depends upon to whom you talk! If the Bishop and his theologian had chosen to interview the many believers in the Apparition he would have obtained a different story! There are many who could - had they been asked – have told their story and how they had been wonderfully con- firmed in their knowledge and love of God through their belief in the Little Pebble and the messages. But, no, there was actually a selective reading of the "evidence" by the so called "expert theological examination" which ruled out the first hand testimony and corroboration of the Seer himself. They excluded and ruled out the first hand testimony of those favourable and closest to the Seer and the Apparition. On the contrary, the so-called "evidence" was "weighted" by the prejudice of those who were against the Little Pebble and the messages! This was also an error of Law within the meaning of Canon 1572, Canon 50 and Canon 221. There is also an error of fact because the so-called "evidence" of fearsome, unusual and sensational predictions - was overemphasized and taken out of context, since most Apparitions around the world contain elements of warnings and chastisements.

6. The Bishop said that many who have accepted the messages "are now acting in an eccentric manner and are a cause of disturbance to other members of Christ’s faithful". (extracted from Catholic Weekly Newspaper)

My answer: This statement of the Bishop also misses the mark for many reasons. Within the Catholic Church there has always been room for legitimate diversity and a complementary pluralism according to the norms of Canon Law and Liturgical Law. However, in various Dioceses, because some people might say that Catholics are eccentric because they pray in front of statues! Does that make them eccentric? On the contrary, such a saying is simply wrong! It does not mean anything. Some Catholics are disturbed by other Catholics who pray the rosary before or after Mass They would say that this is disturbing and eccentric behaviour! Does that make it eccentric?

The same for those Catholics who wear blessed sacramentals, like scapulars - some would say that this disturbs them. Some Catholics would say that some Catholic women are disturbing and eccentric because they wear a head covering to Mass, or that some women wear long dresses to Mass! Some Catholics kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer, kneel for Holy Communion and kneel for the final blessing from the priest - yet some other persons would say that this is disturbing and eccentric behaviour! Does that make them eccentric? Some Catholics prefer not to give the optional "sign of peace" during Mass as it disturbs their preparation for Holy Communion - yet some Catholics would say that this is disturbing and eccentric behaviour! Some Catholics prefer to exercise their freedom to receive Holy Communion on the tongue only - yet there are other Catholics who are disturbed and say this is eccentric behaviour. The list of examples goes on and on! These are all examples of legitimate options of worship or expressions of persona1 piety. This accusation from the Bishop has no merit as it could be erroneously applied to all sorts of legitimate forms of spirituality and legitimate diversity. There is here another error of Law within the meaning of Canon 214.

7. The Bishop said that "devotional practices" called for in the messages do not have his approval nor from the parish priest wherein the Apparition occurs. (extracted from Catholic Weekly Newspaper)

My answer: This is truly remarkable. The real question remains - why does the Apparition not have approval in this Parish wherein it is located? It is because of the Bishop’s 1984 public statement! Thus we have a vicious circle. The same unlawful statement of opinion with its lack of natural justice is perpetrated within the Parish by its clergy on authority of the Bishop. The Parish priest uses this statement as his authority for disapproving the devotions. However, the Parish priest cannot lawfully require obedience from the faithful against a common practice in the Church - when the universal liturgical Law in the Church permits various options; like kneeling for Holy Communion and receiving on the tongue.

The public statement of the Bishop is unlawful to begin with! I realise that the Parish priest is put in a difficult position – nevertheless, it remains objectively unjust to impose such a penalty upon the faithful. The other devotional practices called for by the Mother of God include the Holy Mass; kneeling for Holy Communion where possible; receiving Holy Communion on the tongue only; the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament; frequent Confession; praying the holy Rosary; wearing the Blessed sacramentals; practice of the spiritual and corporal works of mercy; true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the form advocated by St. Louis de Montfort; devotional prayers to the Angels. All of these devotions are the public patrimony of the universal Church. The other devotional practices remain merely private devotions.

