© Copyright 2007, T. Stanfill Benns
(None of what appears below — in whole or in part — may be used without
the express and written permission of the author.)

All emphasis in bold within quotes in the works on this site
has been added by the author unless noted otherwise

Introduction

" Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the divine and Catholic faith is a heretic…" (Can. 1325). In the case of clerics who commit apostasy, heresy or schism, Canon 188§4 dictates that they automatically lose their offices when any of these offenses are adjudged as having been committed. Canon 2314§1 states that all apostates, heretics or schismatics incur:
1. "…ipso facto excommunication;
2. if they have been admonished and do not repent, they shall be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office or other position which they may hold in the Church [and] they shall be declared infamous…"
3. Canon 2314§2 further states that absolution in the internal forum from the censure declared in 2314§1 is reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See.
4. "Persons who stubbornly teach or defend, either publicly or privately, a doctrine which has been condemned by the Apostolic See or by an Ecumenical Council, not however as formally heretical, shall be barred from the ministry of preaching the Word of God…and from every office of teaching without prejudice to other penalties which the sentence of condemnation of the doctrine may perhaps have decreed…" (Can. 2317).
5. The propositions of Molinos, condemned by Innocent XI; the propositions condemned in Auctorem Fidei by Pope Pius VI; the errors of the Modernists and those errors condemned in Pope St. Pius X's Lamentabili, all are considered as teachings resulting in excommunication, (Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, pg. 372).

Claims of good faith do not excuse the heretic, who is considered guilty until proven to be innocent, (Can. 2200). Ignorance is no excuse either, especially in those who are bound to know better. Heresy is a very grave matter and accusations of heresy must never be made lightly. For this reason the following proofs are duly provided.

The meaning of vocation
Bawden on the definition of vocation
" What do we mean by a vocation? When we think of a vocation we think of the internal movements of the soul that inspire a man or a woman to enter the religious state. The word vocation comes from the Latin word vocare, which means to call." (This statement appeared on the Vatican in Exile web site and the Christania discussion group board on Sept. 7, 2006.)
The Catholic Church's definition of vocation
On July 2, 1912, a commission of cardinals appointed by Pope St. Pius X to study the work of a certain Canon Joseph Lahitton concerning the Church's true teaching on the nature of vocation delivered the following decision:

" On account of the controversies which have arisen on the occasion of the twofold work of Can. Joseph Lahitton on Priestly Vocation, and because of the importance of the doctrinal issues raised, our Holy Father Pope Pius X…deigned to nominate a special commission of cardinals…" After due deliberation on Can. Lahitton's works, the Commission decided that, "The work of Can. Lahitton is by no means to be condemned; on the contrary, it deserves high praise inasmuch as it establishes the following three points:

1. No one ever has any right to ordination antecedently to the free choice of the bishop;
2. On the part of the candidate, the requisite which has to be examined and which is called priestly vocation by no means consists, at least necessarily and as a general rule, in a certain interior attraction of the subject, or in invitations of the Holy Ghost, to enter the ecclesiastical state;
3. On the contrary, in order that the candidate may rightly be called by the bishop, nothing more is required of him than a right intention and fitness; this fitness consists in qualities of nature and grace, proved by such uprightness of life and sufficiency of knowledge as will give solid grounds for hope that he will be able to discharge properly the functions of the priesthood and fulfill its obligations in a holy manner.

His holiness Pope Pius X, in an audience of 26 June, fully approved the decision of their Eminences," (The Catholic Priesthood, edited by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Pierre Veuillot, Official of the Secretariate of State of His Holiness, September, 1957). This would be considered an infallible decision made in the course of the Pope's ordinary magisterium.

After defining vocation in a general sense, Donald Attwater's A Catholic Dictionary defines religious vocation in accordance with this decision as: "A fitness in the subject to bear the burdens of religious life and the right intention to serve God in that life. Nothing more is necessary; no vivid inspiration or distinct divine locution…Priestly vocation, which is higher than [that of] religious, demands…actual holiness of life…But it is the bishop's call that is the real manifestation of the divine vocation, for then and not till then, is the candidate called by God as Aaron was." Bawden gave the general definition. Note that it is the bishop who determines whether the calling is divine or not.

In his infallible encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII taught: "But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time open to dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." This is obviously an infallible statement of the ordinary magisterium. The Vatican Council states that both the extraordinary and the ordinary magisterium of the Church are infallible. Pope Gelasius also taught that an error, once condemned may NEVER be taught or even discussed again, (DZ 161).

