What is the definition of doubt in Canon Law? Rev. Amleto Cicognani (Canon Law) tells us that the word doubt comes from the Latin root du meaning two. So a doubt of law or fact is withholding assent between two contradictory propositions — such a one was validly elected Pope, or he was not validly elected Pope. This amounts to a lack of certitude, and as Cicognani points out, the common good demands certitude concerning the validity of acts. (Here we again encounter Can. 21.) This is especially true since the valid election of a Pope constitutes a dogmatic fact. Rev. A.C Cotter (ABC of Scholastic Philosophy) tells us that formal certitude is "Firm assent (or dissent) based on motives in themselves infallible and [which are] known to be infallible." Cicognani says doubt must be absolutely removed by a reflex principle. Rev. Pierre Gury gives some of these principles in his work, Dogmatic Theology. Here we have a doubt of fact, e.g., whether David Bawden truly became pope. Gury says that this fact must not be merely presumed, but must be demonstrated. And this demonstration has been presented elsewhere. The very authors used to help establish the laity's right to vote in Will the Catholic Church Survive…? also comment on what makes a pope-elect either valid or doubtful.

Cardinal Manning's nephew, Rev. Henry Ryder, writes: "The privilege of infallible teaching belongs only to an undoubted Pope; on the claims of a doubted, disputed Pope, the Church has the right of judging [as occurred at the Council of Constance.]…During a contested papacy, the state of things approximates to that of an interregnum. The exercise of active infallibility is suspended." This statement only reflects the long practice of the Church in the matter of "rival" papacies, (however the canonical provisions demanded by the Church pre-election from those who have elected or appointed "popes" are lacking in these modern cases of appointments and "elections,"). It has taken the Church hundreds of years in some cases to decide whether this or that papacy was true or false, even with what would appear to us now as solid evidence. For example, Pope Gregory XII was not determined to be the true Pope during the Western Schism (14th and early 15th century), until the 19th century despite the fact that a) He resided in Rome and b) by accepting his resignation as Pope, the Council of Constance implicitly recognized his legitimacy

Rev. Charles Journet writes, in his The Church of the Word Incarnate, (under validity and certitude of election):

" [The papal] election, remarks John of St. Thomas, may be invalid when carried out by persons not qualified, or when, although effected by persons qualified it suffers from defect of form or falls on an incapable subject, as for example, one of unsound mind or unbaptized [or an apostate, heretic or schismatic]. But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect as to a head to whom it submits is an act in which the Church engages herself and Her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.) Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present then gradually by the rest.

" The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected. As long as any doubt remains and the tacit consent of the universal Church has not yet remedied the possible flaws in the election, there is no Pope papa dubius, papa nullus. As a matter of fact, remarks John of St. Thomas, insofar as a peaceful and certain election is not apparent, the election is regarded as still going on. And since the Church has full control, not over a Pope certainly elected but over the election itself, she can take all measures needed to bring it to a conclusion. The Church can therefore judge a Pope to be doubtful. Thus, says John of St. Thomas, the Church judged three popes to be doubtful, of whom two were deposed and the third resigned." Journet also writes, under loss of the pontificate: "The Pope was considered as having resigned when he was so placed that he could not possibly exercise his powers. 'It appears that in those times when a bishop was removed from his see…by death, exile or resignation, or an equivalent measure…the see was considered as vacant,'" (Duchesne, The Early History of the Church, Vol. III).

Cardinal Zabarella, writing in the 14th and 15th centuries, believed that in the event of a contested papacy, a General Council (the "universal Church…or congregation of the faithful") was to decide which claimant was the true Pope, (The Origins of the Great Schism, by Walter Ullmann). Even here, however, Zabarella restricts the actual decision to those at the Council deemed the most capable and senior in position. The Canonist Baldis de Ubaldis, Zabarella's student, disagrees with Journet, stating that "Canon Law lays down the dictum that in a doubtful situation, the man elected has to be held as Pope," (Ullmann). But yet another author qualifies this statement. According to "an ancient canon…the first election should be considered valid until the contrary is proved: ‘the Church ordains that the preference shall always be given to him who, at the request of the people, with the consent and concurrence of the clergy, has been first placed by the Cardinals in the chair of Blessed Peter.’ Now Peter de Leone and his party proceeded to the second election without attempting to prove the invalidity of the first which, as not being self-evidently null, gave Innocent at least a presumptive right," (St. Bernard, by Albert Luddy). Of course the contrary has been proven, no clergy participated in or consented to the election, and the cardinals did not elect.

