Tel / Fax: +61 244 460263 - Tel / Fax: +61 244 460832 - Email: mwoa@shoal.net.au
Website: http://www.shoal.net.au/~mwoa/index.html
October 21, 2000 11:00 AM
Most Reverend Bishop Philip Wilson
Diocese of Wollongong
Your Grace,
William Kamm and myself went to the pre-arranged 9:00 AM meeting with Fr. Kevin Matthews, J.C.L. and Fr. John Woods, J.C.L. at Saint Michaels Church in Nowra, N.S.W. Fr. Kevin initiated the meeting with a written list of about 30 questions. William was asked to swear on the Bible which he did.
At the previous request of Mr. Kamm, I was permitted to be present as a witness. I would like to narrate my impressions of this meeting. I would like to request that my testimonial herein be submitted to the Tribunal for the record. In a subsequent Appeal, my testimony is valuable as I was a witness to this meeting.
I would also like it noted in the record that these questions presented to Mr. Kamm by Fr. Kevin were intrinsically prejudicial. The reason I say this is because most of these questions already contained a negative judgment of Mr. Kamm within the same sentence! The questions were composed with an obvious bias against Mr. Kamm's claim as if the negative conclusions about Mr. Kamm were already a foregone conclusion. There were several errors of fact, particularly in reference to Fr. Kevin's statement of the "condemnation" of Mr. Kamm. The meeting seemed to be conducted only as a canonical formality.
Consequently, I consider the meeting was unlawful due to a lack of procedural fairness owed to Mr. Kamm (within the meaning of Canon 221). He simply was not allowed to see the questions in advance, so as to be able to give full answers with added precision. I would like to note that even the two women notaries had copies of the questions at hand in advance -- yet Mr. Kamm did not. To have the questions in advance would not have hindered the truth -- since an oath was still required. Secondly, Mr. Kamm would have had the benefit of his Advocate to brief him regarding these questions. On the contrary this did not happen. The Advocate should have briefed Mr. Kamm as to the procedure of the Meeting. This did not happen. This is a clear defect of natural justice because it was not procedurally fair to Mr. Kamm (within the meaning of Canon 221). Thirdly, this procedure would have allowed Mr. Kamm some contact with his Advocate -- Fr. Woods in advance who had never met Mr. Kamm, nor did he know where Mr. Kamm lived. This could have only benefited Fr. Woods. It did not happen.
Finally, I would like to request for the record -- that Mr. Kamm have a copy of the transcript of the questions and Mr. Kamm's answers to these same questions of this meeting. It is clear that Mr. Kamm will be judged by this testimony -- he should have the opportunity to sign his signature to his testimony as an authentic transcript of his words to this commission meeting. Fr. Kevin narrated all of the questions. The very first question was prejudicial -- Fr. Kevin asked if the Book on William's Life could be considered a definitive statement of Mr. Kamm?! Already it was clear from this type of question -- that William as a person would not be interviewed in depth nor allowed to express the integral truth. It was clear that the Book would be the definitive source of "evidence". As noted above, almost every question after this was also a statement of negative judgment of William within the question!!
Some statements from Fr. Kevin -- more or less according to my memory (since Mr Kamm was not provided with a copy of the questions) -- this will have to do for now:
 | "Do you realise that you have been condemned by Archbishop Pell, Bishop Murray, Bishop Wilson, ... [sic]" |
| "Fr. Broussard is suspended ... how can you claim to be Catholic ... [sic]" |
| "Do you realise you are in schism ... do you want your followers to be in schism ... [sic]" |
| "Do you realise this is not Catholic ... [sic]" |
| "Are you Redeemed [sic]" |
| "Are you a Saint [sic]" |
| "Have you heard of Clemente ... [sic] do you know the procedures for the election of a Pope? ...[sic]" |
| "Do you see Mary ... Jesus ... the Eternal Father ... [sic] ...do you realise that no man can see the Father ...[sic]" |
| "Do you believe that the Local Bishop acts as the Vicar of Christ in his Diocese ...[sic]" |
| "In your Rule and Constitutions it is said about Minor Vows ... that they give up everything [sic]" |
| "We understand that someone of your group was ordained ... [sic]" |
| "It was reported you have 4 million dollars ... [sic]" |
All of these and many more questions were couched in such terms as to make it seem that Mr. Kamm was clearly in error even before Mr. Kamm answered the question! I was reminded of the Trial of Saint Joan of Arc, while listening to all of these questions. William responded in simplicity and with straightforward answers. I think Fr. Kevin was baffled by the cogency of William's answers -- as it was easy to see Mr. Kamm's Catholic identity -- when the questions were clearly set to disprove this!
