Introduction
The Church is a living and growing entity. While she never changes in Her doctrines and those laws emanating from Divine law, or alters Her constant practices through the ages, She always adapts to the times whenever and wherever possible. Yet whatever adaptations She makes, they cannot work to the detriment of souls, for Her primary purpose on earth is to promote the salvation of those souls. Her clergy and hierarchy must labor within Her own peculiar system to lay the proper foundations and construct the necessary framework to safeguard the faithful. If a false foundation for these adaptations are made, the framework cannot help but crumble the first time its load bearing walls are tested under the weight of the common good. Should this ever occur, it must be determined what went wrong. Wrong calculations must be corrected. The foundation must be repaired and the framework reconstructed according to the new calculations. And wherever possible, amends must be made to any suffering injury from these errors.

Some errors and contradictions
In the book, Will the Catholic Church Survive…? written in 1989, David Bawden compiled the section on priests, (pg. 401- 402). In that section, he demonstrates an mindset that demonstrably has ruled his thinking on this subject since before the election. He lists the men elected Pope throughout the ages and notes their status as clerics or laymen. No general summary of their history, accomplishments or notable achievements is given. Among these, 230 were clerics and 140 of these were bishops, priests or in major orders. The rest were in minor orders. De Montor lists 16 as "nobles" possessing no ecclesiastical dignity, although these may have been third order members. Twelve of these are listed after "the first lay pope, John XX." So only about 20 — a mere handful — were possibly laymen, although Bawden states that no certainty can be had on the numbers. The historian Walter Ullmann warns that the word cleric often encompassed religious and those accorded specific ecclesiastical privileges although it also often excluded "members of the secular clergy who were not ecclesiastical dignitaries," according to the work of Vermeersch and Creusen on the sources of Canon Law, (A Study of the Juridical Status of Layman in the Writings of the Medieval Canonists, by Rev. Ronald Cox). After admitting that "The number of laymen elected is hard to determine because 16 are listed as nobles," Bawden concludes: "We know that possession or lack of Holy Orders makes no real difference [where a papal election is concerned.] We know from the history of the saints, who were elected bishop while yet laymen, that one was not even baptized but was only a catechumen, (St. Augustine)." These are obviously false conclusions on Bawden's part for several reasons. But errors in fact must be corrected here before we proceed further.

First there is the regrettable reference made by Bawden to the election of St. Augustine as a bishop even prior to his baptism. This should be St. Ambrose, not St. Augustine. What we do not hear is that Ambrose was possibly the most illustrious Father the Church ever produced, one who was raised in a devout household from his youth and was known to all for his holiness and orthodoxy. Then we find, in the Annuario Pontificio, the Catholic Encyclopedia and other reliable sources, that Pope Leo VIII, not John XX, was the first layman elected Pope. (The Catholic Encyclopedia and one other source reports that in the case of Pope Leo VIII, all the orders received were conferred over a two-day period contrary to the rules of Canon Law, something that was somewhat of a scandal then.) Unfortunately, John XX is considered an antipope and is nowhere found inthe official lists of popes from various credible sources, although de Montor lists him as a true Pope. The Encyclopedia and other works report that Benedict VIII was the second layman elected and John XIX, Benedict VIII's brother was the third lay pope to be elected. Some also hold that St. Fabian, elected in the early days of the Church was a layman. These are the only Popes that historians specifically list as laymen. The others are listed as nobles, Romans, Tuscans, Greeks, etc… While it is true that Bawden's source used for this documentation was only later discovered to be unreliable (de Montor), these other sources should have been used to confirm the information. This is especially true since the actual validity of the Popes constitutes dogmatic facts that confirm the Petrine succession. In summary, one comes away from this section of the book with the uneasy feeling that it was poorly researched. Also the impression given is that clerics or not, there was nothing more to commend these men as papal candidates other than whatever rank they possessed when elected, if this is even known. But that is far from the truth.

Qualifications of past papal candidates
To begin with, many of these earlier Popes studied at the feet of the Apostles, their disciples, the Fathers of the Church or those who were ordained and consecrated by them. Secondly, a great many of the nobles listed were members of illustrious (usually Roman) families, with successful and respectable secular careers to commend them. Several Popes had been brought up within the circle of papal life in the Lateran Palace. For the most part we must assume these men also led devout lives, although political intrigue and simony led some who were not religious minded to the papacy. Of course there were the simple clerics of humble birth who led holy lives and brought whatever modest talent they had to the papacy. Fortunately, these men had as advisors and assistants, capable theologians and saintly clerics to help shoulder the burden of their duties. But also among the early clerics elected Pope, many were archdeacons, attached to administrative offices "of great importance and power" (Attwater), administering on behalf of the bishop. Some were archpriests, who assisted the bishop and took his place in public worship. Both archdeacons and archpriests are described by Attwatter as "the chiefs of local centers of clergy." Most of these men held more than one illustrious position, especially in the second millennia.