8. The Bishop states that the messages contain "contradictions", "unfulfilled prophecies", "condemnations of practices regarding the reception of Holy Communion that have been permitted by the Church". (extracted from Catholic Weekly Newspaper)

My answer: There are no contradictions - only insufficient information. It may seem like a contradiction exists here or there, but in reality there is no such thing because God cannot lie. Saint Thomas explains that God is not obliged to reveal all causes and their effects. Oftentimes, God reveals only parts of the puzzle concerned with private Revelations. This is because the revealed Truth of God is always a test for a creature. The only unfulfilled prophecies associated with the Little Pebble are those that have not come to pass at this time. They will come to pass in due time. Concerning Holy Communion in the hand: it is easy to understand why Our Lady would request that this not be done. It is because, (as every Catholic priest knows) – every particle of the consecrated hosts is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. No person may knowingly desecrate the Sacred Species without committing a sacrilege which is a mortal sin. It is a fact that particles of the Hosts often break off in small bits and are left on the paten during Mass. That is why the Altar Boy must hold a paten under the chin of each member of the faithful as they come for Holy Communion. Thus the rubrics for the Mass require that the Priest must purify his sacred vessels carefully after returning to the Altar after giving out Holy Communion. It is easy to see these particles at every Mass. This clearly indicates that there is a real and proximate possibility that the particles will fall into the hands of the people receiving in the hand. Thus for every little bit of Hosts that break off in the hands of the faithful there is the real and proximate possibility of objective sacrilege! According to authentic Catholic Moral Teaching – no person is permitted to place an action that will probably place that person in a proximate occasion of committing sacrilege. Even if there is only a chance, we are not permitted to place the action. There is nothing strange or wrong with this request from the Mother of God. She is only enlightening the Church about this practice. It is not the first time that God has corrected the Church Hierarchy - St. Brigit of Sweden and St. Catherine of Siena are a good example.

9. The Bishop finally concludes with his insistence that the messages "are not genuine and their contents should not be seriously heeded nor acted upon by the faithful". He advises the faithful not to participate in the devotions without approval and "in defiance" of ecclesiastical authority. (extracted from Catholic Weekly Newspaper)

My answer: According to Canon 49 the Bishop has the authority to issue a decree which imposes on a specific person or persons an obligation in order to urge the observance of a Law. However, Canon 50 requires that before the Bishop issues such a decree, he must seek the necessary information and proof, and as far as possible, is to consult those whose rights could be harmed.

This was not done. The Bishop did not provide for the integral and personal testimony of the Little Pebble to corroborate the truth (Canon 1572) in order to allow him to vindicate and defend himself (Canon 221). On the contrary, the Bishop relied upon the weighted "evidence" of hearsay knowledge passed on to him by means of correspondence from those person biased against the Little Pebble! From this action there occurred an error of Law. At the very least, this was a doubtful Law. Within the meaning of Canon 14 such a doubtful Law does not bind under obedience. Therefore, there was no question of "defiance" of authority by the Little Pebble. He has not been disobedient to the Bishop!

Thus the so called ‘investigation by experts in theology’ was nothing more than a pseudo- investigation because it lacked procedural fairness. This public statement caused much turmoil in the minds of the public as some persons even thought that this meant that the Little Pebble was excommunicated! The News Media jumped upon this bandwagon, and began their campaign to discredit the good name of the Little Pebble. According to Canon 128 the Bishop is obliged to repair this harm done to the Little Pebble. Let us now summarize the matter of Natural Justice.

