+Feast of Corpus Christi 2008+
CLARIFICATION
New information has been brought to my attention by Robert Hunt that requires the clarification of certain statements made in the original article posted here. The following article has been amended and expanded accordingly to reflect this new information.
A Sad Tale of Corrupted Hosts
© Copyright 2008, 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.)
As the feast of Corpus Christi approaches, I need to make reparation to the most adorable Body of Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist by exposing a hoax in which I was once unwittingly involved. It is a story not unlike many others arising from abuses at Traditionalist chapels and mass centers. But these specific abuses renew Christ's Passion on the Cross in the most painful manner possible, since these wounds come indeed from those who profess to love and honor Him the most.
David Bawden and I had initially argued over the validity of 10-year-old-plus hosts he had received in 1999-2000 from a former follower in Ohio who received them from a (presumably true) priest before his death in 1990-91. I held that a) considering they came from a Traditionalist who had departed with considerable animosity, we could not be certain of their origin or the ingredients used in their creation and b) because Traditionalists are not zealous about Canon Law to begin with, we could not be certain that they were baked no more than two to three weeks before being consecrated, as Canon Law teaches they must be in order to be considered valid. Because these hosts were so old, and Canon Law dictates they must be freshly baked, I held my ground. Also because the Church says that regarding the reception of the Sacraments, the safer course must be taken if there is any doubt concerning validity, (DZ 1161). While the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is not the same as its reception, there is still the adulation paid to Our Lord in the Host, which, if not valid, amounts to idolatry.
Bawden said he alone could decide if these hosts were worthy of adoration and if necessary could override Canon Law in this matter, even though the greater probability weighed against these hosts being uncorrupted. He also intimated that if I kept disagreeing with him I would be guilty of impugning the authority of the "pope." It became a very thorny issue for me, because I did not want to disobey one who, at that time, I believed to be a true pope. Also, I had always harbored a particular horror of idolatry, and if the hosts were corrupt I did not wish to adore the Body of Christ if He might not be present in these hosts. I solved the problem by telling Our Lord that if He were indeed present, I loved and adored Him with all of my heart and if not then I wished to offer no adoration whatsoever to mere bread. This went on for several years. Then, sometime in 2004-2005, construction began on our family chapel. At that same time, a conversation first began with David Bawden concerning the reservation of the "Blessed Sacrament" in our private family chapel upon its completion. In requesting Bawden's permission to reserve the "Blessed Sacrament" when I did, I fully expected that it would be denied. In this I was correct.
At the time I made the request, there were definite tensions between the Benns and Hunt families and all the Benns’ agreed that because of these tensions they could not feel comfortable visiting the "Blessed Sacrament" in the Hunts' home. It made sense that to increase the devotion of all the faithful in an equitable manner, the "Blessed Sacrament" should be available to all. This I based on Can. 682, which states that: "The laity has the right to receive from the clergy the spiritual goods, and especially the necessary means of salvation, according to the rules of ecclesiastical discipline." What I did not realize at the time is that Can. 682 did not apply. Bawden was not a cleric as the law specifies, he cannot be a cleric, and even had he been one, he totally ignored several laws involving ecclesiastical discipline, which Can. 682 says must be obeyed.
If accessibility to the “Blessed Sacrament” was not provided, then I felt the clear existence of an elite in Bawden's group, which I believed to have existed for some time, would be proven. The Church has never rationed Her spiritual goods according to “merit,” especially in times of persecution when every effort is made to make them as readily available as possible, to nourish faith. The only possible spiritual goods possessed by Bawden’s church were the “papal blessing,” the sacrilegious and illicit solemn administration of the Sacraments and sacramentals by laymen and the adoration of these two hosts. So in order to avoid what I then believed to be a violation of our family’s spiritual rights, I suggested that one of the hosts be divided into two equal pieces to solve the problem.
Now this could have been done with either the host retained by Bawden or that retained by Hunts. No one save "cardinal" Hunt and Bawden had ever even seen these hosts, so no one save these two knew what they looked like or what their true condition really was, (unless Bawden's mother or Hunt's wife also visualized these hosts). Bawden consulted with "cardinal" Hunt at length and the following scenario played out in my living room in the presence of my husband and myself. First Bawden told us that Hunt had observed: "If you split the Blessed Sacrament, you split the Church." I responded that the Church already was divided over various issues, and disagreed with Hunt’s statement. Bawden then expanded a bit more on this decision, indicating that (both he and) "cardinal" Hunt further objected that to cut the host in his possession in half would symbolize not only dividing the Church but "dividing the Body of Christ," and therefore he was not willing to do it.