In stating that a pope could be cleared of any irregularities save heresy by election and acceptance of the election, Ubaldis assumes it will be the cardinals electing. Even though medieval canonists had considered the case of a layman elected Pope, and Ubaldis was a contemporary of these canonists, no one anticipated the election of a layman by lay people, or envisioned that the Pope would not be ordained for over 16 years. However Ubaldis himself teaches that only a General Council can remove a Pope guilty of ""notorious heresy" who will not abdicate. But it must be remembered that he wrote before the infallible Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio was issued, which decrees that when a Pope publicly teaches heresy, this means he was a heretic pre-election and can be disposed of even by the civil power. This Bull removes the necessity of the Church to declare the one elected a heretic and request deposition by stating that the heresy itself deposes. It requires only that the fact of the heresy be demonstrated and the offender corrected and removed.

Journet, citing Hurtaud refers to the interesting case of Pope Alexander VI: "By divine law, he who shows himself to be a heretic is to be avoided after one or two admonitions, (Titus 3: 10). There is therefore an absolute contradiction between the fact of being Pope and the fact of persevering in heresy after one or two admonitions…Savonarola, [Hurtaud says] regarded Alexander VI as having lost his faith…Savonarola wished to collect together the Council, not because, like the Gallicans, he placed a Council above the Pope, (the letters to the Princes are legally and doctrinally unimpeachable) but so that the Council, before which he would prove his accusation, should declare the heresy of Alexander VI in his status as a private individual." (Journet further notes here that Savonarola's case is still open.) It must be pointed out here that Savonarola was not dealing with heresy publicly manifested; only with heresy committed in a "private capacity," as Journet says. Also, once again, Savonarola lived prior to the issuance of Pope Paul IV's infallible bull, which teaches that anytime a "Pope" appears to commit heresy of any kind, he was never validly elected Pope. Cum ex…basically states that whenever it appears that a "Pope" has committed "an error in respect of the faith," he committed the initial error pre-election and may be judged. This dispenses with any question of private heresy.

Catholic Encyclopedia on doubtful elections
Under "Elections," the Catholic Encyclopedia states that an ecclesiastical election may be disputed, hence become doubtful "by whoever is interested in it," (see www.newadvent.com) The article lists the following reasons why an ecclesiastical election can be called into question.

1. Unless there has been a frank and fair discussion of the merits of the candidate(s), "Some maintain that an election without such a discussion is null or could be annulled." (Such a discussion would have been very difficult in the presence of Bawden's parents or in the town of St. Marys, where he was well known but generally disliked because of his family's rift with the SSPX. Common sense dictates that, try as they might, parents are hopelessly biased when it comes to their children. Also, one is unlikely to receive an unbiased report from those one has quarreled with or separated themselves from. It was later learned that other pertinent information that would have prevented Bawden's election was either withheld or was not available at the time.)

2. "The principle duty of an elector is to vote according to his conscience…In order, however to fulfill his duty, the elector has a right to be free and entirely uninfluenced by the dread of any unjust annoyance which might affect his vote, whether such annoyance be…civil or ecclesiastical." One voter did urge two other voters to proceed despite their doubts, but this would be difficult to prove since it would amount to hearsay. In any event, the most serious defect in the election was the lack of fitness in the one elected. This has been addressed at length on this site. Because of the various particulars involved, any ordinations and consecrations, hence also A PAPAL ELECTION, must be deferred until the hierarchy is restored.

