Pope St. Celestine V

David Bawden has been taken to task before for "assuming" that because historical accounts do not mention any designation of Orders accorded certain popes pre-election, this automatically means they were laymen. Obviously he has not changed course.

But it is scarcely difficult to look up these popes in the usual references resorted to for such purposes. If we look for Pope St. Celestine V in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, we find the following:

"Consecrated and crowned at Aquila August 29...He was of humble parentage, became a Benedictine at the age of 17, and was eventually ordained priest at Rome." This is taken from several different lives of the saint and other ancient records. Fernand Hayward records, in his History of the Papacy, only that Celestine was "consecrated." Other histories consulted do not specify. But certainly the Catholic Encyclopedia alone is a good enough source.

Once again, Bawden's information is faulty and his arguments fail. The presumption of law where the clerical status of the popes is concerned is that they were at least deacons when elected.

A canon lawyer on the importance of
papal coronation

Baldus de Ubaldus was a canon lawyer and university professor at Perugia and Bologna during the time of the Western Schism. In his The Origins of the Great Schism, Walter Ullmann tells us that "Baldus was perhaps the greatest jurist of the late 14th century...His influence continued until the 16th century." Among his students, Ullmann says, were "Pope Gregory XI and Cardinal Francis Zabarella, the great canonist at the turn of the century."

Baldus wrote two Consiliums addressing the canonical problems occurring during the schism. In his second Consilium, he addressed those things that validate a papal election in a case of doubt, such as existed then in the election of Pope Urban VI. Baldus wrote: "Any irregularity which may have occurred [during the papal election] was remedied by the coronation...There must be some reason for a coronation."

Ullmann says that Baldus believed the coronation "takes the place of a confirmation. Even if, Baldus argues, the election were null and void, coronation would bestow the title of the position to be conferred, provided the individuals who perform the ceremony of the coronation have the power to do so. The cardinals certainly have this power, Baldus says."

The Catholic Encyclopedia notes under Conclave that the pope begins the date of his pontificate on the day of his coronation. This is at least an event connected to a dogmatic fact, then, because theologians agree that the inclusion of a pope on the official list of popes is a dogmatic fact.

So coronations do have a purpose, as Baldus says. And while it is not an essential part of the actual election, the coronation helps validate doubtful elections. One would think Bawden would know this.

+ Feast of the Most Holy Rosary+

It has recently come to our attention that Pope St. Pius X, in his 1904 election law Vacante apostolica sedis, forbade the participation of anyone less than a cardinal ordained a deacon in the election of the Roman Pontiff, and allowed this only with certain stipulations. The following paragraph in Latin contains the prohibition.

32. Statuimus etiam et declaramus, quod si forte aliquis Cardinalis saltem in Diaconatus ordine constitutus non fuerit, is nullatenus ad eligendum admitti debeat (28), nisi certo et indubitato privilegio Pontificio munitus sit (29). (If a cardinal has not at least been ordained a deacon, he cannot participate in the election unless he has a special privilege granted by the Roman Pontiff.)

Bawden has "excommunicated" this writer for maintaining that only one fit for ordination, such as a certainly qualified layman or deacon, (included under Can. 108 by the word "ministers" as a member of the hierarchy), can be elected pope. Rev. Amleto (later Cardinal) Cicognani designates Can. 108 as a dogmatic canon, issuing directly from Divine law. In times past, some of the cardinal-electors were not ordained priests as yet, which is what prompted Pope St. Pius X's prohibition. As reported elsewhere on this site, Bawden publicly stated in writing in 1990 that, where a papal election is concerned, "Although the numbers [of who were actually lay popes] may not be accurate, we know that possession or lack of Holy Orders makes no real difference," (Will the Catholic Church Survive…, pg. 402). But if the numbers were definitely not accurate, how could anyone obtain certainty in this matter? In this same work, he also stated that "cardinals would have been any cleric appointed by the pope" since they were never required to be in major orders. Christ Himself has taught that no man is a member of the hierarchy without being in major orders; that is, possessing both Orders and jurisdiction — as reflected in Can. 108.  Therefore Bawden cannot possess Apostolic Succession, no matter how cleverly he suppresses the laws and practice of the Church.