Hunt has since informed me, however, that he rejects the statement “dividing the Body of Christ,” and any heresy it represents. It is a statement he apparently was not aware of until recently. I too vehemently disagreed with this statement, but Bawden closed the topic abruptly. He relayed all the above verbally to us, indicating that he agreed with it all and that it made perfect sense to him; he even gave the impression that he felt Hunt to be most devout and erudite in what he said. At all times during this conversation it was made abundantly clear that Bawden and Hunts agreed with each other 100 percent on everything and that the Benns family had no real say in these matters. Both my husband and I received the distinct impression that to divide the host would somehow mutilate, separate or lessen in some way what Bawden held was Christ’s actual Body in the Holy Eucharist. Bawden’s continued refusal to further discuss any sharing of the host only reinforced this initial impression. The issue was left unresolved until the chapel could be completed.
After Bawden left, it occurred to me that there might be a good reason why he did not wish to risk breaking the host in half: he feared the host would crumble or otherwise show signs of deterioration. If this occurred it would prove that Christ had long ago left the corrupted matter and that the Real Presence in these two hosts was an unfounded myth; a quasi-sort of miracle Bawden could no longer hang his hat upon. Later, I would thank God that the corrupted matter never defiled the altar of my chapel, and that idolatry was never practiced there. When Bawden refused to discuss dividing the host any further, I began pushing for his ordination, thinking that at least this would guarantee valid hosts and forestall a drive to elect or announce as elected yet another antipope. In looking into the issues surrounding what I believed could be done at that time I gradually discovered that to guarantee Apostolic Succession, Bawden needed to have been validly and licitly ordained long ago, and was never pope.
I also learned that Bawden uttered heresy in maintaining that to divide the host (had it truly been the Body of Christ) would have diminished Christ's Eucharistic presence in any way or "divided" his Body. The Council of Trent has condemned this teaching as heresy: "If anyone denieth that in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species and under every particle of each species, when separated, let him be anathema," (Sess. XIII, Can. 3; also DZ 886). The Church father, Eutychius of Byzantium wrote: "Each receives the whole Sacred Body and precious Blood of the Lord, even though he is given but a part thereof; for it divides itself undivided among all," (Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II). Of course heresy in Bawden and other Traditionalists is an established fact that will sadly only continue to further manifest itself, as stated elsewhere.
The Baltimore Catechism, Kinkead’s # 3, was written for seventh and eighth graders. Question and Answer 883 in this Catechism teaches: “Jesus Christ is present whole and entire in the smallest portion of the Holy Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine; for His Body in the Eucharist is in a glorified state, and as it partakes of the character of a spiritual substance, it requires no definite size or shape.” In questions 884 and 885, Rev. Kinkead goes onto explain that following the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine into Our Lord’s Body and Blood, “only the appearances of bread and wine remain.” By the appearances of bread and wine is meant “the figure, the color, the taste and whatever appears to the senses.” When any of these are altered in any way, the appearances are judged to be lacking. Hunt has indicated that he was perfectly familiar with this teaching and would never deny it. However I had no assurance that Hunt actually did understand or accept this teaching, since he does not seem to understand or accept several other condemnations levied by the Council of Trent which apply directly to Bawden.
Did Bawden “misspeak” and really mean to say that to divide the host would be to divide the Mystical Body of Christ, or did he mean (but not say) that the Body he referred to was the Church and not Christ’s actual Body? Hunt and his wife, on more than one occasion, and in the presence of witnesses, have complained that Bawden was consistently unclear in what he said and wrote. Hunt has stated recently that no one can know what is in Bawden’s or anyone else’s mind, so who knows what Bawden really meant. But as I have noted before, the Church teaches in Scholastic theology that words are to be taken as they are written or spoken, and as they are defined and understood. A true Pope is incapable of misstating Church doctrine; the Holy Ghost Himself guarantees that the faith of St. Peter and his successors will never fail or even appear to fail. Canon Law insists (Can. 2200) that when something is said that appears to contradict the faith, malice is to be presumed in the external forum until it is PROVEN otherwise. “Who knows” is not good enough where the faith is concerned. Bawden cannot convincingly prove his innocence because he has already contradicted other truths of faith.