Bawden on "command" vocations
" Vocations bind in one of two ways: as a counsel or a command. God counsels some to enter the religious or priestly state. Others he commands them to enter. This is because he has fit them especially for the priestly or the religious state…God can demand one to follow a vocation…I KNOW I have a vocation. There is NO question…In the case of a command vocation, I don't think there is a point one can ignore his vocation…" (This statement is excerpted from a 1989 paper on the subject of vocation written by Bawden but never circulated publicly. While this second statement may not have been circulated publicly, according to Can. 1325 Bawden's manner of acting since that time demonstrates that he still holds these opinions as true. In this same paper Bawden states: "My life will not be on track unless I can submit my vocation to be tested by Church authorities…Therefore I need a Pope to submit my vocation to. I submit myself to the Pope unreservedly. He does not have to ordain me. All I ask is an honest chance to try my vocation. Maybe I will find out I haven't a priestly vocation..." These words prove that Bawden knew his vocation needed to be tested and approved by the Church. This statement was made two years after he "figured out" that he probably would be elected Pope, so he had a fairly good idea that he could never submit his vocation as described.

Next we examine Bawden's statements on vocation from Will the Catholic Church Survive…? There he writes, on pg. 443: "Canonically a vocation is a call to the priesthood issued by a local ordinary with the jurisdiction to call men to the ministry. Without this call, the vocation does not exist. What many call a vocation is actually a disposition to present oneself to the authorities of the Church, that one's vocation may be judged by the representatives of the Church. Until one's name is called out at the Ordination at the request of one's own Ordinary or his lawful delegate, one does not have a vocation to the clerical state." Here Bawden's true (occult) mindset is expressed in the word "Canonically…" This is the same phraseology later used in his September 2006 web statement: "Canonically, a man does not have a vocation, until the Archdeacon on behalf of his Ordinary calls out his name at the various ordinations." The wording is so placed in both instances that it appears to the reader as though a thing governed and defined by the Church could possibly have another meaning than the Church Herself says that it has! This is ambiguity at its worst and mental reservation at its best, (see Pre-election heresy). Here Bawden admits entirely that vocation is not the internal call he says it is on his web site. He also says that without the bishop's call a vocation (including his own) cannot exist. Ten pages later, on page 453, he makes another ambiguous statement concerning "automatic enrollment" of a lay pope in the ranks of the clergy (see Pre-election heresy), which in retrospect seemingly contradicts the previous statement on vocation. When all these statements are considered together with his later 2006-2007 pronouncements, there can be no doubt concerning his (then occult) intention and pre-election duplicity.

Church teaching on "command" vocations
The Catholic Encyclopedia article by Vermeersch under "vocation" refers to the semi-Quietist position as being one that demanded that the emphasis be laid on a "Divine attraction," without which there was no vocation. In fact this semi-Quietist position insisted that once a man received this call it was "obligatory…practically necessary." This echoes Bawden's words above. Vermeersch, following Lahitton, denies that the divine call is obligatory in any way: "The will is always left free, and seldom does God clearly reveal His will, His preference…In the case of most men, no Divine decree, logically anterior to the knowledge of their free actions assigns to them this or that particular profession." The semi-Quietist Lessius writes: "'Vocation is an affection, an inward force which makes a man feel impelled to enter the religious state or some other state of life,'" (and this statement is nearly identical to those made in Bawden's propositions above). Vermeersch warns that, "This feeling is not necessary, and is not to be trusted without reserve…"

The following error of Molinos is condemned as heretical by Pope Innocent XI: "A certain new doctrine of the Church of God is worthy of ridicule, that the soul should be governed as far as its interior is concerned by the bishop…" (DZ 1286). And when a bishop judges a candidate's intention and the nature of his Divine call, he is judging the interior forum.
Concerning the Quietists, Pope Pius XII writes in his infallible encyclical, Mystci Corporis Christi: "They would attribute the whole spiritual life of Christians and their progress in virtue exclusively to the action of the divine Spirit, setting aside and neglecting the collaboration which is due from us…'The Lord will give grace and glory,'…but men should persevere constantly in their good works…and strive earnestly to reach the heights of Christian perfection." This is the attitude expressed by those wishing only to characterize a vocation as a Divine call. They would divorce it from the hard physical and mental labor involved in priestly work and studies, the all-important attainment of the virtues judged as actually achieved only by a seminarian's director and the necessary judging of the superior concerning the acceptability of the candidate's efforts. Bawden also demonstrates this same mindset in other areas, telling people there is nothing that prayer and meditation cannot solve. While this is certainly true, prayer and meditation is useless without the corresponding "collaboration" mentioned by Pius XII above, which is based on the Scripture maxim, "Faith without works is dead." The words of Pope Leo XIII in Sapientiae Christianae agree also with Pope Pius XII's teaching: "Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian, the Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace."

An additional consideration is that Bawden believes something contrary to the sense in which the Church Herself believes it; he holds a different meaning of vocation than that held by the Church. For as Pope St. Pius X says: "The doctrines of faith are transmitted from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, even to us; and so I reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had," (Oath Against Modernism). Pope St. Pius X's decision above does not indicate what the Church now teaches concerning vocations, but what She has always taught.