There was a lack of procedural fairness from the very beginning. This is clearly the case because neither the Bishop nor his theologian ever provided the Little Pebble the opportunity to corroborate the evidence with additional evidence. Before issuing his public statement the Bishop should have notified the Little Pebble that a negative decision was impending, based upon the evidence at hand – and that a request for further corroboration or new evidence (within the meaning of Canon 1572, 4º) should be provided by the Little Pebble so that a more integral picture of the situation could be obtained. This method of proceeding would have avoided a defect of natural justice and an error of Law. On the contrary, the Bishop and his theologian decided that the evidence (three messages) was not "evidence" at all of anything supernatural from God. Thus the Bishop and his theologian gave no positive significance to the evidence - rather, they formed the "weighted" opinion that the evidence required a negative judgment. This was an error of Law, because the Little Pebble was denied procedural fairness in that he was never given the opportunity to provide the sufficiently probative evidence in an integral presentation of his cause. Their conclusion was "weighted" in the sense that the personal bias and method of arriving at a just verdict was intrinsically flawed - because it lacked the required canonical procedures to secure a fair appraisal. The fact that no proper, genuine and realistic consideration was given to the Little Pebble to provide corroboration to the initial evidence should be considered an improper exercise of power by the Bishop within the meaning of Canon 50 and Canon 221. It is clear that the Bishop did not sufficiently comprehend the initial evidence put forth by the Little Pebble, in that it was not meant to be exhaustive; rather, only the beginning of evidence to be provided as needed.

Every Catholic has a right to vindicate himself and defend his rights before the competent authority and expect that no penalties be inflicted except in accordance with Law (Canon 221). Even though the Bishop’s "investigation" was not lawful, his public statement was, nevertheless, viewed as a such by the general public, because the Bishop thought it serious enough to warrant a public statement. This public statement served to penalize the Little Pebble (without the protection of Law) and placed the identity of the Apparition and its fruits in a bad light. However, the Bishop was not interested in opening an official canonical investigation. Thus the Little Pebble was forced to live with the fall-out from the public statement. It has remained the same ever since 1984.

From this defect of natural justice there resulted a doubtful law – namely, the public statement itself and its unlawful status in the Church. Therefore, according to Canon 14 – and following the sound Catholic moral principle: "A doubtful law does not bind" – the Little Pebble could not obey the directions contained in the 1984 public statement of the Bishop of Wollongong. The statement was fundamentally in error, and the Bishop did not want to reconsider his policy. Therefore, obedience to the Bishop on this matter was unwarranted because it was an unjust requirement. Subsequently, over all these years, the Little Pebble has ceaselessly tried to obtain an official ecclesiastical investigation. It is only in this forum that his testimony can be protected and made in an integral fashion. Over all these years until the present, there has been no change in the attitude or policy of the Diocese of Wollongong. Only recently, in the 13th July 1997 issue of the Catholic Weekly, the present Bishop, His Grace Phillip Wilson, only restated the earlier announcement with the caption. Other Bishops in Australia and from around the world are simply content to advise people to follow the judgment of the Bishop of Wollongong.

There has not been any attempt to open an official investigation. There are very strong grounds for the Little Pebble to open a lawsuit for a contentious trial on the issue. In consultation with several Barristers the Little Pebble is currently under legal advisement as to how to proceed in this matter.

PART II

THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW IN CONTENTIOUS TRIALS

OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENTS

Canon 1311 affirms the Church’s right to constrain with penal sanctions.

Canon 1312 affirms two types of penal sanctions:

Canon 1314 affirms the difference between a ferendae sententia penalty and a latae sententia penalty. A ferendae sententia penalty is not binding until it is imposed. A latae sententia penalty is incurred automatically upon the commission of an offence, if a law or precept expressly lays this down.

Canon 1323 affirms that no one is liable to a penalty, who when violating a law or precept (4) acted by reason of necessity ... unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls. [This Canon would be important if the law or precept were lawful. However, as I have shown above, the Bishop’s statement is a doubtful law Nevertheless, "by reason of necessity" is an important element in the defence of the obedience of the Little Pebble to a higher law - the Divine Law that Commands him as the Prophet.]

Canon 1324 §3 affirms that a person who acted by reason of necessity (§1, No.5) is not bound by a latae sententia penalty. [Apart from the fact that the Bishop’s statement is a doubtful law, this would be a very important Canon in defence of the Little Pebble, as it shows that no automatic excommunication can be inflicted upon him, for the same reasons stated above in regard to Canon 1323].

Canons 1331-1335 deal with effects of excommunication, interdict and suspension.