Laws governing the renewal of the Sacred Species
and reservation of the Blessed Sacrament
St. Thomas clearly states that in things directly related to the Body of Christ, even a true Pope duly possessing Orders (which Bawden does not) has no power beyond that of a simple priest, (Suppl., Q. 38, Art. 1). Only a priest can reserve the Holy Eucharist in a proper Church where Mass is said at least once a week (Can. 1265); and NO LAY PERSON can ever reserve the same in a private home, or transport the Blessed Sacrament (Can. 1265 § 2-3) without committing sacrilege. Bawden claims that according to Canon Law, it is a privilege that cardinals can say Mass in all churches and oratories, including their own, (Can. 239 §7). This Canon does not specifically state that cardinals automatically receive the right to reserve the Blessed Sacrament, even in their own private chapels, although it is implied only because cardinals are assumed to be priests. Therefore, because Hunt is not a priest, Bawden "granted" the right himself as "pope." And if he granted the right to Hunt, what prevented him from granting it to others? Yet the right would apply only if the cardinal was a priest, or a priest existed to renew the Sacred Species. In assuming that a cardinal need NOT be a priest, Bawden blatantly ignores centuries of Canon Law and Church practice concerning the laws governing the validity of consecrated hosts as well as the clerical status of cardinals, (see http://www.betrayedcatholics.com/071005.html#cardinaldeacons). In light of this, it is obvious that Bawden has consistently presumed, from the time before his “election” to the present, that Holy Orders is immaterial in the present circumstances. It is precisely because he denies the de fide necessity of valid and licit Holy Orders for the existence of Apostolic succession that Bawden conveniently overlooks the entire basis for WHY cardinals are granted these privileges under Can. 239 and HOW they are to be interpreted in light of other Canon Laws.
1) According to Can. 239, all cardinals are presumed by the 1917 Code to be priests.
2) It also is presumed, then, that they are ABLE TO FAITHFULLY RENEW THE SACRED SPECIES EVERY WEEK, AS CANON LAW ALSO PRESCRIBES, (Can. 1272).
3) Priests reserving the Blessed Sacrament by canonical privilege also are required by Can. 1275 to conduct "public or private exposition of the Blessed Sacrament," at least once a year, "to assure Our Lord the homage that He is due," (Revs. Durieaux and Dolphin; The Eucharist — Law and Practice). Private exposition means that the tabernacle door is opened while the faithful make their holy hours; public exposition is the exposure of the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance on the altar. (To the best of my recollection, the “door” of Hunt's tabernacle was never opened during these times.) Only a priest or deacon may officiate at these ceremonies, but the deacon is not allowed to give benediction with the Blessed Sacrament, (Can. 1274 §2).
4) Bawden’s "lay cardinal," (and it is not proven that lay cardinals have ever existed in the history of the Church), cannot even handle the Sacred Species except in the case of an emergency, such as a fire, or enemy troops approaching to desecrate the church. And how could a mere layperson, outside an emergency, remove that host to a pyx or a monstrance for public exposition without committing sacrilege and violating Canon Law? While it is true that a layperson could be delegated for certain acts by a canonically elected pope, Bawden is no pope.
5) The Holy Sacrifice cannot be offered in Hunt's church because there is no priest to offer it, (Can. 1265 §1). If the Sacrifice cannot be offered, then the Ordinary "has no power to allow the keeping of the Blessed Sacrament in a Church or a chapel, for the Code sets it down as a positive requirement," (Revs. Woywod-Smith; commentary on Can. 1265). Oh yes; Bawden the antipope claims the authority to change Canon Law as he chooses, even though these laws are derived from Divine and natural law, past infallible pronouncements, various papal laws and teachings, ecumenical councils, Church practice and other venerable sources. Would a profession of faith precede the (Latin) version of the Code of Canon Law if this were not the case?
6) The Ordinary of the diocese or the Pope must give permission for the Eucharist to be kept in a private oratory. That permission was never given, since Bawden is no pope. And at the present time, such permission cannot be given.
7) So Bawden’s presumption that the privileges granted to cardinals implicitly include the right to reserve the Blessed Sacrament, regardless of whether they are priests or not, must yield to the truths contained in Canon Law. Hunt could not reserve a certainly valid host as a non-priest because there is no one to offer Holy Mass once a week and renew the Sacred Species. Even a true Pope cannot violate the constant teaching and practice of the Church by assigning indefinite incorruptibility to the matter, which comprises the hosts.