The Hierarchy
1. Bawden's teaching on the hierarchy and papal election
" Possession or lack of Holy Orders makes no real difference [where a papal election is concerned]," (Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, pg. 402). In this section of the book Bawden says that some 90 men who were only clerics were elected Pope, but these numbers may be misleading. The historian Walter Ullmann warns that the word cleric often excluded "members of the secular clergy who were not ecclesiastical dignitaries," according to the work of Vermeersch and Creusen on the sources of Canon Law, (A Study of the Juridical Status of Layman in the Writings of the Medieval Canonists, by Rev. Ronald Cox). This makes it hard to know exactly how many of these Popes were clerics when elected and how many were actually deacons or priests. And if secular clergy were not described as clergy, this could explain why a fair number of Popes were considered laymen, when perhaps they were clerics after all.

The teaching of the Catholic Church on the hierarchy
" If anyone says that in the Catholic Church a hierarchy has not been instituted by divine ordinance which consists of bishops, priests and ministers [deacons], let him be anathema," (The Council of Trent, DZ 966; Canons 108-109).
Woywod-Smith, commenting on this canon state that by ministers is generally meant deacons. Canon 108 is implicitly referred to in Pope Pius XII's 1957 address to the Lay Congress, Six ans se sont. In this address, Pius XII reminds laymen that "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." 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 Pope — one must eventually be at least a priest as defined by the Church. This is obvious in reading sentence three. Pope Pius was trying to dispel errors in his address that confused the role of the laity with that of the clergy, granting laymen powers that belonged only to the clergy. This wrong idea on the role of the laity that was then prevalent was the prelude to the V2 secularization of the Church. The entire focus of his address, then, was to make the necessary distinctions between the separate roles played in Catholic Action by both laity and clergy.

Bawden has tried to interpret the word fit in the second sentence as the minimum requirements necessary — a baptized male with the use of reason who has not become a schismatic, heretic or apostate. He quotes Austin Dowling, who wrote the article "Conclave" for the Catholic Encyclopedia, which states: "'Strictly speaking, any male Christian who has reached the use of reason can be chosen, not, however, a heretic, a schismatic, or a notorious simonist.'" Bawden himself has commented that many of the Catholic Encyclopedia articles are less than accurate or are misleading. Dowling's statement is true but does not take into consideration what would happen if such a "minimal" Pope was elected in the absence of the hierarchy and all Church administrative functions. If only the minimum requirements is what Pope Pius meant, what he said would most likely have been translated as capable of election, not fit for ordination. Idoneus, the Latin word for "fit," is used in Canon Law in various forms, (Canons 154, 970, 971, 972, 973). This Latin word translates in English to "appropriate, fit to do something, capable, qualified, suitable." Only Canon Law lays down those requirements, supplemented by the Sacred Congregations of the Sacraments and for Seminaries, determining what all these qualifications necessary for ordination entail. Here we are not talking of what it takes to be elected, although this will be explained in a moment. Here we are talking specifically of Orders and the qualifications for the priesthood, since fitness in ecclesiastical language has specific connotations that are enumerated in Canon Law where ordination is concerned.

To be less than fit would result in the illicit reception of Orders, and certainly no one would dare accuse Pope Pius XII of encouraging the election of one whose Orders would be validly, yet illicitly conferred; especially one elected Pope. While the cardinals could dispense such a pope-elect, this would be contrary to the mind of Pope Pius XII's addition to the papal election law. In the 1950s there were many holy and well-educated laymen with valuable experience in secular fields that could have qualified for election, even if their theology was somewhat lacking. Some had even taken theology courses in Catholic colleges. So it is not far-fetched to think that these laymen could have possessed close to the equivalent of seminary training, especially if they engaged in an active spiritual life. Was Pope Pius XII using the word fit as it is used in referring to ecclesiastical elections?

Under this topic in the Catholic Encyclopedia, persons eligible for election (including that of the pope) are those who "meet the requirements of common ecclesiastical law, or special statutes, for the charges or function in question; hence, for each election it is necessary to ascertain what is required of the candidate. In general, for all kinds of elections, the necessary qualifications are mature age, moral integrity and adequate knowledge. For each charge or function dependent on an election, these conditions are defined with more precision and fullness." Pope Pius XII was giving the specific, not the general requirements for the election of a layman. He was ascertaining what was required of the lay candidate in that particular case. One cannot confuse the minimal (general) requirements with those specific to the situation and expect to arrive at a true sense of what constitutes fitness. Finally, the Encyclopedia article itself refers to idoneus as the definition of fitness in ecclesiastical elections.

