HISTORY OF THE INVESTIGATION
(with commentary)

Bishop Wilson replied with his letter dated the 11th September 1998 formally informing the Little Pebble that he was opening an official investigation into his claims.

It is clear to all that the Diocesan Bishop has the authority of Christ Our Lord to teach, preach and refute error. This role of the Bishop is further augmented by the normative directions of the Magisterium on the pastoral ministry of Bishops within the Catholic Church. Specifically, Canon 386 details the Bishops role in promoting the full integrity of the Catholic Faith and his right to defend it against error. However, on the side of natural justice owed to the Little Pebble, this same Canon requires that the Bishop "is to acknowledge a just freedom in the further investigation of truths" (Canon 386, 2). This point is critical to the evaluation of the current situation which has witnessed an improper exercise of power within the meaning of Canons 50, 128, 221 and 1572. This is where defects of natural justice can over power the freedom to pursue the truth of the matter -- which is essential to a lawful judgment.

For an excellent explanation of the concept of Natural Justice in this context -- please see the article: Natural Justice in the Church by R. Michael Dunnigan published by The Saint Joseph's Foundation, in their Christifidelis Newsletter, 1998

What are these defects of natural justice? A Catholic has the right to lawfully vindicate and defend his rights before the proper forum in accordance with law (Canon 221). The Little Pebble has not been allowed to present his probative and corroborative testimony within the context of the canonical investigation of Bishop Wilson. The unlawful Decree rules out freedom to pursue the truth (Canon 386) because it has ordered the closure of the Order of Saint Charbel -- which labels it as bad fruit -- in advance of the probative evidence to be supplied by the Little Pebble. Thus the Decree seals (in advance of the Commissions findings) the credibility of the Order before it can even be presented in its nature and identity!!

The provisions of law must be applied with equity (fairness). In other words, a person ought to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Secondly, it is a principle of jurisprudence that one must have at hand -- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Consequently, a negative judgment must be supported by probative evidence in order to demonstrate that errors of law or fact were not part of the judgment. The accused must have the right to his own defence against his accusers and every opportunity to answer all objections -- with other corroborative evidence. The accused ought not to be judged by the "weighted" testimony of those who are biased against him.

No penalty can be applied except in accordance with law. Otherwise, there is an improper exercise of power by those who sit as judges. Accountability must be in both directions. The proceedings and procedures of the trial of the issue are subject to review through the Appeals process which is also guaranteed by law. An Appeal always suspends the execution of the Decree within the meaning of Canon 1638

Secondly in favour of the Bishop's right to safeguard faith and morals through proscribing certain writings as harmful -- Canon 823 supports the Bishop's right to do this. However, again the rights to procedural fairness are not dispensable. Canon 221 guarantees the protection of the Law to all of the faithful in a contentious issue, and that no penalties be inflicted except in accordance with law.

For the next 12 months, there was no further direction from Bishop Wilson as to what the Little Pebble should do next. Many people in the Community and from various parts of Australia and the world began to send in their testimonials in defence of the Little Pebble. Bishop Wilson formally replied to each of these testimonials with a simple acknowledgment of receipt. However, no further direction was given to the Little Pebble as to how to comply with the investigation. We continued to wait for direction on how to proceed.

On the 4th May 1999, the Abbot-Bishop Bartholomew Schneider formally endorsed the Rule and Constitution of the Order of Saint Charbel according to his jurisdiction. Abbot-Bishop of the Fraternization of the Hermits Regular Order III of Saint Francis of Assisi whose Monastery is located in Bonn Germany. See the official document. This document was submitted to Bishop Wilson.

With complete surprise, Bishop Wilson formally issued a personal Decree against the Little Pebble. This was sent by fax to the Little Pebble late in the afternoon on the 27th September 1999. There was no warning of an imminent negative judgment! There was no requests for corroborative evidence to be supplied by the Little Pebble!! There was a complete lack of procedural fairness (natural justice) in that the Little Pebble was not invited to give his evidence and witness under the protection of law. Such evidence could only be accredited as authentic through the proper auditing and notary (Canons 1428 and 1437) required for the contentious trial of the issue. See other relevant Canons in the appropriate section of the 1983 Code of Canon Law governing contentious trials. This way, truth could be carefully distinguished from rumour and hearsay. All doubts of law and doubts of fact could have been easily resolved. This was clearly an abuse of power within the meaning of Canons 50, 128, 221, and 1572 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

For an excellent explanation of the canonical issue of Roman Appeals in this context -- please see the article: Roman Appeals by Neri Capponi published by The Saint Joseph's Foundation, on their Website.

The Little Pebble immediately lodged an official Appeal to Higher Authority, especially His Holiness Pope John Paul II based upon several serious errors of Law and Fact. No response was forthcoming from Bishop Wilson even to acknowledge receipt of this Appeal. Thus the Little Pebble also forwarded his Appeal to Cardinal Edward Clancy of Sydney Australia who is head of the Australian Episcopal Conference. Again, to date there has been no response. We continue to knock on all doors of the Hierarchy in order to redress this terribly unjust situation.

Bishop Wilson sent a letter to the Little Pebble to advise that he was seeking guidance from the Holy See.

On May 5, 2000 - Bishop Wilson sent (by fax) another Decree formally erecting a Commission to investigate the writings and works of the Little Pebble. This Commission is to consist of (2) theologians and (2) Canon Lawyers and be directed by Dr. Kevin Matthews, PhD, DCL, STL. Another aspect of the Commission is to establish the compliance of the teachings and works of the Little Pebble with the teachings and practice of the Catholic Church. Finally, the Commission is to make recommendations to the Bishop of Wollongong who alone has sole authority and and responsibility for recognition of associations seeking recognition as Institutes of Consecrated Life in the Diocese of Wollongong. See below the scanned copy of this Decree.