8) Whenever there is doubt concerning the validity of the Sacraments, one is not allowed to act. This is the unanimous opinion of all modern theologians (Prummer, others), and such unanimous opinion is binding as at least indirectly infallible. There is grave, well-founded doubt that these hosts any longer contain the Real Presence. Ergo, they cannot be reverenced as the Body of Christ without committing idolatry.
Bawden and his followers have been quick to point to this author as a heretic for stating that a layman elected Pope must be subject to examination by a valid and licit bishop before being ordained and consecrated, (provided this ordination/consecration takes place within a year of election and the layman elected is fit for the priesthood. And Bawden's "proofs," which have been shown on this site to constitute no proofs at all, are all his followers have to support his accusations of heresy. Following the natural law, Pope Pius XII taught that a layman not fit for ordination may not accept the papacy.) Now the status of a lay pope validly elected in the absence of valid and licit bishops but not examined for fitness and orthodoxy prior to his acceptance would technically remain that of a pope-elect only until confirmation could take place by true bishops. This circumstance falls within the realm of speculative theology because such a thing has never happened before in the history of the Church. Therefore opinions on these matters have never been specifically condemned as such by the Church. Bawden officiously “condemned” this author’s opinion as relating to the Gallicanist heresy, which means absolutely nothing, because he never was and never could be pope. He thunders that “the pope can be judged by no one,” ignoring the fact that a man elected pope whose fitness was not certain would be only a pope-elect, so he could not accept until true clergy could adequately gauge his fitness for ordination and consecration as Popes Pius XI and Pius XII teach. This speaks directly to the observance of the natural law concerning fitness and the absolute necessity that apostolic succession be safeguarded. On the other hand, the heresy concerning the division of the Eucharist has been specifically condemned for nearly 500 years by the Council of Trent and confirmed by a true Pope. So who is the heretic now?!
What Hunt and others do not realize is that even cases in secular courts can be retried with new evidence. The evidence this election was based on 18 years ago was flimsy at best, although this was not understood at the time. Since that time a great many things have become clearer or have been discovered that today absolutely prohibit such an election. One of these things is the following, stated by Pope Pius IX in Quartus Supra: “For no power of electing bishops or other ministers of religion has ever been given to the people by either divine or ecclesiastical law,” (Quartus Supra). Bawden has quoted this papal document more than once, but not this particular part of it. The Catholic Encyclopedia also states: “The laity…cannot bestow ecclesiastical jurisdiction on clerics under the form of an election properly so-called, conferring the right to an Episcopal or other benefice. An election by the laity alone, or one in which the laity took part, would be utterly null and void,” (Vol. VIII, p. 751). If the laity cannot even confer such jurisdiction on one already a cleric, how could they possibly designate a layman, who was never sent nor proven fit for ordination by any competent authority whatsoever, as one sufficiently fit to receive jurisdiction directly from God Himself? If the laity cannot even validly participate in ecclesiastical elections, how can they possibly pretend to be competent to participate in the election of the highest prelate in the Church? As shown below, only priests and bishops are allowed to participate in such an election. This law has been in effect for about 1,000 years.
Regardless of what theologians have said or may say on this matter; regardless of anything written in Will the Catholic Church Survive…? we must believe the Pope in his ordinary magisterium first and foremost, with an irrevocable assent to his teaching. As Cardinal Cajetan was quoted by Rev. Journet in the book Bawden and I co-authored, “’During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions laid down to determine the valid mode of election. However…if the Pope has provided nothing against it, (or if it is unknown who the true cardinals or who the true pope is) The power of applying the papacy to such and such a person devolves on the universal Church,’” (p. 329). As noted elsewhere on this site, the Catholic Church has been defined by Divine law to be constituted by the clergy AND the laity; the laity alone could never constitute the Church. What the former law allowed in way of a privilege was that the clergy AND the laity could elect a pope in an emergency, (Nicholas II). But Pope Pius IX has clearly revoked that law and privilege, as true Popes have every right to do. Furthermore, in compiling the Code and in particular in reformulating the law on papal election, both the papal election laws written by Popes Pius X and Pius XII state that ALL PREVIOUS LAWS ON PAPAL ELECTION HAVE BEEN REVOKED (ABROGATED). Canon Law teaches that if these former laws are not still in use, and if they have been expressly revoked by the Code, then they are considered to be no longer of any effect, (Can. 4).