None of this would be quite so relevant if it were not for the following. In the book Will the Catholic Church Survive...? Pope Pius XII's 1957 address, Six ans se sont is quoted concerning the election of a layman, (pg. 312). This quote was found late in the writing process when the book was two months away from the first date set for its completion. David Bawden advised that the pivotal part of the quote on the necessity of fitness for acceptance of the papal election be suppressed in the book because there was not enough time to investigate it further and it would give Traditionalists a reason to insist on the election of a cleric. Bawden also said it could be addressed later in the Update supplement to the book. But when Traditionalist opposition intensified, even this idea was dropped. And so only after the fact, in subsequent works, was Pope Pius XII quoted in full on this subject. And even then, the fitness required prior to acceptance was never addressed at length.
Nor was it addressed in Bawden's piece on the lawfulness and validity of Orders, his Decision on Legitimacy of Holy Orders Among Traditionalists. This position paper, written in 2005 is the only work that even comes close to addressing fitness. Nowhere, however, does the word fitness appear in this work. In his declaration on the legitimacy of Traditionalist orders, Bawden says the entire Church must observe the laws and teachings concerning ordination and consecration exactly as they existed during the reign of Pope Pius XII. In this article he states: "In order to restore uniformity in the Church, We have declared that the law shall be observed as it was in place on October 9, 1958, as it should have been observed from that date until after Our own election…Until We decree otherwise, the law shall be observed exactly as it was on October 9, 1958, anything contrary notwithstanding, including any revision We have previously made." And yet he himself refuses to observe the law.

2. Bawden on law and the hierarchy
" [Pope] Stephen IV…legislated that only priests or deacons be elected [pope], although this law never was enforced and does not bind today…" (Will the Catholic Church Survive…? pg. 401). It should be noted here that 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," and these men were almost always clerics, at least. The cardinals were not always ordained deacons, but their selection was generally based on piety, learning and experience. The history of nearly all those men not priests at the time of their election to the papacy shows a long history of service to the Church in some capacity and vast experience in both secular and religious fields. Very often they were employed by the Vatican itself. So while in the past those not deacons or priests have been elected Pope, with the exception of two known cases they were immediately ordained deacons, priests and bishops. In the two cases where Popes not ordained or consecrated reigned, their reign was brief and it is not known whether they were clerics when elected or not. It isn’t that a layman cannot be elected Pope; this has happened in the practice of the Church. It is that a layman cannot be elected (especially by the laity) when no canonical provision is made for the absence of hierarchy concerning how he is to govern the Church. This is especially true when there is no way to ordain or consecrate him within a reasonable amount of time. Canonical provision is explained below.

Canon Laws on ecclesiastical offices
Bawden presumes that the law no longer binds today. But Can. 23 teaches: "In doubt, the revocation of an already existing law is not presumed…Recent laws should be adapted to older laws, and insofar as is possible, made to harmonize with them." This law also is repeated in Can. 147. Whenever a doubt of law exists, recourse must be had to the old law, (Can. 6§4). 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 is obviously at least one of the parent laws of Can. 154, for Woywod-Smith comment under Can. 154 that the old law specified ordination within a certain time period. It also applies to Can. 453 concerning the appointment of pastors. These Canons will be discussed below.

Bawden's glib statement wipes out four very important Canons that Canon Law itself says cannot be dismissed because they are invalidating laws. Pope Pius XII undoubtedly was referring to these Canons indirectly in Six ans se sont. They clearly prove that it most certainly does matter whether a Pope is a priest or at least qualified (fit) to become one or not. Canon 147 reads: "An ecclesiastical office cannot be validly obtained without canonical appointment. By canonical appointment is understood the conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority in harmony with the sacred canons," and this is an invalidating law; if the terms of the law are not fulfilled the act is invalid; worthless. What is an ecclesiastical office? "…In the strict sense, an ecclesiastical office means a stable position created either by the Divine or ecclesiastical law, conferred according to the rules of the sacred canons, and entailing some participation in ecclesiastical power, whether of Orders or jurisdiction." In law, the term 'ecclesiastical office' is used in its strict sense, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary," (Can. 145). Under Can. 147 in the Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, The Sacred Congregation of the Council declared: "The Catholic Church is, in virtue of its institution by Christ Himself, a perfect society hierarchically established, whose full and supreme power of government and jurisdiction rests with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of the Blessed Apostle Peter in the primacy. Hence no one can presume to intrude himself or others into ecclesiastical offices or benefices without a legitimate canonical investiture or provision."

Canonical provision
The entire idea in writing the book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, also the election series which preceded it, was to make Catholics aware of the canonical and dogmatic basis for lay election using the most reliable sources possible, since such an election set a precedent in Church history. The communication of the Sacred Congregation of the Council on ecclesiastical appointment quoted from the Canon Law Digest above comes replete with excommunications approved by Pope Pius XII. He declares ipso facto excommunicated anyone who "without a canonical investiture or provision made according to the sacred canons, occupies an ecclesiastical office, or benefice or dignity." The meaning of investiture is found under Canon 147 itself, which states that canonical investiture (appointment) means "conferring of an ecclesiastical office by the competent ecclesiastical authority." Canon 148§5 defines one method of appointment as: "[simple] election and acceptance of the election by the elected, if the law does not require confirmation of the election." Papal election requires no confirmation. The meaning of canonical provision can only refer to Can. 20, which states: "If there is no explicit provision concerning some affair either in the general or in the particular law, a norm of action is to be taken from laws given in similar cases, from the general principles of law applied with the equity proper to Canon Law, from the manner and practice of the Roman Curia, and from the common and constant teaching of the doctors." Canon 20 was used to arrive at the conclusion that a Profession of Faith would suffice to absolve electors from material heresy and to allow women to vote in the election.

