In the book, Will the Catholic Church Survive the 20th Century, a method of papal election in these unsettled times is deduced from the laws governing similar cases (the election of bishops and chapter heads, particularly the devolution principle mentioned in Can. 178) and the election law of Pope Pius XII. Already in the 13th and 14th centuries, canonists writing at the time had arrived at the opinion that a man elected who was not consecrated bishop, before his coronation, would receive supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church upon his acceptance of the election. These canonists also reasoned as they did from the laws governing the election of bishops. Their canonical work provided the foundation for papal election law in the 20th century.

The election law of Pope Pius XII was used in the election of David Bawden July 16, 1990 wherever possible. Given the lack of cardinals and clergy, the law of Pope Nicholas II restricting elections to cardinals but allowing for elections in an emergency, also Can. 20 was used to permit the laity (including women), to elect a Pope in such an extreme necessity only. As the creator of this election law, Pope Pius XII, in a 1957 address, defined the terms of his own law in accordance with Can. 17 where the election of a layman is concerned. He stated: "Even if a layman were elected Pope, he could accept the election only if he were fit for ordination and willing to be ordained. But the power to teach and govern, as well as the charism of infallibility, would be granted to him from the very moment of his acceptance, even before his ordination."

Since Pope Pius XII interpreted his own law in this manner, no one has examined the full implication of what his definition of terms truly means. Now the papal election laws are considered only ecclesiastical in origin, hence they have been subject to change over the centuries. And yet it seems that little has been written governing the election of laymen, per se, other than these guidelines provided by Pope Pius XII, and the previous writings of the canonists in medieval times. Canon 17 teaches: "The authoritative interpretation of the law given in the form of law has the same force as the law itself…If the interpretation restricts or extends the original law…it must be promulgated to be binding." Canon 9 states that a law ordinarily is promulgated when it appears in the Acta Apostolica Sedis, the Church’s official organ of publication. But it does allow that "in a particular case(s), another mode of promulgation [may be] prescribed." Generally a human or ecclesiastical law is considered such whenever it is clear that it is a) an ordinance of reason, b) made for the common good, c) by one who has care for the community and d) promulgated or made known to the governed. The first three conditions obviously have been fulfilled. The question remains then, did Pope Pius XII promulgate this law?

It appears that he did, given the tenor of his address. The crowd he addressed was universal in nature (this was a World Congress of the Lay Apostolate, consisting in 2,300 lay apostolate leaders from all over the world) and the Pope mentions in his address the presence of "cardinals, bishops, priests and prominent laymen from more than 80 nations." He very thoroughly defines the role of lay Catholics working in the apostolate, being careful to distinguish them from the hierarchy. He details their contributions, the traits they must exhibit for a successful apostolate and their duties to the Church as lay apostles. Clearly he wished to dispel mistaken notions and lay down proper teaching in this matter. The address was printed in French in Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s official newspaper; A National Catholic Welfare Conference publication in the U.S.; The Pope Speaks, Vol. IV; Rev. Morrow’s My Catholic Faith catechism, and also is mentioned in Rev. Cox’s work. These are only the known publications of this address, as other outlets may have quoted it as well. What is interesting about Pope Pius XII’s comment on papal election law in this address is that it is made precisely to those who would be most likely to remember it and apply it, should the occasion arise. This in itself seems to indicate that he wished the distinction to be made especially to those who might have need of it in the future. Given only a year before his death, it is unlikely that this speech received great attention from the canonists.

Canons 22 and 23
Two other canons also must be mentioned here. Canon 22 reads: "A more recent law, given by competent authority, abrogates a former law…if it readjusts the entire subject matter of the former law." Now the entire matter of Pope Pius XII’s papal election law was not readjusted by his later law expressed to the Lay Congress, only that part that pertained to the election of a layman. And yet the consideration of an actual dogmatic fact is at stake here—whether a layman not fit to become a priest can accept the papacy. This would seem, then, to affect the whole law, which was written precisely to secure the canonical election of a Pope. Rev. Amleto Cicognani writes: "In such case, though the legislator does not expressly declare himself, still it is otherwise sufficiently clear that he intends to readjust the entire subject matter of the former law." Revs. Woywod-Smith commented as follows on this canon: "Such a new general law can only be made by the Holy See. It abolishes a former law [only] if it explicitly declares the former law abolished." Pope Pius XII’s election law stands, but his 1957 address has adjusted the subject matter. Canon 23 resolves any question concerning subject matter, for it states that "…More recent laws are to be, as far as possible, reconciled with the former laws so that one may supplement and not contradict the other." Pope Pius XII’s later amendment of his own law is easily reconciled with his papal election law.