Clerico-lay elections have not been conducted for 1,000 years. Canon 160 refers directly to the laws on papal election. This Canon states that the special laws govern papal elections. These papal constitutions themselves state that the teachings they contain are not to be violated unless one wishes to incur the wrath of almighty God and Sts. Peter and Paul. This places these laws outside the realm of mere ecclesiastical law. It means that NO ONE save a true Pope may interpret, change or abolish these laws, as Pope Pius XII’s election law itself states. Maybe some are willing to risk incurring the curse attached to these laws, now that the truth is known, but I am not.
It was Bawden himself who insists his election cannot be called into question in any way, just as he forbade any doubt of his judgment that the hosts had become corrupt. He sanctioned the reservation of what he ordered his followers to believe to be the Blessed Sacrament against all Church law. And he consistently promoted devotion to the host he delivered to them, contrary to all previous Church teaching and practice. Bawden’s followers, I feel, are sincere in their veneration of what they believe to be the Eucharist. And yet the older members among them are not applying the "common sense" they pride themselves for concerning its uncorrupted state. Would these people place a loaf of bread in a freezer or in a cupboard for 18 years and pretend that after all this time that bread would be edible, that it would contain its original nutrients and same chemical composition, providing that it roughly appeared to still be a loaf of bread? This supposition defies all logic and all scientific studies. It especially denies the teachings of the Church Herself. For the Church PRESUMES that the hosts, as long as they are no more than two weeks from being baked, retain their freshness and hence are a worthy medium to house the Real Presence.
To assume that deteriorated matter is suitable to host Christ’s Precious Body and Blood is to render a terrible insult to Our Lord and the common and constant teaching of His Church. How can anyone really and truly believe that the adorable, all-lovable and most perfect Body of Christ continues to reside in rancid bread?! The Church teaches that in the case of doubt concerning the Sacraments, one must not consider the Sacrament valid for a reason. That reason is that in this way the Sacraments are never exposed to the possibility of sacrilege or abuse. Why would Bawden’s followers or anyone else, contrary to all Church teaching, run the risk of holding Christ prisoner in this hellish matter simply to satisfy their own selfish desires when the Church teaches otherwise? It is not good enough that Our Lord is everywhere, and that He has promised that wherever two or three are gathered in His name, there shall He be in the midst of them. It is not good enough that even as evil as this country’s government is, at least we can worship in our homes and in public if we wish. It is not good enough that in these times Christ has willed that we do not deserve the Mass, the Sacraments OR EVEN THE PRIVILEGE OF ADORING CHRIST IN THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT.
Pohle, Preuss and others teach that it is certain that Christ continues to be present under the appearances of bread and wine "as long as these appearances are apt to contain within themselves the substances of bread and wine." The Church, empowered by Christ to determine this aptness, draws the actual line at 15 days, and as Christ promised, what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that hosts are corrupted when: a) Their color, savor and other qualities become incompatible with bread; b) If the bread (can) be reduced to dust or fine particles, (Q. 77, Arts. 4 & 5, Pt. III. Freshly baked hosts are pliant and somewhat moist and cannot be reduced to particles or dust in this way.). In article five, St. Thomas explains that nothing takes place miraculously in this Sacrament save the actual Consecration followed by Transubstantiation. In other words, the bread that becomes Christ's Body is not naturally preserved from deterioration by the act of Transubstantiation, since the Eucharistic Presence does not suspend the laws of nature itself. Otherwise, there would be no limit to the freshness of those hosts that must be kept for consecration, nor those Hosts already consecrated, both of which are never to be more than a month old in the most severe circumstances, and most preferably are to be only a week to 15 days old. In 1826, the Sacred Congregation of Rites ruled that it would be an abuse to consecrate hosts which were three to six months old, (The Eucharist — Law and Practice).