Canon 147 assumes that ecclesiastical authority exists in a specific case to make such an appointment. In our case no clerics were available to elect a Pope so a law that is impossible to obey ceases to bind, (Can. 15); we go to the broader interpretation of ecclesiastical. Canonical provision, however, must be made to justify the departure from recourse to ecclesiastical authority. This was done at length in the book where the actual election itself was concerned, but not sufficiently. The necessary requirements and qualifications for the clerical state; what actual powers a lay Pope does and does not possess; how the Church is to be governed in the absence of the hierarchy; whether one not a cleric can hold an ecclesiastical office involving the care of souls and for what length of time — none of this received more than a mere mention in the book, if that. Pope Pius XII demanded under pain of excommunication that such provisions be constructed both for the election itself and all the problems that would result from a lay Pope reigning in the protracted absence of the hierarchy. Whenever there is doubt concerning what the law requires or if a law exists, one must consult the old law; and if nothing is found there, then one may resort to Can. 20, also Can. 23 cited above. One must always consult similar legislation and study other papal decrees to determine if such an action is in agreement with the mind of the lawgiver, (the Pope). Pope Pius XII leaves no doubt where canonical provision and ecclesiastical office is concerned. Not only were such provisions lacking prior to the 1990 election, but several other canons demanding that the Pope be at least a priest were ignored entirely.

Laws governing pastoral offices
Canons 154, 232 and 453 leave no room for doubt about what the Church's true mind on the clerical status of any pastor must be, and the Pope is the Universal Pastor, the Supreme Shepherd. Canon 154 reads: "Offices which entail the care of souls, either in the external or the internal forum, cannot be validly conferred upon clerics who are not ordained priests." This also is an invalidating law. The office as exercised by "Pope Michael" was one involving external jurisdiction only. Then there is Can. 232, which states that in the creation of Cardinals, "men must be at least priests and be endowed with exceptional learning, piety and prudence." Of course in nearly every other papal election, Popes have come from the ranks of the cardinals. Provision was made in the law to assure that those most likely to someday be Pope would not simply be ordinary or mediocre in their piety and learning, but exceptional. And Can. 453 teaches: "In order that a cleric be validly appointed pastor, he must be a priest. He should, in addition, have those qualifications of character, knowledge, virtue, prudence and experience which will enable him to govern the parish properly and which are demanded by both the common and particular law," (common law is all the general laws issued by the Roman Pontiff and particular law is that is issued for a particular group or region by the Holy Office and other prelates.) Canon 453 is yet another invalidating law. Both these laws apply whenever it is not possible to secure ordination/consecration within a reasonable time frame, because by Divine law the Pope must be a full-fledged member of the hierarchy, (Can. 108). Why were these important Canons overlooked? The Divine law insists that if a layman is elected he must at least be fit enough to attain the rank of deacon (Can. 108), then receive ordination/consecration. Even the Pope must obey Divine positive law. Had these laws been studied pre-election, it is most likely that a layman could not have been elected.

3. Bawden on vocational "sense"
" If Our claim to the Papacy is invalid, then We have absolutely no right to receive Holy Orders. From Our birth until July 15th, 1990, We did not have a vocation in the technical sense."

Church teaching on the sense of words
If Bawden did not have a vocation pre-election in the technical sense, then he did not have a vocation at all, as he rightly said in the book Will the Catholic Church Survive…? This is true because the Church recognizes only the canonical sense. Here we return to the indicators given by Bawden concerning his occult intention in this same book, where he suggests vocation can be received in a manner other than the technical sense. The Church is necessarily a juridic entity, (a society governed by laws). Pope Pius XII censures those who doubt the juridical sovereignty of the Church implied in Bawden's teachings, and warns that a type of false charity should never be favored to the detriment of the Church's necessarily juridic constitution, (Mystici Corpus Christi, § 65). Again, Pope St. X insists that the truths of faith must be believed "always in the same sense and interpretation." Pope Pius IX further states: "The doctrine of Faith which God revealed…has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of Her sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding…Let it be solely in its own genus, namely on the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding," (Vatican Council, DZ 1800).

This also is true where the word Church is concerned, (see #4 below). Bawden uses this word in its widest possible sense to indicate the laity acting as a species of hierarchy only when the clergy is absent or disqualified. While this sense is not inappropriate when reconciling strictly ecclesiastical laws, it cannot be applied to those laws also based on Divine law. The word Church here cannot be used in any way other than the Church Herself traditionally understands it and uses it, as being necessarily comprised primarily of the hierarchy, other clerics, religious both lay and professed and the laity proper. The word Church would never be used to describe only the laity outside the particular emergency situation existing at the time of the 1990 election. As Pope Pius XII said concerning the hierarchy: "That those who exercise sacred power in this Body [the Church — the Mystical Body of Christ] are its first and chief members must be maintained uncompromisingly," (Mystici Corporis Christi).