Canon 1352 affirms that an appeal or a recourse against judgments of a court or against decrees which impose or declare any penalty, has a suspensive effect. [This Canon, along with Canon 1638, is very important in defence of the Little Pebble because they impede any attempt to carry out an excommunication or any penalty.]

Rights of the Faithful (concerning this issue)

Canon 214: "Christ’s faithful have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the lawful Pastors of the Church; they also have the right to follow their own form of spiritual life, provided it is in accord with Church teaching".

Canon 220: "No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right of every person to protect his or her privacy". [This Canon is important as it shows the right of the Little Pebble to protect his privacy in the face of accusation.]

Canon 221: "§1 Christ’s faithful may lawfully vindicate and defend the rights they enjoy in the Church, before the competent ecclesiastical forum in accordance with the law. §2 If any members of Christ’s faithful are summoned to trial by the competent authority, they have the right to be judged according to the provisions of the law, to be applied with equity. §3 Christ’s faithful have the right that no canonical penalties be inflicted upon them except in accordance with the law." [This Canon is very important in the defence of the Little Pebble as a Catholic. He has been deprived of Natural Justice - as he has suffered the "pseudo-sentencing without lawful trial". It demonstrates his right to corroborate evidence with further probative material through personal testimony. This is fundamental to this issue of a lack of procedural fairness].

Canon 14: "Laws, even invalidating and in- capacitating ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt of law. When there is a doubt of fact, however, Ordinaries can dispense from them provided, if there is question of a reserved dispensation, it is one which the authority to whom it is reserved is accustomed to grant". [This canon is important as it established the fact that the obedience of the Little Pebble to lawful authority is not in question because the Bishop’s statement is a doubtful law that does not bind him to obedience.]

Canon 49: "A singular precept is a decree by which an obligation is directly and lawfully imposed on a specific person or persons to do or to omit something, especially in order to urge the observance of a law".

Canon 50: "Before issuing a singular decree, the person in authority is to seek the necessary information and proof and, as far as possible, is to consult those whose rights could be harmed". [This canon is central to the defence of the Little Pebble in regard to the Bishop’s statement because it clearly establishes the need to seek corroboration of any and all evidence of the person(s) concerned before issuing a judgment. This should have been done by the Bishop in order to avoid a defect of natural justice.]

Canon 128: "Whoever unlawfully causes harm to another by a juridical act, or indeed by any other act which is deceitful or culpable, is obliged to repair the damage done". [The Bishop is bound to repair the damage done by his un- lawful public statement because it was an improper exercise of power.]

Canon 386: "§1 The Diocesan Bishop is bound to teach and illustrate to the faithful the truths of faith which are to be believed and applied to behaviour. He is himself to preach frequently. He is also to ensure that the provisions of the canons on the ministry of the word, especially on the homily and catechetical instruction, are faithfully observed, so that the whole of Christian teaching is transmitted to all. §2 By whatever means seem most appropriate, he is firmly to defend the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed. However, he is to acknowledge a just freedom in the further investigation of truths." [This Canon is important also because the Bishop must allow freedom to further investigate the truths associated with the messages of the Mother of God to the Little Pebble.]

Canon 823: "§1 In order to safeguard the integrity of faith and morals, pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to ensure that in writings or in the use of the means of social communication there should be no ill effect on the faith and morals of Christ’s faithful. They also have the duty and the right to demand that where writings of the faithful touch upon matters of faith and morals, these be submitted to their judgment. Moreover, they have the duty and the right to condemn writings which harm true faith or good morals. §2 For Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care, the duty and the right mentioned in §1 belongs to the Bishops, both individually and in particular councils or Episcopal Conferences; for the whole people of God, they belong to the supreme authority in the Church." [This is an important Canon used by Bishop Murray to defend his public statement. However, this Canon makes no mention of the need for procedural fairness and the right to defend and vindicate one’s rights according to the provisions of law applied with equity. One must refer to Canon 50 and Canon 221.]

The Canons governing the matters concerned with the Little Pebble are contained in Book VII of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. These Canons begin with Canon 1400 and continue through up to Canon 1670. A brief summary of the relevant Canons:

Canon 1417 affirms every one of the faithful have the right to introduce their case or refer their case directly to the Holy See. Further, the Holy See has the right to reserve a given case to itself alone.

