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

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

Both prior to David Bawden's "election" and in recent months, Bawden has asserted that to possess the papal office a Pope must automatically become a cleric. This false assertion has led to all his other heresies and errors and can easily be refuted from the mouth of none other than St. Thomas Aquinas, the very saint Bawden claims to revere the most.

St. Thomas teaches that "the key of jurisdiction can be granted in the external court, wherefore even those who are not priests can have this key, e.g., archdeacons, bishops elect, and others who can excommunicate," (Suppl., Q. 19. Art. 3). This jurisdiction may be granted either by a proper bishop with jurisdiction directly from Christ (immediate jurisdiction) and the permission to exercise it granted by the Pope, or canonical mission jurisdiction (delegated or mediate) issuing from bishops to priests. Now in the case of papal election, immediate jurisdiction is granted by virtue of the legitimate acceptance of election as verified by Canons 109 and 219. Unlike the requirements for canonical mission jurisdiction set out in Can 118, in the case of the immediate jurisdiction granted a legitimately elected Pontiff, there is no need for a layman elected Pope to be a cleric. This is the teaching of Pope Pius XII (Six ans se sont, 1957), Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz (1940 Canon Law dissertation, Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209), Rev. Joseph Brosnan, (The American Ecclesiastical Review, August, 1949), the canonists Bouscaren and Ellis (Canon Law, a Text and Commentary), and Rev. Ronald Cox, (1959 Canon Law dissertation, A Study of the Juridic Status of Laymen in the Writings of the Medieval Canonists).

In the writings of St. Thomas, we find the source of Bawden's confusion. St. Thomas tells us in Q. 19 above that such external jurisdiction is restricted to excommunications, (and one would assume the lifting of censures, vows and to reconcile those estranged from the Church). The power to teach and to govern, however, also is included in the jurisdiction granted the lay pope as well as the charism of infallibility necessary to define faith and morals, as Pope Pius XII rightly notes. Priests, alone, however, have the power to bind and loose in the confessional, which is an act of the internal forum, not the external forum, (Suppl., Q. 19, Art. 4). Overall, St. Thomas teaches that, "In order to bestow what one has on another, it is necessary not only to be near him but to have fullness of power…" Now a Pope who is not a deacon, priest or a bishop lacks such fullness of power insofar as he is bereft of orders and its perfection; a lay pope by definition is not yet a full-fledged member of the hierarchy. This is no minimizing of papal power but a simple statement of fact. Therefore the lay pope without major orders has no share in the power of those things pertaining to the hierarchy of Order, for technically he is not a member of this hierarchy. While he can lend his jurisdictional power to others who are priests and bishops already possessed of valid Orders to act on behalf of the Church, he cannot relay any power conveyed by the Sacrament of Orders only to priests, since he does not possess such power. And yet this has not prevented Bawden from crossing the line of jurisdictional function into the territory reserved solely to those in Orders.

A case in point is the delegation of jurisdiction for the conferral of benedictions and the blessing of sacramentals. This has in fact been attempted by Bawden for the past several years in his capacity as "Pope," yet outside the papal blessing, neither can he exercise nor delegate such power. Thus we read from the 1952 edition of the Roman Ritual: "In the ordination service, the Church, through the bishop, anoints and blesses the hands of the newly made priest, accompanying the action with these words: May it please Thee, O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing and our blessing; that whatever they bless may be blessed and whatever they consecrate may be consecrated, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. By this and other ceremonies in the rite for ordination, the young priest has it impressed upon him that his sacramental ministry, mainly the power to offer sacrifice, the duty of preaching the word of God in Mass and of distributing the Bread of Life to the people, the duty of administering the other Sacraments, the duty of dispensing blessings and other sacramentals — that all these constitute the main reason for his being what he is, the mediator between God and men, the dispenser of God's mysteries…Nowadays the priest can find auxiliaries to aid him…But he cannot turn over to them his sacramental powers, neither the greater ones of consecrating at Mass, of baptizing, of absolving, of anointing, nor even the lesser ones of bestowing on persons and objects the official blessing of the Church." Canon 1147 § 2 states: "Blessings, with the exception of those reserved to the Roman Pontiff, or to bishops, or to others, may be given by any priest," (Woywod-Smith). Spirago-Clarke note in their The Catechism Explained that: "The laity can bless, but not in the name of the Church; parents frequently bless their children," but this is an act bestowed on those over whom they have absolute authority.