4. Bawden's teaching on lay investiture
On July 16th, 1990, when We received the necessary votes, the Church called Us not only to the priesthood, but also the episcopate and the Papacy, which we accepted. Canonically, a man does not have a vocation, until the Archdeacon on behalf of his Ordinary calls out his name at the various ordinations. Therefore on the day a man is tonsured, he has a vocation to the clerical state…" (Sept. 7, 2006; Bawden's response to a letter from a Traditionalist inquirer published to both the Christania discussion group and the Internet site Vatican in Exile). "By our election we have been called to the priesthood…When we became Pope [we became] head of the Catholic Church and of the hierarchy and thus de facto a cleric," (March 7, 2007 communique published by Bawden to both the Christania discussion group and the Internet site Vatican in Exile. All emphasis in bold is the author's, not Bawden's.) In both these statements Bawden is speaking past tense. It is not like he is saying," Come to think of it," or "In retrospect…" Instead he is saying that he received this de facto tonsure in the past — on July 16, 1990. There is no doubt, then, that we are talking about an event that happened at that precise moment in time almost 17 years ago. The word canonically means according to the canons. Bawden is saying he somehow became a cleric outside the canons, without benefit of a canonical provision, for de facto means in fact, but not by law. It may work for two-penny dictators in the dark corners of Africa, at least for a time. But it is not in line with Canon Law or Catholic teaching.

The Church's condemnation of lay investiture
Ban on Lay Investitures, 1078
Pope Gregory VII

(Doeberl: 11 Monumenta Germaniae selecta," pp. 16-48.)

1. Decree of Nov. 19, 1078, forbidding lay investiture
Inasmuch as we have learned that, contrary to the establishments of the holy fathers, the investiture with churches is, in many places, performed by lay persons; and that from this cause many disturbances arise in the church by which the Christian religion is trodden underfoot: we decree that no one of the clergy shall receive the investiture with a bishopric or abbey or church from the hand of an emperor or king or of any lay person, male or female. But if he shall presume to do so he shall clearly know that such investiture is bereft of apostolic authority, and that he himself shall lie under excommunication until fitting satisfaction shall have been rendered.

2. Decree of March 7th, 1080, forbidding the same.
Following the statutes of the holy fathers, as, in the former councils which by the mercy of God we have held, we decreed concerning the ordering of ecclesiastical dignities, so also now we decree and confirm: that, if any one henceforth shall receive a bishopric or abbey from the hand of any lay person, he shall by no means be considered as among the number of the bishops or abbots; nor shall any hearing be granted him as bishop or abbot. Moreover do we further deny to him the favor of St. Peter and the entry to the Church until, coming to his senses, he shall desert the place that he has taken by the crime of ambition as well as by that of disobedience - which is the sin of idolatry. In a like manner also we decree concerning the inferior ecclesiastical dignities.

Likewise if any emperor, king, duke, margrave, count or any one at all of the secular powers or persons shall presume to perform the investiture with bishoprics or with any ecclesiastical dignity, he shall be bound by the bonds of the same condemnation. And, moreover, unless he come to his senses and relinquish to the Church her own prerogative, he shall feel in this present life, the divine displeasure as well with regard to his body as to his other belongings: in order that, at the coming of the Lord, his soul may be saved.

(From Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, (London: George Bell and Sons, 1910, pp. 365-366.)
© Paul Halsall March 1996 halsall@murray.fordham.edu

The above condemnation is useful only in that it accurately portrays the Church's true attitude towards the grant of any ecclesiastical dignity by lay men or women. At that point in time, the Pope had no reason to specifically forbid the appointment of laymen as ecclesiastics, since this document was written some 400 years prior to the Reformation. These abuses are condemned below.

From the Council of Trent
" This Holy Synod teaches that, in the ordination of bishops, priests and other orders…those who are called and instituted only by the people, or by the civil power…and proceed to exercise these offices, and…those who take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as 'thieves, robbers and those who have not entered by the door,'" (DZ 960; Canons 108-109; Can. 147. Here it must be noted that tonsure was often considered an order up until the 19th century.)

Condemnation of the Jansenists
Pope Pius VI also condemned a Jansenist version of this same notion: "'Power has been given by God to the Church that it might be communicated to the pastors who are its ministers for the salvation of souls.' If thus understood that the power of ecclesiastical ministry is derived from the community of the faithful to the pastors — heretical," (DZ 1502; Canons 108-109).