While Pope Pius XII permits the election of a layman as Pope, he specifies in his 1945 papal election law that only cardinals may elect the pope, and qualifies his statement much as his predecessor did. He also taught that if a layman was elected he must be immediately ordained and consecrated, contingent on certain conditions. In a later address, Six ans se sont, he qualified his law by stating that a layman elected Pope could accept the election "only if… fit for ordination and willing to be ordained," coinciding with the earlier law of Pope St. Pius X. In his 1945 law, however, Pius XII does not mention the prohibition of Pope St. Pius X above. (This may appear to be an abrogation of this prohibition, but in reality this is not the case.) In reading the full text of Pope Pius XII's Six ans se sont, his thinking on this subject becomes perfectly clear, although Bawden has tried to muddy the waters. "A two-fold distinction must be taken into account when we speak of the hierarchical apostolate and the lay apostolate; first between Pope, bishops and priests on the one hand and layman on the other; second between those with the full power to consecrate and govern and the rest of the clergy. The first (the Pope, bishops and priests) belong to the clergy." His next words are: "Even if a layman were elected, he could accept the election only if he were fit for ordination and willing to be ordained. But the power to teach and govern as well as the chrism of infallibility would be granted to him from the moment of his acceptance, even before his ordination."

The first sentence defines the Pope and clergy possessing both Orders and jurisdiction (delegated in the case of priests) as the hierarchy. Here Pope Pius adds the Pope to this list because he is trying to get the point across that in order to be a member of the hierarchy — to be a Pope with the fullness of apostolic succession — one must eventually be at least a priest as defined by the Church. This is obvious in reading the second to last sentence of Pope Pius XII's quote. Bawden ignores the word "Even" in the first sentence of this same section, because it indicated that although a layman could be elected, it is an exception to the general rule. He likewise ignores the word "only" and "fit." He ignores "only" because he knows it means there can be no exceptions. "Fit" he interprets as the barest of minimums, contrary to infallible papal teachings on the matter. And after ignoring or twisting all that went before, he seizes on the word "But" in the last sentence as an indication that despite a lack of fitness for Orders, a man elected would automatically receive supreme jurisdiction. Why, then would Pope Pius XII even bother mentioning the absolute need for fitness?! Having ignored "Even" in the first sentence, he pounces on it in the last sentence, pretending it justifies ignoring the requirements for fitness. He fails to inform others that Pope Pius XII was assuming that such a man would be properly elected according to his own election law and would be immediately ordained and consecrated on election. His duplicity here is obvious and deserves no further comment.

When all is said and done, it will be proven that both Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII had every reason to insist on the need for fitness and the importance of priestly ordination to assume the papacy. When Pope St. Pius X wrote his law in 1904, Canon Law had not yet been codified. When it was codified, with this saint as the primary author of the Code and Pope Pius XII as one of his many assistants, his election law was strengthened and incorporated into the Code under Can. 232. This Canon states: "Cardinals…must be at least priests and be endowed with exceptional learning, training and experience," (Revs. Woywod-Smith). In this Canon, then, Pope St. Pius X set out all the prerequisites that he expected candidates for the papacy to possess. At the time Pope Pius XII wrote his election law, there was no reason to reiterate Pope Pius X's teaching. Cardinals in Pius XII's day were all priests since the law had already been in effect for nearly 30 years.

This law is in perfect keeping with the mind of Pope St. Pius X on this same matter, Canon Law in similar matters, and the de fide teaching of the Church. While the Church considers sub-deacons to be in major orders, they are not yet part of the hierarchy. Hence the permission Pope St. Pius X required for those not deacons to act as papal electors capable of being elected. If one needed special approval from the Pope to act as an elector, doesn't this mean that the Pope would need to have approved such a man based on his merits as a potential candidate and his fitness for the priesthood? And yet Bawden, not even a cleric, considers such requirements for fitness as inconsequential and unnecessary even for a layman. Why is it that Bawden is so incapable of understanding the supreme sanctity and level of learning and experience the papacy requires? Could it be that the "supreme power" is all that ever really mattered to him so that he could "pope away" everything else?!