The impression given by Bawden and his supporters is that the "miraculously" incorrupt hosts in their possession are somehow an indication of their purity of faith and of Bawden's "papal" validity. According to scholastic principles, (scholasticism being the only philosophic method the Church has ever proposed as sound), "in identifying the unseen cause of a phenomenon, the least cause capable of explaining the phenomenon must be accepted…A proportionate cause is required and suffices…Miracles must not be postulated as an explanation when a natural cause suffices in the circumstances," (Summary of Scholastic Principles, Rev. Bernard Wuellner, S. J.). The host has not crumbled because it has not been handled or divided; it is assumed incorrupt because no one capable of being truly objective has either tasted it, handled it nor smelled it. It appears whole, but Church laws and teaching tell us that it is not “apt to contain the substance of bread…” While it is indeed pitiful that these supporters long so desperately for the spiritual goods of the Church this is scarcely a good enough excuse for neglecting to examine the Church laws and teachings in this matter.
A close look at Holy Scripture alone reveals the condemnations of "bread idols" and the rites that produce them. In The Divine Armory, an extensive cross-reference of Scripture quotations compiled by Rev. Kenelm Vaughan, we find the following under the heading, Names and Types of the False Christs: "bread idols, the bread of deceit, the bread of lying, bread of wickedness, wheat bringing forth thorns, profitless wheat, the two iniquities [bread and wine], unacceptable holocaust, a sin graven on the horns of the altar, wicked gifts,” and so forth, all with a corresponding Scripture verse. Vaughan even includes as a type of false Christ a host which has been abandoned by the Real Presence due to corruption or invalid consecration. Here also is listed as connected to this topic the sin of desolation and the abomination of desolation, both mentioned in Daniel. One of the most striking quotes Vaughan cites is the following, taken from Ezech. 13:19: "They violated Me among my people for a piece of bread, telling lies to My people that believe lies." And here we must remember that the bread mentioned in Holy Scripture is, after all, true bread, not the corrupted bread of which we here speak which is even more of an abomination. The most merciful and reverent thing that could be done in regard to those possessing these certainly corrupted hosts is to reverently dispose of them, as presumably having once housed the Body of Christ. Each day they continue to be given false adoration is a day in which God is crucified anew.
Finally, in all this, there is also the matter of simony, a grave sin condemned by Bawden in Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, pg. 238. Simony is best defined by St. Peter: "Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee; because thou has thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." (Acts 8:20). Canon Law defines simony as "the deliberate will to buy or sell intrinsically spiritual things such as the Sacraments, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, consecration, etc., for a temporal price…This is simony forbidden by the Divine law." Revs. Woywod and Smith state that simony can be any bilateral agreement between the two parties to constitute simony. Rev. Prummer says that the good can also be annexed to something spiritual, and that these contracts can be strictly mental and not external. An actual contract, when it exists, needs only to be partly executed by both parties for the simony to be real. These three types of simony are graves sins but are not usually visited with ecclesiastical penalties. The spiritual good can be purchased with money or immovable goods handed over to obtain the spiritual good, (munus a manu); an offering made in the form of a service to obtain it, (munus ab obsequio) or by way of praise, flattery, intercession, etc., (munus a lingua).
In Bawden’s summary of simony mentioned above, he omits the mention of a type of simony Prummer lists as confidential. This form of simony corresponds to munus ab obsequio. This confidential agreement concerns obtaining, conferring or accepting an ecclesiastical benefice with the expectation of benefiting from it in some way. Bawden falsely claims to have received such a benefice; his followers claim to have conferred it and obviously benefit from it in various ways. They pay tithes this benefice allows Bawden to solicit, and yet none of it is real. If nothing else, a rule of law applies here: whatever appears to be sinful is sinful unless proven otherwise, which seems to agree with Can. 2200. But whether there is any simony in this regard or not is not important, since the type Bawden himself refers to below seems obvious enough.
By defending Bawden against his “detractors” and praising him for his sacrilegious actions, Bawden in turn elevates those acknowledging his “papacy” and “clerical” designation to the grand status of “sole surviving Catholics.” This is a process he described a year before his “election,” a process he at that time applied to Traditionalist sects. Bawden wrote: “Munus a lingua, when praise, flattery, intercession etc.., are offered as the price of some spiritual good one expects to receive from another…is probably the most common form of simony. People are always praising Father for his sacrifice for the Faith. However should Father commit some breach of law, canonical or even moral, they hesitate to make the correction required by Divine law. This failure is implicit simony, because they will happily praise him before and after the infraction, but fail to fulfill their Divine law obligation to question the Father’s actions, They are afraid that if they question the priest’s behavior that they will lose his services and thus commit simony.” Applied to the present situation, this description fits so clearly that it does not need to be explained further. The one thing Bawden’s followers dare not question first and foremost is his valid election, and following this the absolute authority he falsely insists was received as a result of this election, powers that far exceed those of any priest.