This Decree is remarkable on several counts. The original letter to Mr. Kamm on September 11, 1998, the Bishop advised Mr. Kamm of the formal opening of a Commission (see document below)! Now a Decree has been issued in order to erect a Commission. First of all the previous Decree (September 27, 1999) required that the Order of Saint Charbel be disbanded (see document below). Secondly, this new decree makes a serious error of fact in calling us an "association". This is an error of major proportion, as the identity and nature of the Order as specified in its official documents (Rule and Constitutions) state clearly our identity as a "new form of consecrated life" (Canon 605).  The Canons governing Catholic associations are quite different. Thirdly, Mr. Kamm made a formal canonical appeal to higher ecclesiastical authority regarding the unlawfulness of the first Decree of Bishop Wilson (see document below). To date, this appeal has not been addressed! What has happened to the Appeal? Where is the accountability in law? How can this formal canonical appeal be set aside? Mr. Kamm, as Founder, never intended to found an association, nor do the statutes of the Order's documentation indicate this. Canon 605 already includes provision for the Diocesan Bishop to setup suitable statutes to protect the fledgling Order. Because this was never done,  our original documentation was hand delivered to the Holy See in October 1988 for a fair appraisal. After all these years we have had no judgment from the Holy See. Now at this juncture, we are being labelled as an "association". This is gravely unfair, and another defect of natural justice -- as the Canons which govern associations are quite different than those which govern a "new form of consecrated life".

Ecclesiastical Commission Meeting - October 21, 2000. William Kamm went to a pre-arranged Meeting with Fr. Kevin Matthews, J.C.L. and Fr. John Woods, J.C.L. at Saint Michael's Church in Nowra, N.S.W. Fr. Kevin initiated the Meeting with a list of about 30 questions for Mr. Kamm to answer. The entire Meeting lasted only 50 minutes. The Questions and Answers by Mr. Kamm will be sent to certain theologians and canonists who will formulate a judgment of Mr. Kamm. This judgment will be forwarded to Bishop Wilson for his final verdict. He will then issue another Decree. We feel the final decision will be negative, because of the long history in this regard. Mr. Kamm will Appeal to the Higher Tribunal. According to Canon 1638, the execution of the Decree is suspended in view of the Appeal. For more information please see the following documents:

Letter from Fr. Malcolm Broussard as a verbatim of the Meeting of the 21st October 2000. This letter is addressed to Bishop Philip Wilson

Letter from Mr. William Kamm to Bishop Philip Wilson regarding the unlawfulness of the Commission Meeting - 24 October 2000.

Letter from Fr. Kevin Matthews to Mr. William Kamm - 30 October 2000

Letter from Fr. Kevin Matthews to Mr. William Kamm - 2 November 2000

The Letter from Fr. Kevin Matthews dated October 30, 2000 took the form of an apology to Mr. Kamm concerning the Advocate (Fr. John Woods, JCL) assigned to Mr. Kamm. The Advocate thought he was coming to Nowra for a Marriage Nullity case -- and Fr. Kevin had to inform him that it was to interview Mr. Kamm. Fr. Kevin noted the purpose of the Advocate's presence at the interview was to ensure that Mr. Kamm's rights were respected. He referred to the fact that a more formal representation might be required of the Advocate. Indeed, how could it be otherwise!

The letter from Fr. Kevin Matthews dated November 2, 2000 is remarkable on several counts. Fr. Kevin clearly says that he received the Bishop's Decree including Mr. Kamm's response -- mentioned in the interview after the 21st October 2000 meeting with Mr. Kamm. Furthermore, Fr. Kevin clearly says he would like Mr. Kamm to provide a copy of the Appeal to Rome against the Bishop's Decree. This is extremely irregular because it indicates that Fr. Kevin did not have the two most important documents in his possession! How is it possible that such an interview be considered lawful? How can fairness and integrity be maintained when such a formal interview was conducted with (3) Canon Lawyers and a Notary and oaths were required -- and yet, the key documents were not at hand nor even considered part of the interview? There is already evident a lack of procedural fairness -- the important relevant documents essential to Mr. Kamm's testimony were not considered relevant to the interview. Secondly, that non-relevant questions were presented and valued as significant. Finally, Fr. Kevin refers to the request from Mr. Kamm for a Procurator and an Advocate (Canon 1481). Canons 1481-1490 clearly indicate these are two different persons.

Transcript of the Commission Interview of the Little Pebble - 21 October 2000

OFFICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE LITTLE PEBBLE (html) - 14 November 2000 - Regarding the Interview of 21 October 2000.

Letter from Fr. John Woods to the Little Pebble - 20 November 2000 (html) - Scanned Original (pdf)

Letter from the Little Pebble to Fr. John Woods - 4 December 2000 (html) - Scanned Original (pdf)

Letter from Fr. Malcolm Broussard to Fr. John Woods - 28 November 2000 (html)

Decree from Bishop Peter W. Ingham dated 18 June 2002 against the Little Pebble (html)

June 22, 2002 Third Appeal to the Church and Reply to the Decree of Bishop Peter W. Ingham (16 June 2002).

June 25, 2002 Reply to Bishop Ingham's Decree (16 June 2002)
by Fr. Malcolm Broussard

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 03, 2002