Vacantis Apostolica Sedis
Now we shall compare Pope Pius XII’s election law Vacantis Apostolica Sedis with what was stated in Six ans se sont. Revs. Woywod-Smith, commenting on the constitution write: "The only motives of the electors is to be the election of the one who is best-fitted to govern the universal Church…When the canonical election has taken place…the Dean of the Sacred College in the name of all asks the one elected whether he accepts the office. He must express his acceptance or refusal of the office within the period of time determined by the Sacred College by majority vote of the cardinals. The moment he accepts he is the true Pope and obtains and may exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world. The Dean asks him what name he chooses. The acceptance of the office and a choice of name are then certified by document…If the one elected is not a priest or bishop, he is to be ordained or consecrated."

Here we must take this sentence by sentence. The electors of David Bawden had no choice of anyone else to elect save David Bawden. No clergy attended the election. No other males sufficiently versed in Catholic doctrine were present. When they realized Bawden was the only choice, two females seriously considered backing out of the election but were strongly urged by Bawden’s father to continue on and did so. Another voter later said he had doubts about Bawden’s ability to fill the position but did not mention them at the time. So they did elect the one most fit among them, but it is one thing to elect the most fit from among other unfit and questionably fit candidates; quite another to elect the most fit from among a selection of very fit candidates. The one elected is not granted universal jurisdiction by Divine law until acceptance of the election. If a layman was elected, the cardinals might vote to wait for two weeks, say, to determine whether the one elected was fit for ordination if positive proofs to this effect were not readily available. This is a provision of law that was not taken advantage of at Bawden’s election, where all presumed he had the necessary qualifications because he never spelled those qualifications out in the pre-election book as required by law, (Can. 147). It is the candidate’s responsibility, in the absence of the clergy, to provide these proofs. Since these proofs have not been duly provided, we return to that point in time prior to Bawden’s acceptance, if we are to obey Pope Pius XII’s election law and Six ans se sont. Canons 154 and 453 demand under pain of invalidity of the appointment (and one method of appointment is election — Canon 148§5) that one occupying an office involving the care of souls be at least a priest, so Pope Pius XII’s law had a sound basis. Also we must remember that Can. 108 defines the order of the hierarchy as established by Divine institution and Can. 109 clearly teaches that the degrees of the power of orders preceding ordination and sacred Ordination itself can be conferred only by the proper hierarchy and not the laity.

Only when it is determined that one elected can accept the election, according to Canon Law and Pope Pius XII’s laws, does that person gain universal jurisdiction by Divine law. Bawden was a pope-elect for almost 17 years per those laws, but during that time did not strive to better fit himself for the priesthood or even determine what direction the Church needed to be pointed in for the good of the faithful. His followers received long-distance warnings about the three days of darkness, warnings of economic disaster, the Y2K debacle, lectures on the evils of TV, junk food and sugar, and continuous, protracted and pointed lectures on charity and the sins connected to it. In the mid-1990s and again in 1999, the author admonished Bawden to investigate the necessity of various disciplines other than theology, necessary for fitness for the priesthood. He refused, stating that this was an affront to his authority. He also was advised to look into and teach the temperaments with a view to helping the faithful better understand themselves and others, since this was the method used by spiritual directors to form seminarians. Again, he refused. Recently he has stated that his continuing education in this area "is not important."