At the end, William was given the opportunity to make a statement. Mr. Kamm pointed out very clearly that these proceedings were illegal. He gave a short history of the process of events since 1998. Mr. Kamm pointed out that he requested a canonical Appeal against Bishop Wilson's Decree and requested that it be delivered to the Roman authorities of a higher Tribunal. Mr. Kamm went on to say that there was never any acknowledgment from Bishop Wilson concerning this Appeal. William then asked Fr. Kevin if he had heard anything about this Appeal? Fr. Kevin said that he "assumed [sic]" that it was requested by Rome. William then asked if he had seen the alleged document from Rome? Fr. Kevin then said, he would have to check the correspondence of Bishop Wilson. This was an amazing statement from Fr. Kevin! So, William told Fr. Kevin that if there were such an alleged document from Rome -- he (William) would have to be the first to receive a copy of it!!
William then affirmed, with due respect -- that Fr. Woods was not qualified to be his advocate because they had never even met, nor did Fr. Woods know much of anything about him. When Fr. Woods questioned William -- his questions were not composed with a theme of supporting William's answers -- rather they were couched in terms of Fr. Kevin's questions. However, the content of the subject matter envisaged by these questions was highly theological and nuanced. It was clear that Fr. Woods was not able to support William from a theological ground as it was obvious that he was of the same mind as Fr. Kevin. For instance, the question from Fr. Kevin referring to Williams marital status -- regarding the "suspension" of God's Law, etc -- with the reference to the number of wives and number of children. The answer of William was quite correct as it referred to the "Command" of God. Fr. Woods as William's Advocate should have been able to support William's statement with theological precision from the Father's of the Church -- particularly Saint Thomas Aquinas. However, Fr. Woods did not offer any theological support to William. This was a very evident flaw -- and an error of law. This is a very serious issue because, at the next stage of this Commission's evaluation of Mr. Kamm -- these errors here -- might be compounded by further assumption that the errors are the truth! Secondly, any theological bias against the clear principles elicited by the Angelic Doctor in favour of William's claims -- such bias must be ruled out. Otherwise another error of fact will occur.
It became clearer with each question that the questions were already a judgment against William in advance. William answered all of the questions in a simple yet very clear way. William made it abundantly clear -- his Catholic identity and his loyalty to the Faith and to the Church. In my opinion, Fr. Kevin and Fr. Woods were surprised at the Catholic answers given by William.. I could see that they could not find anything in error from William. What was so pathetic, is that the questions were worded in such a prejudicial way -- that the conclusions were already in the questions! In my opinion this is a defect of natural justice. Fr. Kevin rarely asked for further clarification from William -- he just moved to the next question. A few times, William had to ask Fr. Kevin for clarification.
Again, Fr. Kevin and Fr. Woods including the two notaries in this meeting had the questions in advance -- except Mr. Kamm! This is unfair, as the precision that Fr. Kevin was requiring from William was thought worthy of being recorded with notaries present -- yet William could have given even more detailed answers had he been able to respond to the questions in writing -- in advance. This would not have prejudiced the meeting because Fr. Kevin could have had everything in advance also.
I am personally disappointed in these proceedings, as they were grossly unfair. This entire meeting was 50 minutes in length. Yet, Fr. Kevin advised Mr. Kamm that these questions and answers would next be sent to Theologians and Canon Lawyers -- who would render a judgment of Mr. Kamm. This judgment would then be sent to Bishop Philip Wilson for his final decision. The result would be another Decree.
I feel the judgment will be intrinsically and seriously flawed because of the reasons cited above. I also feel that such a final Decree would simply be a rubber stamp of the submitted judgment. I further believe that in the Appeal process which is guaranteed to Mr. Kamm -- the defects of natural justice will be exposed by the higher Tribunal. This lawful canonical exposure will not make Churchmen look good in the eyes of Catholics, the Media and the world. The little man on the street will understand that Mr. Kamm has received a bad judgment from the Hierarchy. All of this will have the opposite effect of that which is desired. It will be seen and understood as an abuse of power by the Hierarchy.
I close this letter, with the hope that courage and conviction -- in principles of right conduct and just procedures will win out. A truly great Dominican Priest -- Fr. Reginald Masterson, O.P. once taught me a really important principle for judging matters of a doubt of fact or of law. It is this: "Rarely affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish". I think the Commission would do well to employ this principle in their study of Mr. Kamm. It is not fair to rashly judge a person based upon suspicion. It is not fair to affirm as a truth such a rash judgment. It is not fair to deny the integral presentation of truth -- especially as evidence. Finally it is not fair -- to fail to distinguish the authentic theological patrimony of the Church -- particularly of Saint Thomas Aquinas -- when it favours the claims of Mr. Kamm.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fr. Malcolm L. Broussard, Jr.
cc: Fr. Kevin Mathews, J.C.L.
cc: Fr. John Woods. J.C.L.