And so we find that these Popes before their elections held successive positions such as, monks, abbots, priests and bishops; or scholars, theologians, canon lawyers, cardinals; or Cardinal-deacons, linguists, Church administrators. Most of these men excelled in all fields they put their hand to, and were greatly respected by their peers. We find that a great number were in papal service in some capacity from their teen years or early adulthood, and others were placed in the service of the Vatican as legates, diplomats and ambassadors. Their experience, overall, was extensive and varied; most had attended universities and were highly educated in different subjects. They were, for the most part, men who dealt daily with people from all walks of life and every imaginable social strata. And it was this vast array of talent and experience, leavened with holiness then brought to the Chair of Peter that made the Church the remarkable institution we remember — the winner of souls to Christ. Even those elected as minor clerics or religious usually weren't just clerics or religious — they were seasoned men often well-versed in both the secular and the spiritual life who by holiness alone, if not also by great learning, carefully steered St. Peter's bark away from the sandbars and shipwreck. It must also be understood that in earlier times, many men attained a certain minor order and remained in that order for their entire lives, never receiving Holy Orders but faithfully serving the Church according to their position in orders and their abilities. The Church does not allow this today; all men in minor orders must intend to proceed to major orders and ordination, although no one can force them to do so if they refuse, (see Woywod-Smith's commentary on Can. 973).

But certainly if a man had persisted for many years in a minor order and lived a holy life — even though he lacked certain theological knowledge — he would qualify for ordination. The main requisite here, as Pope Pius XI taught, is not knowledge but holiness of life. The Pope is addressed as Holy Father; above all those elected Pope, then, should possess this quality in the highest degree possible. It is far more likely that clerics and religious will possess such piety than it is that the laity will attain to it, since clerics are bound by Canon Law to lead a holier life than the laity. It is this quality of holiness in clerics that the Popes insist must exist first and foremost in those who believe they are called to the priesthood, even before confirmation of their vocation and prior to undertaking theological studies. But what if there comes a time such as our own, when neither priests nor laity are holy and the entire process for electing a Pope of any kind is totally skewed? Then we should proceed as we proceeded in the election by following those laws which we can, reconciling the laws that seem to conflict as Canon Law advises and, based on impossibility and probable opinion, constructing new laws according to Can. 20 — but only when absolutely necessary.

Ecclesiastical experience important
So if we look at the bigger picture, Bawden's thinking didn't add up where clerics are concerned, and as we shall see, his failure to address an important adjunct to the law issued by Pius XII raises questions. It most certainly does make a difference whether or not the Popes are at the very least deacons, especially from 1500 on when the Council of Trent established seminaries to better insure holiness and learning among the clergy. Actually Pope Stephen III in 769 decreed at the Lateran Synod that only those in major orders should be elected Pope, (A Study of the Juridical Status of Layman in the Writings of the Medieval Canonists, by Rev. Ronald Cox). Current Canon Law governing the appointment of cardinals verifies this decision, (Can. 232). Over half the past Popes were priests, bishops or deacons. The rest, not including the exceptions noted above, were clerics who were in Minor Orders before their election, many of whom already were in the service of the Vatican or had achieved notable accomplishments of some sort in the religious or secular sector. It is this invaluable experience in ecclesiastical matters, combined with holiness and faithful service, which determined their overall worthiness in the eyes of their electors. Even those not designated as clerics who are presumed elected as laymen in the Church's history could easily have been religious — even priests — according to Ullmann's definition. The Church requires that a layman who accepts election must subsequently be ordained and consecrated. If it really didn't matter that the Popes were not clerics, why would they receive orders immediately after election, (Catholic Encyclopedia on Conclave; go to http://www.new/advent.org). And why would they need to possess the necessary fitness prior to their election, fitness determined for the most part by the members of the clergy who elected them? Isn't it only logical that in the normal scheme of things, it would take a layman of either exceptional holiness or extraordinary ability to outweigh the election of a qualified cleric? Most of those presumed to be lay Popes reigned during the early ages of the Church, in violent and unsettled times when the Church still sheltered in the catacombs. Many laymen were fervent in their faith and died as martyrs in those days. Many Popes died as martyrs as well. They died testifying to their eminent sanctity, which is the primary requirement for admission to the clerical state. Electors are admonished to select the most qualified, although selecting one less qualified does not make the election illicit.
Two lay Popes did reign until their deaths without receiving ordination or consecration. Their reigns were brief; Adrian V, elected as a deacon, reigned only two months. In Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, Bawden fails to identify the other man who died a lay pope. These two incidences indicate only that rare exceptions to the Church's rule about clerics exist, not that it is inconsequential whether a Pope-elect is a cleric or not. If I tell my children that they are not to go out of the house in a thunderstorm but one child goes out to assist a neighbor who has fallen, I make exception for this particular case. But that does not mean it is the norm or should ever be the norm. Nor should it be the norm to consider laymen equally qualified for election alongside clerics, since it is the long and established practice of the Church to elect clerics as Pope; provided of course that these clerics are faithful Catholics not laboring under some censure or impediment. Bawden observed in Will the Catholic Church Survive…? (pg. 404) that while the 1917 Code implies that papal candidates must at least be priests, this is not explicitly stated in the Code. He gives no source for this statement. Bawden later objected that this "implication" became obvious "only in 1917," with the codification of Canon Law. Yet all know that the 1917 Code is based on ancient laws and canons and clearly this law also was based on the consistent practice of the Church. And it is not the only law that Bawden failed to consider in the all-important determination of whether electors were free to validly proceed. As stated elsewhere, Canons 154, 232 and 453 all require the priesthood for offices involving the care of souls.