Worthy priestly candidates
What renders a man fit for ordination according to Canon Law? The laws governing the fitness of candidates for ordination are found in Cans. 1369-1371. Latin is to be the primary subject studied in the seminary during the seminarians’ entire course of study. No one is to be admitted to the study of philosophy (a mandatory two years) or theology (a mandatory four years) without the mastery of Latin, (Woywod-Smith’s commentary on Pope Pius XI’s instruction concerning seminaries, contained under Can. 1366). Canon Law, Holy Scripture, Church history, catechesis, psychology, pastoral theology; also Gregorian chant, liturgy, and church music must be studied. These authors state however, after listing the various subjects to be pursued, "But still more is there need of a spiritual director who shall devote all his time to the things of God and the care of the soul…His duty is to know the life and character of the seminarians so as to be able to give them prudent and safe advice regarding their vocation. In private conversation and in conferences he must teach them the dignity, the office and the duties of the priesthood of Christ." So spiritual guidance is considered even more important to the seminarian than the acquisition of knowledge. Pope Pius XII wrote the year before his address to the Lay Congress: "The first place in the program of [priestly] formation must be given to supernatural sanctification of the soul. If the words of the Apostle, ‘For this is the will of God, your sanctification," apply to all Christians, they bind all the more one who not only has received the priesthood, but has made a public profession of his resolve to pursue evangelical perfection; one whose office has so constituted him an instrument for the sanctification of others that the salvation of souls and the spread of God’s kingdom depend in large measure upon his holiness."

This Dom Chautard also observed. "Should the conduct of one in the ministry no longer correspond to what is expected of him, then his work, no matter how cleverly it may be carried on, is injured and is perhaps doomed to ruin past recovery…’In all things show thyselves an example of good works.’ Pope Leo XIII said: ‘The absolutely necessary condition for true zeal and the best pledge for success is pureness and holiness of life.’ And Pope Pius X said: ‘If the mind is not guided by a rule of life that is truly holy and Christian, it will be difficult to induce others to a Godly life.’" And in his encyclical Menti Nostrae, addressed to the clergy of the entire world, Pope Pius XII taught: "In undertaking and advancing in the spiritual life…do not trust too much to yourselves, but with docile simplicity seek out and accept the help of someone who can guide your soul, point out to you the dangers, suggest suitable remedies…and guide you toward an ever greater perfection." It is true that much of this guidance was lacking. But Bawden found ways to work around similar problems in other areas, yet he could not be bothered to find an alternative for the true pursuit of that one thing mpost essential to Orders — holiness.

Defining priestly fitness
Requisites for ordination are found under Cans. 973-974. Canon 973 reads, in part, "…The bishop shall not confer major orders on anyone unless from positive signs he is morally certain [certain from positive proofs—Woywod-Smith] of canonical fitness; otherwise he not only sins very grievously, but also places himself in danger of sharing in the sins of others." Woywod-Smith comment on this canon: "The Council of Trent already ruled that the bishop should receive into the seminary only those whom one could reasonably foresee that they would persevere in the service of God and the Church…The Code here demands that the candidate for sacred orders give positive proof of having the required qualifications…positive evidence of conduct, mental ability and general fitness. The Code here endorses the practically unanimous opinion of theologians. Most writers thus hold that a candidate is not to be admitted to sacred orders if his fitness is doubtful, and the Code confirms this opinion…" Canon 974 requires the reception of confirmation, canonical age and due knowledge, among other requirements (not pertinent to this discussion).

Here we must quote the theologian Rev. Jean-Marie Herve on unworthy candidates: "In the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the public good demands that the unworthy applicant even if he be secret, be repelled even though his offense cannot be juridically proved. In this case the reception of the Sacrament is considered inferior in worth to the worthy exercise of the sacred functions and the public good of the Church. According to Pesch: ‘He who trenches on a public good thereby loses his right to a private good if the public good cannot effectively be defended without injury to the latter.’"

Canons 1369-1371 treat the manner in which seminaries are operated. These canons order seminary directors to imbue seminarians with "the ecclesiastical spirit," and inculcate habits of "politeness…hygiene…cleanliness in person and dress, courtesy, moderation and gravity." Canon 1370 demands that whenever students receive instruction outside the seminary, they shall be entrusted to "the care and surveillance of a pious and capable priest," (Can. 970). Canon 1371 states that "Disorderly, incorrigible or seditious students, and those who because of their character or temperament do not seem suitable candidates for the clerical state, shall be dismissed from the seminary. Students who progress so slowly in their studies that there is not much hope that they will acquire sufficient learning shall also be dismissed. If a seminarian should be guilty of an offense against good morals or the faith, he shall be summarily discharged."