Canon 1419 affirms that the Bishop of a Diocese is the Judge of his Tribunal.

Canon 1425 affirms that some cases are reserved to a collegiate Tribunal of three judges or five in some cases. In penal cases like Excommunication a Tribunal of three judges is required. In very difficult cases, the Bishop may require five judges.

Canon 1428 affirms that the judge can appoint an auditor. The task of the auditor is solely to gather evidence in accordance with the judges commission and to submit this evidence to the judge. Unless the judge decides otherwise, the auditor can decide what evidence is to be collected and in what manner. [This person’s accountability is critical to a fair presentation of the evidence. All of the rules for preserving natural justice to the Little Pebble within the meaning of Canon 221 must be in order so that a fair and integral presentation of the evidence can be assured].

Canon 1430 affirms that a promoter of justice is to be appointed in the Diocese.

Canon 1437 affirms that a notary is to be present at every hearing, so much so that the acts are null unless signed by the notary. These constitute public proof.

Canons 1442 - 1445 deal with Tribunals of the Apostolic See. The Pope is the supreme judge of the whole Catholic world. The ordinary tribunal used by the Pope is the Roman Rota. There is also the supreme tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. According to Canon 1405 the Pope has the right to reserve any case to himself.

Canon 1452: "§1 In a matter which concerns private persons exclusively, a judge can proceed only at the request of a party. In penal cases, however, and in other cases which affect the public good of the Church or the salvation of souls, once the case has been lawfully introduced, the judge can and must proceed ex officio. §2 The judge can also supply for the negligence of the parties in bringing forward evidence or in opposing exceptions, whenever this is considered necessary in order to avoid a gravely unjust judgment, without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1600." [This Canon is important because the judge (Bishop) must introduce the case once an investigation has been lawfully requested by a party. The judge may also lawfully initiate the case - however, once the case is introduced, the judge can and must proceed].

Canon 1457: §1 Judges can be punished by the competent authority with appropriate penalties, not excluding the loss of office, if, though certainly and manifestly competent, they refuse to give judgment; if, with no legal support, they declare themselves competent and hear and determine cases; if they breach the law of secrecy; or if, through deceit or serious negligence, they cause harm to the litigants. §2 Tribunal officers and assistants are subject to the same penalties if they fail in their duty as above. The judge also has the power to punish them.

Canon 1476: Any person, baptised or unbaptised, can plead before a court. A person lawfully brought to trial must respond.

Canon 1501: A judge cannot investigate any case unless a plea, drawn up in accordance with Canon Law, is submitted either by a person whose interest is involved, or by the promoter of justice.

Canon 1502: A person who wishes to sue another must present a petition to a judge who is lawfully competent. In this petition the matter in dispute is to be set out and the intervention of the judge requested.

Canon 1503: §1 A judge can admit an oral plea whenever the plaintiff is impeded from presenting a petition or when the case can be easily investigated and is of minor significance. §2 In both cases, however, the judge is to direct a notary to record the matter in writing. This written record is to be read to, and approved by, the plaintiff and it takes the place of a petition written by the plaintiff as far as all effects of law are concerned.

Canon 1504: The petition by which a suit is introduced must:

1º state the judge before whom the case is being introduced, what is being sought and from whom it is being sought;

2º indicate on what right the plaintiff bases the case and, at least in general terms, the facts and evidence to be submitted in support of the allegations made;

3º be signed by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s procurator, and bear the day, the month and year, as well as the address at which the plaintiff or procurator resides, or at which they say they reside for the purpose of receiving the acts;

4º indicate the domicile or quasi-domicile of the respondent.

Canon 1505: §1 Once he has satisfied himself that the matter is within his competence and the plaintiff has the right to stand before the court, the sole judge, or the presiding judge of a collegiate tribunal, must as soon as possible by his decree either admit or reject the petition. §2 A petition can be rejected only if:

1º the judge or the tribunal is not legally competent;

2º it is established beyond doubt that the plaintiff lacks the right to stand before the court;

3º the provisions of canon 1504 nn. 1-3 have not been observed;

4º it is certainly clear from the petition that the plea lacks any foundation, and that there is no possibility that a foundation will emerge from a process.