No "lay" pope, in the absence of the hierarchy, has ever ruled the Church for any meaningful period of time. There were only three such popes in history, at the most, who were never ordained and consecrated before their deaths. One of these was a cardinal-deacon (Adrian V) who was therefore already a member of the hierarchy. As for the other two, the history of which is hazy, no certainty can be had concerning their actual status because so little information on their papacies exists. They could easily have been deacons or priests as well. One thing, however, is certain: the Church had every intention of bestowing the necessary orders. Because in the past the hierarchy supplied for any lack of Orders for these popes, there was no lack of apostolicity. While certainly hierarchy exists somewhere today, it is highly unlikely they could know of a papal election, far less supply for such a defect. Since the deaths of these few popes, the laws have changed. They changed because a greater understanding of apostolicity came about at the Vatican Council. Doctrine does not evolve; it progresses, and such was the case concerning this doctrine. The Popes writing after the Vatican Council further expounded on the nature of apostolic succession, as Pope Pius XII did in Mystici Corporis and other documents. 

Only three laymen were ever certainly elected pope
When Pope St. Pius X codified Canon Law, the saint also extended his teaching on this matter to another Canon, Can. 154. This Canon states that to receive an office validly, one must be ordained a priest. Revs. Woywod-Smith note that the previous law allowed a "certain time period" in which to receive Orders. Pope Boniface VIII taught: "We declare that the statute of our predecessor, Gregory X of happy memory, whereby those who were appointed to govern parish Churches were to be promoted to the order of the priesthood within one year under the penalty of being deprived of their churches, inasmuch as it is a penal law, is to be interpreted strictly, rather than in a wide sense." This law also is reflected in the legislation of Pope Sixtus V, concerning cardinals, in 1586. Pope Sixtus decreed that there would be three levels of Cardinals: six cardinal bishops, 50 cardinal priests, age 30 or greater and 14 cardinal deacons. The cardinal deacons, he said, "could be 22 provided they became priests within one year of their appointment," (The Papal Princes, by Glenn D. Kittler). But even after their ordination, these cardinals would remain deacons though "actually priests," Kittler notes. (Bawden's specious objections that the pope is above Canon Law and therefore the law does not apply to him is only begging the question. For this statement to be true he first must prove that: a) he never committed heresy; b) he was capable of being elected and c) he possesses apostolic succession. But this he cannot do. In any case the laws bound him before, not after the election [Canons 154, 453], and invalidate any attempted election of one not a priest to an office involving the care of souls.)

So from 1586 on, in fact, except for this one-year window, the Church essentially had only cardinal-priests and cardinal-bishops. Between Sixtus V's reign and the election of Pope Pius XII, all of those elected pope were cardinal-deacons, therefore priests; cardinal-priests or bishops, or were priests, bishops or archbishops, but not necessarily cardinals. None of those were deacons on election. Twenty-one were bishops and 11 were priests. Rev. Ronald Cox, in his work A Study on the Juridic Status of Laymen in the Writing of the Medieval Canonists states: "That laymen were generally forbidden to be elected Pope was well defined canonical doctrine when Gratian wrote [in 1140]. At the Lateran Synod, held by Pope Stephen III in 769…it was decreed that, for the future, the Pope was to be chosen only from the Cardinals of the Church or the deacons of Rome." What is stated above and below contradicts Bawden's false assertions in Will the Catholic Church Survive… (pg. 401), that the law of Pope Stephen III "was never enforced and does not bind today." He shamefully neglected to conduct the proper research to establish this blanket statement. This enabled him to concoct a false account of Church history concerning the status of the popes on election that just happened to favor his own aspirations to the papacy.

Bawden further states that the (unreliable) papal historian de Montor lists "(John XIX) as the first layman elected, although he lists three 'nobles' as being elected prior to (John XIX). Since de Montor states that (John XIX) was the first layman elected, we presume…there were 12 other [laymen elected] after that date because no ecclesiastical dignity is listed for them," (ibid pg. 402). De Montor, however, was mistaken; Pope Leo VIII was the first layman elected, in 963, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia and other works. It is said that Leo VIII's election was much opposed precisely because he was a layman. For this and other reasons he was considered an antipope for many centuries. The same is said of both Benedict VIII and John XIX, the second and third laymen to be elected. Owing to unsettled conditions, their elections were considered only as a lesser of two evils at the time. Otherwise, all those elected between Leo VIII and John XIX were deacons, priests or bishops according to Catholic sources. And among the 12 he lists as nobles after John XIX, none were laymen although one was a simple clergyman, one a sub-deacon and three were listed only as abbots; with two of these identified as cardinals. Judging by the status of other abbots elected pope, these two abbot-cardinals were at least cardinal deacons, and since abbots were ordinarily deacons or priests, chances are the third was a deacon as well.