3. An election may be defective…if the electors are not properly qualified; (Bawden's electors were misinformed. No one realized that while a layman could be elected, such a man needed to at least expect to be ordained within a reasonable amount of time in order to come into compliance with Divine law where the hierarchy and canonical appointment to pastoral offices is concerned. This was impossible, owing to the lack of clergy. Therefore without further investigation into the matter, as advised in the Catholic Encyclopedia, no election was possible. The Encyclopedia article states that 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." This is in perfect agreement with the need to arrive at a canonical provision under Can. 20.)

4. If the one elected is unfit or unworthy; (It has been proven that Bawden, by his own admission on several occasions, was guilty of heresy prior to his acceptance of the election; hence he was unworthy. Also, information discovered only after the election proved he was unfit for the priesthood.)

5. If all the qualified electors were not summoned.

6. The election of an unworthy person is to be annulled. (See # 4.)

Journet and others were quoted in the book Will the Catholic Church Survive…? pre-election on the subject of universal acceptance of the election, which is a means of remedying any possible defects in the election form. It has been intimated by Bawden that the actual acceptance by the electors electing was all that was needed for acclamation, but this is not the case. This acclamation never occurred, leaving the election still technically in dispute. It would be hypocritical to say the least if the opinions of Journet and John of St. Thomas used to prove the case for the election were now set aside because no acclamation was ever obtained. So the following facts support the opinion that all other things aside, the papal election is still underway.

1. Bawden's "papacy" was greatly disputed, and not all objections were specious, (Traditionalists were not right in claiming that a layman could not be elected, but they were right in maintaining that a Pope should at least be a priest or have determined a way to become one prior to or shortly following his election).
2. He remained a layman for over 16 years.
3. His electors were laymen and few in number; a General Council, according to Church practice, was not convened to represent the Church.
4. Both 2 and 3 are precedents in Church history.
5. All precedent cases treat only the election of a layman, not his election by the laity in the protracted absence of hierarchy.
6. There were no directives for how to proceed when the clergy is not available.
7. There was no acclamation or "peaceful acceptance" of the universal Church following the acclamation by the five voters.
8. For over 16 years there was no gradual acceptance of Bawden by the universal Church.
9. Bawden was "elected" in exile from the Vatican, and there is no hope at present of regaining the Roman See.
10. A Pope today would be so placed that he could scarcely exercise his powers.
11. Canonical provisions for obtaining and receiving Orders, and the intended mode of operation to be followed by a layman in the absence of hierarchy were not laid down prior to the election.
12. There is no precedent for dealing with a layman, elected "Pope" by lay people, who later promulgates manifest heresy publicly.

According to the opinions of seven different theologians, fulfilling the requirements of Can. 20 and establishing true probability, "There is no schism involved…if one refuses obedience [to a pope] inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election…" (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J, Szal, A.B., J.C.L.). Of course one would need to offer valid reasons for such doubts, reasons provided elsewhere by this author. Notice that one need only suspect that the man claiming to be Pope is a heretic or invalidly elected, (Can. 2200). What Szal presents, then, is a solidly probable opinion, one which establishes certitude, and according to the laws and teachings of the Church it may be followed at will. Consequently, no one may accuse one following their conscience in this matter of being in schism, since the Church condemns those as heretics who believe that "It is not permitted to follow a (probable) opinion, or among the probables, the most probable," (condemned as absolute tutiorism (rigorism) by Alexander VIII; DZ 1293). Furthermore, in his bull Cum ex apostolatus officio, Pope Paul IV has exonerated all those from schism who rightfully denounce an heretical usurper: "…all may implore the aid of the secular arm against those so advanced and elevated. Nor shall they be liable to reprisal through any censure or penalty, as renders of the Lord's robe, for departing, for the reasons set forth above, from fealty and obedience to said promoted and elevated persons…"

Although "Pope Michael" and his followers do not consider him doubtful, he is indeed doubtful according to the criteria above and has been so since his putative "election." Had heresy not entered into the picture, two things could be said in favor of his validity: (a) he was the first elected after Pope Pius XII using at least some canonical provisions (for the election only, but not for Orders); (b) no other rival papacies are able to prove canonical provision pre-election.