Again from Sedes Sapientiae, Pope Pius XII teaches: "For it is obvious that those who aspire to exercise the priestly ministry in the state of perfection, and for whose benefit these norms are being laid down, must possess every quality necessary to constitute this many-sided vocation, religious, priestly and apostolic. Hence, they must be endowed with all the gifts and talents that are judged essential to the fulfillment of so high a service of God." After instructing those responsible in any way for the training of religious to "impart such formation in an organized and gradated manner," Pius says: "Thus the supernatural training, whether for the religious life or the priesthood, will be based on the solid foundation of natural integrity and refined personality. Surely men will find the way to serve Christ more easy and inviting to the extent that they see in the person of the priest the goodness and kindness of God Our Savior…." Covering all the essential points found in Can. 1369, he continues: "Those who are to be ministers and apostles of Christ…will be able to administer the sacraments well, to actively promote the good of souls, and to benefit all to whom they minister in word and deed…They will display in all their words and works a supernatural prudence united with evangelical simplicity, a humble abnegation of self…a firm trust in God and a keen sense of duty, manly enterprise in assuming tasks, constancy in purpose in accomplishing these undertakings, persevering fidelity in doing their duty, great courage in enduring and doing heroic things and, finally, a Christian affability and courtesy that will draw all men to them." Already we have read Pope Pius XII’s expectations for spiritual formation of priests. We have read enough of Sedes Sapientiae, then, to know what Pope Pius XII meant by fitness for ordination.

The Holy See defines vocation
What was the obligation, then, for one who wished to become a priest in the 1970s to the present? Pope Pius XII taught that there are two essential elements to a vocation, "one divine, the other ecclesiastical. As to the first element, God’s call to embrace…the priestly life must be considered so necessary that in its absence the foundation upon which the whole structure is to rest is absent…The religious and priestly vocation [is] divine, since it is invested with a sublime dignity and adorned with so many natural and supernatural gifts." Pius XII then defined the word vocation from Pope St. Pius V’s Roman Catechism as follows: "They are said to be called by God who are called by the lawful ministers of the Church. Far from contradicting what we have said concerning God’s call, this position is actually in close agreement with it. For by a divine vocation to the religious and clerical state, a person undertakes publicly to lead a life of holiness in the Church, a visible and hierarchical society, and to exercise this hierarchical ministry. Such a person, therefore, ought to be authoritatively tested, approved and directed by the hierarchical rulers to whom God has entrusted the administration of the Church."

Undoubtedly in writing these words, Pope Pius XII was factoring into his constitution the decision of the Holy See on this matter issued in 1912. This decision is summarized by Woywod-Smith in their commentary on Can. 971: "Not every man has a strict right to ordination, for the bishop is free to choose whom he pleases from the qualified candidates, as the Holy See decided [in 1912]…The Holy See approved the contention of Can. Lahitton that the sacerdotal vocation does not necessarily consist in a certain internal aspiration of the candidate or in invitations of the Holy Ghost, but that nothing further is required in the candidate than that the bishop legitimately calls him, and that he has given proof of his proper qualifications and has the right intention in accepting the call of the bishop. The possession of the proper qualifications with the bishop’s call is sufficient presumption of the divine vocation." We have the call of the bishop. What we do not have is proof of qualifications and fitness.

Two distinct acts
The method for electing a lay Pope was explained at length in Will the Catholic Church Survive the 20th Century? in 1990, although fitness for ordination was not considered in relation to a lay pope in this work. The election of a layman as Pope and the ordination of a layman as priest are two distinct and separate acts. Canon 19 as explained by Rev. Cicognani best explains the distinction of these acts: "Laws which decree a penalty, or restrict the free exercise of one’s rights, or establish an exemption from the law, must be interpreted in a strict sense." Rev. Woywod states in his commentary on Can. 19 that "this class of law is considered ‘odious’ and must be interpreted strictly. It is a recognized principle of legislation to favor the universal or common law and to discourage exceptions. Rev. Amleto Cicognani writes concerning the second sort of law restricting one’s rights: "Laws which restrict the free exercise of one’s rights…are invalidating and disqualifying laws." That ordination is a Sacrament that gives many rights to those ordained is without question.

A layman "could accept election only if he were fit for ordination;" this is a restriction of the pope-elect’s right to assume the office, supported by Canons 154 and 453. As such Pius XII's statement is an invalidating and disqualifying law; if it cannot be obeyed then the one elected cannot accept. And yet it cannot be obeyed in the absence of valid clergy to ordain. Pope Pius XII’s farsightedness, however, most likely did not encompass the prospect of no valid clergy or truly Catholic seminaries. Nor is it likely that he believed a lengthy time period would elapse between the election of a layman and his ordination. But given the fact that an only partially fit Pope could possibly be elected owing to a lack of any candidates not heretics or schismatics, it is certain he would have agreed that the higher law must be followed and the Church supplied with a true Pope. This is clearly Pius XII’s mind as expressed in Mystici Corporus Christi.