If one remembers that God wrote the Ten Commandments in the order of their importance, the absolute worst sins then, above all the others, are those of idolatry, false worship and sacrilege, (abusing or trafficking in holy things). In their Moral Theology, a Complete Course, Revs. McHugh and Callan state that “In the adoration of the Eucharist, there would be idolatry, at least material, if an unconsecrated host were exposed for veneration, (#2281)…The consecrated species kept for Communion and adoration should be frequently renewed, lest they be corrupted. It would be a serious sin of irreverence to neglect this duty for over one or two months, or even for a shorter time if the danger of corruption is great on account of local conditions, such as dampness,” (# 2708 b). While it may be dry in Colorado, it is damp in Ohio where the hosts resided for some seven or eight years, and it is certainly damp in Kansas. Whether a serious (mortal) sin of irreverence or a sin of material idolatry or worse, McHugh, Callan and numerous others interpret this as irreverence offered to the Blessed Sacrament. McHugh and Callan class such irreverence under sins of improper worship also treated in connection with idolatry, (#2275 a). It is hard to understand how anyone could ignore the constant pre-1958 teaching of the Church, when it is this very pre-1958 Church that Bawden and his followers have always claimed to uphold. But then novelties and contradictions have ever been the hallmark of non-Catholic sects.
While corrupted bread is the primary idol under discussion here, McHugh and Callan describe a type of superstition, annexed to idolatry, that would include Bawden as one of those falsely worshipped. Under the heading “Worship of False Deity” these authors write: “Worship of a false deity is performed by offering a creature an act of homage due to God alone. Hence there are three species of this superstition…(c) when a creature is treated as the supreme ruler; when assistance which only God can grant is sought from it, (vain observance),” (# 2276). Pope Paul IV taught infallibly, also St. Bernard and many noted theologians, that the abomination of desolation referred to by Daniel could be an antipope uncanonically elected. St. Paul and St. Jerome as well as others also are clear on this subject: antichrist will be worshipped personally as a god. Idolatry is a sin that Prummer tells us must be a) offered to a creature; b) whom one presumes to be divine. A Pope is not Divine per se but is invested with Divine power; He is Christ’s supreme representative on earth and honor and reverence is given to him on this account. However Prummer does indicate that invincible ignorance lessens the sin of idolatry. This is true when the proper steps to inform oneself of the truth have been taken, (a topic that will be treated elsewhere on this site at length in the future.)
Only God knows if invincible ignorance exists or not in any particular case. And only a true pope and true bishops commissioned by him can decide authoritatively whether those who do not follow the Church’s laws and teachings to the letter today are material heretics, formal heretics no heretics at all or whether they are deserving of some other kind of censure. That does not mean that the faithful are not bound to make this decision for themselves, prior to the event. It does not mean that those who have knowingly and publicly violated a Church law to which a censure is attached are excused from observing that censure as the law itself demands. It means that ALL of us who write are trying to fulfill our obligation to defend the faith without the supervision of legitimate authority, and that as such we are subject to error and must be willing to be corrected if and when it is determined by a canonically elected pope and bishops that we have indeed erred. As those reading any of the articles on this site will observe, at the bottom of the Home page and elsewhere, anything said on this site is subject to the judgment of the future Roman Pontiff, canonically elected. He alone can decide its value, if any. Even if something said here was correct in every way, where disciplinary matters are concerned he alone has the power to change or review it. What is said here represents my best efforts to adhere to the laws and teachings of the Church, according to all I know and to the dictates of conscience. Yet it could not it even be said if the willingness to remove, change or adapt it in any way at the command of legitimate authority, was lacking. In the absence of a true pope, we are commanded to make known and defend the truth to the best of our ability or risk censure ourselves. But we can never do so if one of the censures we strive to avoid is that censure we would incur if not subject to the true Roman Pontiff in all things.