The Church long ago clearly made Her mind known on the importance of fitness for office. And the teachings on fitness for Holy Orders were greatly strengthened during the reigns of Pope Pius XI and XII. Also, in Sacramentum Ordinis Pius XII orders members of the hierarchy not to omit even the smallest detail or any rite attached to the Minor and Major Orders as found in the Roman Pontifcal, and Sacramentum Ordinis was infallible. Likewise infallible was Sedes Sapientiae, which teaches that no candidate for Orders is fit unless he possesses every qualification Pope Pius XII and his predecessors demand. These very teachings bound David Bawden prior to election if the Profession of Faith has any meaning at all. For the introduction to the Profession of Faith taken by Bawden prior to his election as Pope reads: "I accept each and every teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as She teaches and believes them, especially those things which are de fide; of faith." Electors are bound to inform themselves concerning the papal candidate's general fitness and all knew Bawden personally prior to the election. But at the time of election, it seemed only a remote possibility that true bishops would ever be found who could ordain and consecrate Bawden. Also, everyone took Bawden's word for the fact that he was qualified and assumed he would continue to pursue all the necessary seminary studies.

So canonical fitness was not investigated in detail. David Bawden stated in a private document written in 1989 that he suspected he would be elected from 1987 on. So it cannot be said that he was taken unawares by his "election" or did not have time to prepare himself. It is not only untrue but dishonest to maintain that, in the absence of the clergy, the election of a layman poses no real problem for the Church. There has been delay in the ordination and consecration of one elected Pope only on a few occasions in Church history, and for very good reasons. These delays were brief. They give no carte blanche to a layman elected pope who subsequently reigns for 16 years without ordination or consecration. In fact canonical provision should have been made pre-election for such a situation, just as it was used to arrive a method of election. That this was not the case and the serious problems this presents is discussed at length elsewhere.

Readers of Will the Catholic Church Survive…? and Update were repeatedly told they must adhere strictly to the holy canons. In retrospect it seems that while some canons were insisted on strictly, others were ignored and still others were precipitously dismissed as not binding because they were impossible to fulfill. All this appears to be the result of an over-eagerness and (at the time) the perceived necessity to minimize the clerical aspect of election and speed up the election process. We already have demonstrated that Will the Catholic Church Survive…? did not point out the many fine qualities of past popes who were clerics and the (generally) vast knowledge and experience that made them acceptable candidates for the papacy. The papacy is the most important job in the world. It's proper administration will determine who is saved and who is lost in the 21st century. Where previous Popes had to deal with increasing numbers of the faithful worldwide, today the entire world is a missionary field much as it was in the time of Christ. The character of the Roman Pontiff and his ability to draw souls to himself by way of his visible holiness, dignity, diplomacy and inspired entreaties in times of trial for the Church has ever been the stuff of papal histories. That such a pontiff is the only hope of saving souls today should be a foregone conclusion.