By 1059, Pope Nicholas II officially limited the election to cardinal-bishops only, and taught that those elected Pope must at least be members of the clergy. (Necessity, however, prompted Pope Alexander III to extend voting privileges to all cardinals of whatever rank in 1179.) Cross-referencing from six different works on the history of the papacy (most of which have quote only the most reliable sources for their works), we find that only nine cardinal-deacons were elected from Benedict IX's reign in 1023 to Sixtus V's pontificate and subsequent bull on the cardinals in 1586.  No laymen were elected during that time span. A total of 75 out of the 80 elected during this time period were members of the hierarchy — deacons, priests, bishops or archbishops. Among the other five, one was a simple cleric, one a sub-deacon, and three were abbots or abbot/cardinals with no orders listed, although it is more likely than not that these men were at least deacons. These men were immediately ordained and consecrated following their election.

So in the first millennia of the Church, we have many priests, deacons and other clergy elected pope and only one layman. In the first half of the second millennia, we have two laymen and one clergyman elected pope, only nine deacons, and all the others elected are priests and bishops or archbishops. In the second half of the second millennia, we have only priests, bishops and archbishops elected and no deacons. This shows the sure progression of the Church's teaching on the hierarchy and her continual efforts to elect only the holiest and most qualified candidates to rule as Supreme Pontiff. The laws of Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Sixtus V, then, are obviously the parent laws of Can. 154. With only a few exceptions, the Church put these laws into actual practice from 1023 on. Canon 154's strict interpretation and can. 232 were officially made a reality with the changing of the law in the Code. In anticipation of these changes in the law, Pope St. Pius X made a stop-gap provision in his election law for those sub-deacons not yet deacons who were within the one-year time period and had not yet been ordained.

Another point in Bawden's false picture of papal elections must also be clarified. Bawden states: "Many are listed as having exercised their papal authority before their consecration, some before their ordination, backing up Can. 219, which states: 'The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains, from the minute he accepts election, the full power of supreme jurisdiction by Divine right." Here he once more returns to his "supreme authority" fixation. First of all, we must observe that deacons, as members of the hierarchy, can exercise this jurisdictional right in its fullness, while it is certain that laymen unfit to receive orders cannot rightfully exercise it. No record can be produced proving that either Leo VIII, Benedict VIII or John XIX decided anything infallibly before their ordination and consecration, although jurisdictionally speaking, they could have done so. Secondly we must pause here to ask: in his "many" who exercised their authority before ordination are those also included whom he falsely assumes to be laymen or at best simple clerics? Because none of them were laymen and three of those questionable were most likely deacons or priests. And finally, we must comment that even though a layman fit for ordination receives such supreme jurisdiction, he may only exercise it in the external forum, and cannot arrogate to himself any power of Orders until he is ordained and consecrated. While a deacon is technically a member of the hierarchy, he is not yet ordained and cannot enjoy the fullness of Orders. This most likely is why Canon Law required that cardinals be priests, for in order to enjoy the same fullness of the apostolic authority Christ bestowed on St. Peter, the pope — like St. Peter — must at least be a priest.  Since many popes including Pope Pius XII were priests at the time of election, this is the more common practice of the Church. The tradition for bishops and deacons is not as strong.

So in reality, Bawden is basing his claim on the election of only three lay popes, all of whom were considered highly irregular and were only reluctantly accepted. This is why one must never use a presumption in such an important matter when the diligent research the subject deserves could prove otherwise. The Church teaches that one may deviate from a common law if such a deviation favors religion. Canon Law implicitly permits the election of a layman, and in the past there have been these three precedents to support such an election. But generally canonists consider any correction of or deviation from the law as odious. "Correction of the law is odious, and must in every respect be avoided as far as possible…Whatever is granted to a person contrary to the common law is odious even though the exception, indult, etc…, be established by law…When a correction to the law is made, it must be interpreted strictly," (Rev. Amleto Cicognani, Canon Law). And Cicognani further states that "Things deviating from the common law are in no respect to be drawn into precedent." This is especially true when any presumption of common danger is very grave and overwhelming, as it should be whenever it concerns the validity of the Roman Pontiff and anything touching that validity. For such presumptions are judged as very grave according the grounds that precede them, and since only a true and valid Roman Pontiff can lead souls to salvation, these are very grave grounds indeed.

