Testimony of Clarence Kelly
From Clarence Kelly’s The Sacred and the Profane, chapter 6: Testimonial Evidence: In February of 1988, Fr. Sanborn, Fr. Jenkins and I went to Germany to interview Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller, the two “witnesses” to the Thuc consecrations, as was mentioned above. We wanted to know if they could verify that the correct matter and form of the Sacrament had been used. For an Episcopal consecration, this is an easy thing to do because in 1947 Pope Pius XII definitively settled the question of what exactly constituted the matter and form of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.… [I]t is not unreasonable to expect that the laymen who were to witness the secret Thuc consecrations would be told what the essential matter and form of the Sacrament are so they could later, in their capacity as witnesses, testify that the correct matter and form had been used. This is especially true in light of the fact that there were no Assistant Priests present to insure that the ‘Roman Pontifical’ was exactly followed. Fr. Heribert Jone in his Moral Theology says: “If possible, two or at least one witness should be present in private Baptism, so that the administration of Baptism can be attested to (c. 742). Witnesses should observe everything closely that they may testify to the validity (emphasis added) of the Sacrament conferred (p. 327).Fr. Jone says that the witnesses to private Baptism “should observe everything closely that they may testify to the validity of the Sacrament conferred.” If witnesses are expected to observe “everything closely” at a private Baptism so “that they may testify to the validity of the Sacrament conferred,” is it unreasonable to expect that the witnesses to a secret Episcopal consecration “should observe everything closely” so “that they may testify to the validity of the consecration?Yet Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller did not do so, and hence they could not testify that the correct matter and form had been used. Dr. Hiller did not have the faintest idea what the form of the Sacrament was nor could he remember whether or not Thuc had laid hands on the head of the one consecrated. Fr. Sanborn asked him: “Did he (Thuc) place both hands on the head of Guerard des Lauriers?” Dr. Hiller responded: “I don’t know what is prescribed. I think yes” (Recorded interview, Dr. Kurt Hiller, February 10, 1988, Munich, Germany.) When Dr. Heller was asked if Thuc had laid hands on the head of Fr. Des Lauriers, he refused to answer. He said that he could not be expected to remember such details. It was the opinion of Hiller and Heller that the consecration had been done correctly; but it is not the function of witnesses to give opinions. As Fr. Lydon says: “Witnesses report facts; they are not to give opinions or judgments on the meaning of what they saw or heard.” (Ready Answers in Canon Law, 1954, p. 600.).Michael Fighting
"Michael…who standeth for…thy people," — Dan. 12:1-12