Canon 2259 tells us that once a man becomes a notorious excommunicate, he may not participate in any way in divine services (Mass, sacramental rites, blessings, consecrations, etc, according to Can. 2256) and this does not even mention heresy or schism! Not only may he not participate in Divine services, the canon states that he must be expelled if he even tries to participate. This is the esteem in which the Church holds Her solemn rites. Think of what Her prelates of the past would say if they beheld not only excommunicates but also laymen, apostates, heretics and schismatics violating Her Sacrifice, Sacraments and sacramentals! In fact the faithful can even object to a toleratus with jurisdiction and eject him, thus effectively revoking his jurisdiction (Rev. Francis Hyland, Excommunication, Catholic University of America canon law commentary). This also is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas concerning notorious facts and public delicts. The notoriety of David Bawden has been extant for over a year now; and those knowingly and deliberately cooperating with him are subject to censure as well, according to the laws of the Church.
Canon 1935 tells us: “…An obligation to denounce an offender exists whenever one is obliged to do so either by law or by special legitimate precept, or by the natural law in view of the danger to the faith or religion or other imminent public evil.” The law that commands us to so denounce is Can. 1325, because silence and manner of acting can be interpreted as a denial of faith; we cannot fail to denounce one whose actions or words clearly evidence heresy without fear of cooperating in his sins. Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and the practice of the Church also show that antipopes must be ousted, even if it is necessary to call in the civil authority to assist in this. Since we cannot make this dethronement a physical reality, we are bound all the more to do everything possible to accomplish it by every other available means.
So posting this warning against various forms of idolatry and irreverence is the least God expects of me to properly atone for my sins. Those who have sinned publicly and who have set themselves up as the teachers of others have an even greater obligation to admonish and warn their brethren. Indeed, this is the entire purpose for and motivation behind this very web site. Even those who have not acted as teachers are commanded by Christ to apply fraternal correction, in the proper order, when the occasion arises. And if some would object that these admonitions are not necessary, or that what is written here is too harsh or “brutal,” they are ignorant of what is required of them by Canon Law, and this even when lesser violations than heresy and schism are involved.
The 19th century preacher, Rev. Hunolt, only echoes Canon Law below in his sermon The Duty of Fraternal Correction: “All superiors, whether lay or eccle siastical, who have to protect the interests of their subjects in towns or villages: such as parish priests and those who have a care of souls with regard to their parishioners; teachers with regard to their pupils; parents with regard to their sons and daughter, masters and mistresses with regard to their servants and other domestics; husbands with regard to their wives… all those who have any position of superiority or authority over others…are bound in justice not only to admonish, warn, and exhort in a fatherly manner those subjects of theirs whom they see to be in sin or in the danger of sin, but also to re prove and punish them if warnings or threats have proved un availing; so that they who are careless or forgetful of this duty are guilty of all the sins and vices that they failed to correct and prevent in their subjects. We are just as guilty as if we ourselves committed the sinful act; for he who does not correct what should be corrected is guilty of the sin. And God will one day require the souls of those subjects at our hands, as He Himself says: “At the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother will I require the life of man” (Gen. 9: 5).
“Therefore if your brother sins, go and rebuke him. Each one will find opportunities enough of doing this, provided he wishes to help his neighbor to amend. Remember how often you have given others scandal and been the occasion of sin to them, thus helping in the ruin of souls. That consideration alone should be suffi cient to induce you to be all the more zealous in atoning for the harm you have done and in gaining new souls to God, [all emphasis ours. And here it must be noted that Rev. Hunolt assumes that ALL have helped in this ruination. Therefore it is scarcely any rare admission of “guilt,” but only honesty, that compels all true Catholics to strike their breasts as sinners and own up to this sad fact. – Ed.] Consider the example of St. Paul. After his conversion he hardly took time to refresh his body, emaciated as it was by a three days’ fast. But at once he set about the work of converting sinners to Christ; he who before was a persecutor, as soon as he became a Christian himself, began without delay to induce others to follow his ex ample: ‘And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the son of God,’ (Acts 9: 20). We have another ex ample in David. When he had repented of his sins his first res olution was to become a teacher and an apostle, to warn others from following the broad road of vice, and to lead them to God: “I will teach the unjust thy ways; and the wicked shall be con verted to thee” (Ps. 1: 15). This was what our Lord said to St. Peter, after having foretold his lamentable fall: ‘And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren,’ (St. Luke 22: 32). His meaning was: thou wilt indeed rise after thy fall; but remember, at the same time, that thou art bound to help thy brethren, and to sustain them by word and example. Follow these examples, and you will atone to God for your former faults.”
Thus did St. Paul dare to confront even St. Peter. And although this website does not correct a pope, but an antipope, all the more reason to be persistent, diligent and brutally frank when the truth and the salvation of souls is at stake. |