The third provision of Can 19 would validate the election of a layman as an exception to the papal election law, which usually allows only the election of cardinals to the papacy. Cicognani writes: "Those laws which favor religion are to be considered favorable rather than odious laws, even though they establish exceptions. The footnote to Can. 19, based on a decision of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, July 2, 1827, reads: ‘Laws made in favor of religion are to be considered favorable laws, and consequently are subject to a wider interpretation.’" These include laws that "uphold the public good and morality." Pope Nicholas II, in his law restricting the right of papal election to the Cardinals made an exception for the faithful (and clergy) to elect a Pope in a time of emergency. The faithful have a right to appeal to the Pope and the election of a Pope definitely favors the public good and morality. In a conflict of law, the higher law always prevails. The Church’s need for a Pope in order to secure Her very existence could be said to overcome personal defect in a candidate, aside from heresy. But is the existence of a Pope elected with numerous defects, contrary to the laws and teachings of the Church truly God’s will and DOES it really safeguard the common good? The entire gist of the necessity of the Pope’s existence is for the benefit of the faithful, not the one who claims to be Pope. It is the higher law that a legitimately elected Pope exist, one who will tirelessly lead the flock to green pastures and not disedify his followers or dishonor the Church; one who after his election will follow all the laws and teachings of the Church, truly serve the faithful and be able to do all those things that will restore the Church and bring her peace and unity. THAT is the higher law.

As Rev. Jean-Marie Herve writes, "Where the minister is conceived as a judge, he must always first learn the fitness of the applicant. This is the case in …Holy Orders, whereby new rights, and they of the greatest moment for the universal Church and the salvation of souls are conferred." Because the law of Pope Pius XII restricts these rights strictly under Can. 19, and because Holy Orders is in a class by itself where conferral is concerned, no conferral of the rite can occur unless fitness is proven. This is supported by the words of St. Paul in Holy Scripture. It also would be contrary to Pope Pius XII’s infallible decree Sedes Sapientiae and not even a successor can change the infallible laws of his predecessor. Papal election law is ecclesiastical law; this is true. But no one would think of changing or modifying Pius XII’s election law to include heretics as papal candidates, for this violates another infallible decree — Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. In evaluating Pope Pius XII’s 1957 explanation of the papal election law, we must take Can. 21 into consideration,

Canon 21 states: "Laws enacted for the purpose of guarding against a common danger bind, even when there is no danger." One would think that a Pope would automatically be excluded from any inquiry into fitness for ordination; that such an ordination and consecration would never pose a danger to the Church. In fact one might even be tempted to assume that since such a situation has never occurred before in Church history — the election of a lay pope culminating in a long-delayed ordination — the law would even cease to bind because it no longer seems to apply. Yet Pope Pius XII certainly believed ordination without inquiry into a candidate’s fitness posed a danger, and Can. 21 says that even if no danger is posed, the law still binds. Fitness must be established before a layman can be ordained. We read from Rev. Herve above that ordination of the unfit is a grave danger to the faithful, and Can. 21 was enacted to guard against this danger. As Rev. Cicognani explains under Can. 21, "When the end of the law is to avoid a common danger, this danger is not effectively and certainly avoided unless the law binds and obliges all. Moreover, one can easily have hallucinations regarding the cessation of the end of a law, and thus the law would be frustrated." Pope Pius XII had a serious reason for insisting on this amendment to the law as he did, and it is our duty to find that reason.

As Dr. Rudolf Allers has observed, wishing to avoid the observance of the order that binds others in order to achieve the desired end indicates a "definite disregard of rules recognized by other people; this is tantamount to declaring that these rules do not exist for this one individual or that he is above the rules and above those who observe them." (Allers’ psychology texts would probably have been studied by seminarians, since these texts were in general use in Catholic universities at the time, and still are studied today.) The Roman Pontiff is never above the rules, although he can introduce new legislation, abolish merely ecclesiastical laws and issue binding decrees of his own. To disregard Canon Law would be to inspire contempt for the law itself as well as Church teaching.