There can be no doubt that Bawden believes his lay electors, (the people or the community of the faithful) confirmed his vocation by granting him some sort of mystical tonsure, a rite which can be conferred only by a bishop, not a layman. Tonsure is what makes a man a cleric, or ecclesiastic distinct from the laity. In other words he is saying that his electors de facto [in reality; by the fact itself, but not by the law, or de jure] voted him into the ranks of those aspiring to Holy Orders (and even the priesthood and the episcopacy) by their own power. He is saying the laity can execute an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in precisely that same sense condemned by the Council of Trent and Pope Pius VI. It occurs pre-election, so Bawden could never have achieved election since he was excommunicated ipso facto according to Can. 2314 before his acceptance, for only by his acceptance of a legitimate election does the Divine law grant universal jurisdiction, (Can. 109, 219). Bawden admits in his pre-election statements in the book that without a call from the proper bishop, a vocation cannot exist. And in his Sept. 7, 2006 Internet statement he says that only the proper Ordinary can confer tonsure. But then he does a 180-degree turnaround and insists that he receives it outside the laws of the Church, (because he "KNOWS" that his particular vocation cannot be impugned or denied to him). Here he entirely confuses the Ordinary's confirmation of the vocation prior to tonsure and his free selection for tonsure from among several candidates whose vocation has been confirmed. It is Bawden, usurping the power of Ordinary, pastor and spiritual director, who makes the decision that he has a divine vocation; otherwise the electors would have nothing to confirm. But as St. Ignatius said and Bawden has often repeated, "No man is a judge in his own case."

As St. Francis de Sales writes, in Apostolic times the people took part in the selection of men for ordination (Acts 6), but it was the Apostles who confirmed their selection and ordained. And every extraordinary vocation is confirmed not by the community of the faithful, but by ordinary authority. "Where will you ever show me a legitimate extraordinary vocation which has not been received by the ordinary authority? St. Paul was extraordinarily called, but was he not approved and authorized by the ordinary once and again? (Acts 9:13)…St. Paul teaches he will have no man to take the personal honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. For the vocation of Aaron was made by the ordinary Moses…The vocation of pastors and Church rulers must be made visibly; and so with Our Lord and Master; who being Sovereign Pontiff, pastor of all the ages, did not glorify himself, that is, did not take to himself the honor of His holy priesthood, but received it from His Father in Heaven." In assuming the grant of his own vocation, Bawden held himself even above Christ.

The privilege accorded to the laity by Pope Nicholas II in 1059 allowing them to elect a Pope had nothing to do with Pope Pius XII's laws permitting the election of a layman. Privileges are to be interpreted generously, especially if favorable to religion. But the law governing election of a layman as Pope is not covered under this privilege granted to the laity. Instead it is an exception to or derogation from Can. 118 (Rev. Stanislaus Miaskiewicz), permitted in Pope Pius XII's 1945 papal election law and Pius XII's address to the Lay Congress in 1957, with certain conditions. Rev. Amleto Cicognani explains under Can. 22 that, "derogation [from the law] is always to be understood in a strict sense and consequently it receives a strict interpretation…For correction of the law is odious," (Canon Law). Therefore Can. 118, (which states that offices requiring the exercise of orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be filled only by a cleric) is to be interpreted strictly. This means that Pope Pius XII's laws are to be strictly observed because they admit an exception. Furthermore Canons 154 and 453 state that it is not sufficient to be a simple cleric to assume an office involving the care of souls; Bawden needed to be fit to become a priest. Violating these Canons automatically invalidates any appointment by election, even outside Bawden's notorious heresy.

Church teaching on the laity
Universal jurisdiction is granted to a Pope not by the electors, but by Divine law, itself, (Canons 109 and 219). Under the ecclesiastical laws governing elections, Can. 158 says that those acting as proxies for voters who lost their right to vote have the power only to designate a candidate, and have no jurisdiction over the candidate elected. The voters did all that they could do; the rest was left to God and valid clergy, if found at a later date. While clerics often receive their canonical title in Major Orders, prior to their ordination, yet even up until the time they are ordained they may be declared unfit for Orders and hence determined to be lacking a true vocation. The laity believed that they called David Bawden to the exercise of universal (but only external) jurisdiction as a lay Pope and only potentially to the exercise of Holy Orders; nothing more. They did not have the power or expertise necessary to confirm his vocation, nor any realization prior to the act that he considered the election they posited as a confirmation of his vocation ipso facto.

The words of Rev. Charles Augustine, commenting on Can. 118, shed much light on this matter: "Ecclesiastical power is granted only to those chosen by Christ. Hence, whatever pertains to the hierarchical power, order and jurisdiction can be conveyed only to such as belong to the hierarchy…Material emoluments granted on account of the spiritual office can be exercised only by hierarchical persons; ecclesiastical benefices and pensions can be obtained only by clerics. Therefore laymen, as such, cannot be ordained unless they have received first tonsure, [and here a citation from the Sources of Canon Law is given]…Laymen as such cannot obtain jurisdictional power in matters strictly spiritual or ecclesiastical [again the Sources of Canon Law are footnoted] neither can they obtain any benefice which is of a purely ecclesiastical nature…" Perhaps Bp. Robinson objected that he could not ordain Bawden without at least the equivalent of tonsure; this may explain the cancellation of the August ordination. It was reset for mid-September after Bawden posted his Sept. 7 announcement on receiving tonsure mystically from the laity. That date passed. Then it was set for Dec. 8, and that date was derailed.