§3 If a petition has been rejected by reason of defects which can be corrected, the plaintiff can draw up a new petition correctly and present it again to the same judge. §4 A party is always entitled, within ten canonical days, to have recourse, based upon stated reasons, against the rejection of a petition. This recourse is to be made either to the tribunal of appeal or, if the petition was rejected by the presiding judge, to the collegiate tribunal. A question of rejection is to be determined with maximum expedition. [This Canon is important because based upon this criteria it is difficult to see how the Little Pebble’s petition can be rejected - once it is introduced.]

Canon 1506: If within a month of the presentation of a petition, the judge has not issued a decree admitting or rejecting it in accordance with canon 1505, the interested party can insist that the judge perform his duty. If, notwithstanding this, the judge does not respond within ten days of the party’s request, the petition is to be taken as having been admitted.

Canon 1513: §1 The joinder of the issue occurs when the terms of the controversy, as derived from the pleas and the replies of the parties, are determined by a decree of the judge. §2 The pleas and the replies of the parties may be expressed not only in the petition introducing the suit, but also either in the response to the summons, or in statements made orally before the judge. In more difficult cases, however, the parties are to be convened by the judge, so as to agree the question or questions to which the judgment must respond. §3 The decree of the judge is to be notified to the parties. Unless they have already agreed on the terms, they may within ten days have recourse to the same judge to request that the decree be altered. This question, however, is to be decided with maximum expedition by a decree of the judge.

Canon 1514: "Once determined, the terms of the controversy cannot validly be altered except by a new decree, issued for a grave reason, at the request of the party, and after the other parties have been consulted and their observations considered".

Canon 1516: "Once the joinder of the issue has occurred, the judge is to prescribe an appropriate time within which the parties are to present and to complete the evidence".

Canon 1517: "The trial of the issue is initiated by the summons. It is concluded not only by the pronouncement of the definitive judgement, but also by other means determined by law".

(a) The Declarations of the Parties

(b) Documentary Proof

(c) Witnesses and Testimony

Canon 1572: "In weighing evidence the judge may, if it is necessary, seek testimonial letters, and is to take into account:

1º the condition and uprightness of the witness;

2º whether the knowledge was acquired at first hand, particularly if it was something seen or heard personally, or whether it was opinion, rumour or hearsay;

3º whether the witness is constant and consistent, or varies, is uncertain or vacillating;

4º whether there is corroboration of the testimony, and whether it is confirmed or not by other items of evidence. [This Canon is important as it establishes the credibility of evidence and the need for corroboration].

(d) Experts

(e) Judicial Access and Inspection

(f) Presumptions

(a) Non-Appearance of Parties

(b) The Intervention of a Third Party in a Case

(a) The Plaint of Nullity of the Judgement

(b) The Appeal

(a) Adjudged Matter

(b) Total Reinstatement

I would like to close this letter. It is not meant to be exhaustive of all categories involved in this contentious matter. I hope this is helpful to all who read this information. I leave the reader with the words of Our Lord to the Pharisee’s when this latter refused to respect Our Lord and to grant him a fundamental right of Natural Justice. It is the same for the Little Pebble, as God’s "spokesman":

At this the Pharisees said to Him: "You are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not valid ... Where is your Father?" (John 8:13,19) Jesus replied: "It is true that I am testifying on My own behalf, but My testimony is still valid, because I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I judge no one, but if I judge, My judgment will be sound, because I am not alone: the One who sent Me is with Me; and in your Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid. I may be testifying on My own behalf but the Father who sent Me is My witness too ... You do not know Me, nor do you know My Father; if you did know Me, you would know My Father as well" (John 8:14-18,19)

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Send mail to mwoa@shoal.net.au with questions or comments about this web site.
The Order of Saint Charbel Copyright © 2001 MWOA Pty. Ltd.
Last modified: July 11, 2002