Lay electors and their duties
No seminary officials exist to render testimony concerning fitness; the candidate has never attended a real seminary. There is great concern because a lay pope-elect must not only being ordained, but consecrated as well. Any presiding bishop in the present case could have little real knowledge of his fitness. If the laity possessed the right to act as papal electors under the laws of devolution applied to religious chapters, then certainly they have the same right to testify to the fitness of a man to be ordained a priest, since this is the completion of the election as defined by Pope Pius XII. In fact the Church accords them this privilege in the very Rite of Sacred Ordination itself, called the scrutiny, in which members of the laity are required to expose any unfitness in the candidate. The scrutiny cannot be omitted from the sacred rite of ordination. This was forbidden in Pope Pius XII’s infallible constitution Sacramentum Ordinis on the matter and form of Holy Orders, where Pius forbid priests and bishops to omit even the slightest detail in any given sacramental rite. Also Canon 1002 states: "The minister, in conferring any of the Orders, must observe the proper rites described in the Roman Pontifical and other liturgical books, which for no reason may be changed or inverted." The text of the scrutiny section of the Ordination Rite used in Pope Pius XII’s time reads:

" Dearly beloved brethren, the captain of a ship and the passengers are in the same condition as to safety or danger. Their cause is common, therefore they ought to be of the same mind. Indeed, not without reason did the Fathers ordain that in the election of candidates for the service of the altar the people also should be consulted. For it happens here and there that, as to the life and conduct of a candidate, some few know what is unknown to the majority. Necessarily, also, people will render obedience more readily to the ordained if they have consented to his ordination. Now, with the help of the Lord, these deacons are to be ordained priests. As far as I can judge, their life has been of approved goodness and pleasing to God, and, in my opinion, merits for them promotion to a higher ecclesiastical honor. However, lest one or a few be mistaken in their judgment, or deceived by affection, we must hear the opinion of many. Therefore, whatsoever you know about their lives or character, whatsoever you think of their worthiness, freely make it known. Testify as to their fitness for the priesthood, according to merit rather than according to affection. If anyone has anything against them, before God and for the sake of God let him confidently come forward and speak. However, let him be mindful of his [human] condition."

Of course the ordination of individuals also is announced form the pulpit for the prescribed time period prior to ordination, also giving the laity time to object on serious grounds. But this is impossible today.

Commenting on this part of the rite, Rev. Biskupek says: In a general way the faithful know what kind of a man will be a good captain…Some [may] know the candidate even better than those who present him for ordination, possibly some who know he is unworthy. If so, in the interest of their own safety and that of others, in the interest of God’s glory and the welfare of the Church, it is their duty to testify against such a candidate. Human considerations must be disregarded; the testimony is to be given according to facts, and not according to affection one might have for him…People have a right to watch the candidates for the priesthood as well as the priest, and they do so. No man is watched more closely than the priest," (emph. mine).The people have an obligation to deflect those from the sacred ministry who cannot perform their duties in the proper manner or who in some way are defective in their character or morals. That obligation binds now even more gravely, since no one else knows the character and fitness of the candidate. No one is questioning the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in faith or morals in addressing his fitness for ordination. Rather they are exercising a right granted to the faithful from ancient times, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. They certainly cannot lie or omit any testimony concerning such fitness, or they answer to God for their sins as the rite itself declares. And no subject should ever be made to feel he must choose between obedience to a clear ordinance of God and obedience to a superior for fear of censure.

Could a "Pope" declare that the scrutiny be omitted only in the ordination and/or consecration of himself as "Pope"? Not without doing what he himself has condemned as heretical in anti-pope Paul 6 for decades. Sacramentum Ordinis forbids this omission. What possibly valid reason could one invoke in wishing to deliberately escape this scrutiny ordered for centuries by the Church? Who would not immediately be scandalized by this act, which smacks of an attempted cover-up of some defect or delict? That this is not only a denial of an infallible decision but also a disregard for the truths of Holy Scripture is apoparent in the Sacred Congregation of Sacrament’s Instruction to Local Ordinaries Regarding the Investigation to be Made Previous to Ordination of Seminarians, ratified by Pope Pius XI on Dec. 26, 1930. In this instruction the Sacred Congregation wrote:

" To guard against the many and enormous evils to the Church itself and for the faithful, the bishops who have been appointed by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God must exercise the greatest care in barring access to this great ministry against those who lack a priestly vocation and to whom, consequently, the words of Christ Our Lord must be applied: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber," (Jn. 10:1).’ The Sacred Congregation takes special pains to call to mind the words of St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy: ‘Impose not hands lightly on any man; neither be partakers of other men’s sins.’ Reference to this text is made in the Code of Canon Law, which also gives more explicit explanation…in Canon 973 §3,"(see Can. 973 above, pg. 3). Pope Pius XI wrote: "This canon is a clear echo of the warning of the Apostle to Timothy…St. Leo the Great expounds: ‘To impose hands lightly is to confer the sacerdotal dignity on persons not sufficiently approved: …before a time of testing, before trial of knowledge.’…Listen to the warning of St. John Chrysostom: ‘Impose not hands after the first trial, nor after the second, nor yet the third, but only after frequent and careful observation and searching examination.’"

Here, then, we have arrived at the heart of the matter. Can. 973 is not just any canon; it is a canon declared by the Sacred Congregation to be based upon Divine Law. As such it is binding on even a pope-elect, since no man can escape the laws of God as expressed in Holy Scripture and defined by His Church. The Church punishes bishops violating this law with suspension of his faculties and the infliction of other penalties to be decided by the Church. It seems that in former times revelations of unfitness sufficient to disqualify a candidate were a rare occurrence, but this does not necessarily mean this is true today. If the laity believes the candidate is unfit, they sin grievously in not communicating their concerns. For those who must give testimony to a man’s fitness in regard to Orders it is necessary to know what the Church requires for that fitness. Already we have heard Pope Pius XII infallibly state that ALL the prerequisites listed in Sedes Sapientiae are indispensable to this fitness, and we know that most of these are lacking in this case. Yet it is helpful to know what offenses Canon Law intends as indisputably barring a man from receiving Holy Orders. Rev. Aloysius Biskupek points out that the offenses rendering candidates unfit are listed in Can 1371. He elaborates on these offenses as follows:

" Canon 1371 enumerates certain classes of candidates that must be dismissed from the seminary, as not possessing the character required of ministers of the altar. They are: the irritable, the incorrigible, the rebellious [seditious], and those who have failed against faith or morals. Hence the good character of the candidate implies that he has learned to control his anger, that he accepts correction and amends faults to which his attention has been called, that he is submissive to authority and amenable to the guidance of obedience, that he is a man of faith and a lover of purity…Holy Church insists that the candidates be first tried and that by long continued practice of the virtues required they show that they possess the qualifications expected of them…Virtue that has stood the test of long and faithful work, of humble submission to correction, of patience with the faults and failings of others, of cheerful obedience to the norms of seminary life and the will of superiors, virtue such as this will satisfactorily answer the question, ‘Dost thou know them to be worthy?" He then notes that especially where failings in purity and matters of faith are involved, theologians are insistent that the seminarian be expelled with all due haste.

The only other two factors that invalidate an election is the disqualification of over two-thirds of the electors and pre-election heresy in the one elected. A lay pope-elect prior to his acceptance of an election must present proofs of his fitness for ordination. If these are not forthcoming, it would seem only fitting that the electors of such a man request his resignation. For if Divine law is willfully and knowingly violated, then God help us all.

Comments
If the laity possessed the right to act as papal electors under the laws of devolution applied to religious chapters, then certainly they have the same right to testify to the fitness of a man to be ordained a priest, since this is the completion of the election as defined by Pope Pius XII. To say otherwise is to call the papal election itself into question.

Bawden credits electors with the power to create him a cleric but refuses them the right to testify concerning his fitness prior to his acceptance, before he is "Pope," (see pages 3 and 7, where already I have said that until he is judged fit for ordination, Bawden is simply a pope-elect.) The scrutiny would come during the completion of the election process, prior to a lay pope's acceptance. The scrutiny may not be a part of the ceremony for a Pope after his acceptance, but if only laymen and not any clergy knew him personally prior to his election, it easily could be included in the pre-acceptance examination. The Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments under Pope Pius XI stated that during the exams pre-tonsure: "other persons of outstanding character, either clerical or lay, who may be able to give special information, should also be interviewed [when advisable]; especially when a slight doubt remains concerning the moral character and canonical fitness of the candidate." See St.Cyprian's comment on the people testifying in the examination of a bishop, (under examination, Dogmatic Errors).