Only the proper Bishop can examine an aspirant's vocation, confirm it and confer tonsure; the examination and confirmation are essential prerequisites of this ceremony. Also, to be tonsured one must be validly confirmed according to the Council of Trent, and Bawden's Confirmation by Lefebvre was doubtfully valid at best. Moreover the nature of first tonsure clearly indicates that it arises from the Ordinary's office as an act issuing from his jurisdictional faculties granted by the Pope (Rev. Augustine), not specifically the power of Orders, since tonsure is not an order but a ceremony or rite. Bawden knew this, since he stated in Will the Catholic Church Survive…? that vocation is a call from the local ordinary "with the jurisdiction to call men to the ministry." The people could not determine who would be a bishop, a priest or a cleric, since these are acts proper to jurisdiction as well as Orders (Can. 118; DZ 966), and as such are absolutely forbidden to the laity. Only a canonically elected Pope can grant the laity delegated jurisdiction; Bawden's electors could not have possessed it pre-election. Prior to his election, Bawden determined (Special Issue, May 31, 1990 Update, pg. 64) that a papal election by laymen is not a jurisdictional act but the exercise of a privilege; therefore the electors could possess no type of jurisdictional faculties. Canon 158 confirms this conclusion. Due to the fact that impossibility precluded the election of a true Pope by clerics and only because of this impossibility, lay men and women took the place of these clerics to perform this one specific act, not the additional (and impossible) act of confirming David Bawden's vocation.

Censures against those usurping ecclesiastical offices
Sadly, Bawden necessarily drags with him into heresy all his electors, for his very own words date this occurrence to the moment he received the necessary votes. Bawden's "acceptance," then, of this mystical tonsure (and this is all he could claim to accept at that moment since he could not accept canonical election as a true Pope) resulted in a second excommunication and the disqualification of his five electors. Those electors who do not repudiate their part in the election based on Bawden's recent claims now cooperate in his heresy and also incur ipso facto excommunication. After quoting the very words of the Council of Trent above, the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared: "In order to preserve more inviolate these same sacred principles and at the same time forestall abuses in a matter of such great importance, His Holiness Pope Pius XII has deigned to provide," an ipso facto excommunication especially reserved to the Holy See for: "1) those who contrive against legitimate ecclesiastical authorities or attempt in any way to subvert their authority; 2) anyone who without a canonical investiture or provision made according to the sacred canons occupies an ecclesiastical office, benefice or dignity, or allows anyone to be unlawfully intruded into the same, or who retains the same; 3) those who have any part directly or indirectly in the crimes mentioned in one (1) and two (2)," (Canon Law Digest, Vol. 3, under Can. 147) This is very similar in nature to the excommunication found in Can. 2345, which is most likely based on Pope Paul IV's condemnation in Cum ex apostolatus officio of those who usurp ecclesiastical offices.

Probabilism, priestly examination
1. David Bawden's teaching on probabilism
Bawden's following statement from the pre-election book he co-authored, Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, shows that he is well aware that the use of probability where the liciety of the Sacraments is concerned is scarcely possible: "Probabilism may be used in the licitity of the Sacraments, but only with extreme caution…The opinion in favor of the violation of the law must be probable, not just possible, and supported by reasoning. Also the law in question must not be one which is to protect us from a common danger…" While Bawden stated this position pre-election, he did not follow through on this maxim. How could one arrive at a truly probable opinion when Canons 154 and 453 protect against a common danger? Where is his reasoning for a layman occupying a hierarchical office indefinitely? In the May 31, 1990 issue of Update, Bawden refused to excuse those Traditionalists from heresy "who we ourselves have warned, often more than once…When we speak of warning people here, we refer mainly to warning them against…something gravely sinful…Many of them we have warned repeatedly on several different heads [but] they continued to spread heresy and create scandal despite our warnings…Even if they presented reasoned arguments in their defense as the law requires them to do, one could at least have hope of their being won over eventually…But most rely on their personal credibility…The individuals we refer to have persisted in their errors despite clear and compelling evidence to the contrary…Had they responded initially to fraternal correction, they would have had no worries in the matter…"

Bawden sets standards for others he refuses to adhere to himself. To date there has been nothing presented in way of contrary (scholastic) proofs to even attempt to refute the transgression of Church laws and teachings demonstrated here. Bawden would need to present at least proofs of true probability for his actions and writings, at the very least — examples of laymen reigning as Pope for extended periods of time, claiming to possess, and with canonical proofs proving this possession, of (his pretended) mystical tonsure. Instead, he relies on his false credibility, his "authority" to decide these things as a true Pope. He thunders obedience and threatens excommunication that is laughable at best, coming from one who never became Pope, but necessary to instill the need for submission into what remains of his followers. He continues to orbit in the vicious circle of false scholastic reasoning by insisting on his authority, never more than doubtful prior to the discovery of his errors. By these various and sundry tactics he is able to ignore a host of solid reasons why this authority cannot exist and the compelling evidence that proves it never existed in the first place.

If we wish to quote men truly knowledgeable concerning the necessity of examination, we must go to the Fathers of the Church, St. Cyprian and St. John Chrysostom. The saints and Fathers o