The law cannot be changed at all when it is specifically designed to protect the common good (Can. 21) unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that in that particular case, there is no danger whatsoever to the common good. The election of laymen to the papacy, then, since it is a deviation, cannot be used to justify a future election unless such a deviation truly is in the interests of the common good. In the absence of the hierarchy, who cannot qualify, elect nor ordain and consecrate such a candidate, it cannot be said that such an election is in the best interests of the Church, since the man elected could not possess apostolic succession. This, rather than being favorable to religion, is absolutely destructive of religion. Pope Pius XII has forbidden any participation of the laity in a papal election and his election law is bound with a holy curse. Only the prospect of clergy and people electing a truly qualified candidate, establishing certain apostolic succession, could suffice to overturn this law made for the general good of the Church. For without a pope the Church cannot exist, but the higher law (allowing the election) can be appealed to only if it certainly remedies this condition.

Bawden's entire case for the election of a layman, hence his claim to the papacy was based on false data, incomplete data and a total lack of understanding where Canon Law is concerned. His ignorance of the Church's teaching and practice in regards to the hierarchy; his glib assertion that cardinals were never required to be priests; his failure to arrive at certainty in the matter of who and who were not members of the hierarchy on their election, all destroy any pretense of the argument he posed for the election of a layman as pope. This is especially true considering the physical absence of the hierarchy today, since they are unable to ordain and consecrate such a pope-elect within the one year-time period mentioned in the old law. One of the arguments for Bawden's "excommunication" of this author as a vitandus was that the Gallicanist Jean Gerson committed heresy in insisting that the pope elected must be a priest. Rather than proximate to heresy, Gerson's conclusions (on this one head only) have been proven instead to be closer to the teachings of the Church than Bawden's own. What Bawden taught was based entirely on false premises, faulty documentation and skewed conclusions. Thereforeit should now be clearer than ever before that not only does he not possess any power whatsoever to levy such excommunications, but even if he made these accusations as a private individual, they would be groundless.

Conclusion
According to canonists commenting on the law, Pope St. Pius X codified centuries worth of previous legislation on papal election in writing his 1904 election law. In his revised law of 1945, Pius XII basically adopted Pope Pius X's election law in its entirety, making only a few additions and minor corrections to the original law. This is because St. Pius X's law was bound up by an oath, and as Rev. Nicolas Neuberger writes in his Canon Law commentary on Canon 6: "If a prior law is bound up with an oath which reads into it immunity from abrogation, the law is not countermanded unless express mention is made to that effect. The reasons for this assertion are that the legislator is mindful of a law which has an oath attached and hence abrogation would be invalid." Pius XII's revised election law also contained this same oath.  Both laws represent the common and constant teaching of the Church on papal elections. Prior to these laws, the bull of Pope Sixtus V largely determined the make-up of the College. That bull decreed that cardinal deacons had to become priests within a year of their selection as cardinals. So there has never been any real question about cardinals who were not also priests since this law was enacted, although laxity may have crept in from time to time. Laymen elected popes have been a rarity in the Church and their election has always been considered irregular. We must remember that if they were elected, a) it was never by the laity alone but always by the laity and the clergy. b) No layman was ever elected who was not immediately ordained and consecrated. c) No layman has ever reigned more than a year without such ordination and consecration and d) no layman has ever been elected by a lay minority alone in the absence of any discernible hierarchy.

By his false teaching concerning the function of the hierarchy, David Bawden has, by implication, accused Pope St. Pius X, one of the greatest saints of our times, of heresy. He pertinaciously refuses to accept the dogmatic teaching of Can. 108, reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII: "Christ conferred a triple power on His Apostles and their successors, to teach, govern and lead men to holiness, making this power, defined by special ordinances, rights and obligations, the fundamental law of the whole Church," (Mystici Corporis).  Bawden is excluded from the priesthood, hence the papacy, by these ordinances. And he long ago surrendered any right to ordination he may once have possessed by his publication of manifest heresy and his abuse of the Sacraments. His continued denial of any guilt in this affair despite the wealth of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a sad and frightening indication of his true spiritual condition. We beg all to pray earnestly for this confused and recalcitrant man. For he most certainly will lose his soul if a very special grace is not granted to him to abandon his preposterous claim to the papacy. Pray, then, that he receives that grace, in order that he may not incur the fearful wrath of God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.