As Rev. Raymond Kearney points out, the Pope cannot supply sacramental jurisdiction to one not a priest, (Principles of Delegation, Canon Law dissertation, 1929). Nor can a lay Pope supply even non-sacramental jurisdiction to one not a priest. This is because, as was explained above, the power arises solely from the hierarchy of Orders, requiring only that jurisdiction allow the priest to act. Therefore although Cardinals can be delegated to confer sacramentals, it is presumed that they possess Orders; or in earlier times, at least the diaconate (Can. 232). For as Rev. Kearney says, the Church legislates for what normally occurs, (Ibid). Therefore a lay cardinal not possessing any kind of Orders, minor or otherwise, cannot bestow sacramentals. And should he attempt to do so, they are null and void, not to mention sacrilegious. The same is true of any unnecessary handling and official reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, another Bawdenian error. St. Thomas clearly states that in things directly related to the Body of Christ, even a Pope with Orders has no power beyond that of a simple priest, (Suppl., Q. 38, Art. 1). It follows, then, that a) only a priest can reserve the Holy Eucharist in a proper Church where Mass is said at least once a week (Can. 1265); and b) NO ONE can ever reserve the same in a private home, or transport the Blessed Sacrament (Can. 1265 § 2-3).

And since only a true priest can accurately and rightly determine whether the Sacred Species is corrupt, even for a true lay Pope to do so would be both sacrilegious and illegal, since it involves the violation of Canon Law. Is such a thing allowed even to a layman because we are in an emergency situation? Yes, but only if the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament was necessary to salvation, or in a case where some hostile person would be likely to disrespect the Sacred Species. But this was not true of the manner in which Bawden came to reserve the Sacred Species. Allowing no dispensation for the unworthy to handle holy things, St. Thomas notes: "Dionysius says…It seems presumptuous for such a man, to wit one who is not enlightened, to lay hands on priestly things; he is not afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that he is, to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God does not see what he sees in himself; he thinks by false pretense to cheat Him whom he falsely calls his Father; he dares to utter in the person of Christ words polluted by his infamy — I will not call them prayers — over the Divine symbols…The natural law allows of no dispensation; and it is of natural law that man handle holy things holily. Therefore no one can dispense from this," (Suppl. Q. 36, Art. 5). Because it also could involve idolatry, should something corrupt be wrongly adored as the true Body of Christ, it is a most grievous sin of the highest order, especially should "subjects" cooperate in this sin.

There remains another sacramental here that has been relegated to the hands of the laity by Bawden, and this sacramental is that of tonsure. It is a sacramental that is specifically conveyed in the consecration of a diocesan bishop, and as such it is one that involves the bishop's immediate jurisdiction, peculiar to himself, the use of which is granted by the Pope. Because this is a specific grant of the episcopal power of Order (not just jurisdiction), it cannot be delegated, since it issues from a power given directly by Christ in a specific manner, (immediate jurisdiction). It is a blessing reserved especially to the episcopal Order just as other blessings and sacramentals constitute part of the priestly Order. It is strictly a power of episcopal Order, conveyed by consecration, although it is governed by jurisdiction for its use. To say that the laity can in any way participate in this power is again to ascribe to them something that they cannot and do not have. When we say that the bishop administers first tonsure from his jurisdictional capacity, this does not mean that this sacramental is devoid of a spiritual component related to Orders. St. Thomas says, "Tonsure…is not an Order but a preamble to Orders…The Tonsure has some spiritual thing inwardly corresponding to it [vocation], but this is not a spiritual power. Although a man does not receive a character in the tonsure, nevertheless he is appointed to Divine worship. Hence this appointment should be made by the supreme minister, the bishop, who moreover blesses the vestments and vessels and whatever else is employed in the Divine worship." So basically St. Thomas ranks tonsure as a sacramental specifically conferred by the bishop.

The great saint points out that "The principal act of each Order is that whereby it is most nearly directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist…Because many things are directed to the Eucharist, as being the most exalted of the Sacraments, it follows not unfittingly that one Order has many acts besides its principal act and all the more, as it ranks higher, since a power extends to more things the higher it is," (in the hierarchy of Orders). "The preparation of the recipient of a sacrament is twofold: One is remote and is effected by the ministers and the other is proximate, whereby they are rendered apt at once for receiving the sacraments. This latter belongs to priests, since…the priest is the proper minister for all these sacraments which are chiefly instituted for the cleansing of sin, namely, Baptism, Penance and Extreme Unction," (Suppl., Q. 37, Art. 4). Now it is generally admitted that the right use of sacramentals removes venial sin. First tonsure, then, is a special preparation for entrance into the clerical life, where all hint of imperfection must be removed. Young men often are seminarians long before receiving this rite, which precedes the Minor Orders. The seminary training therefore is remote preparation; judging of the actual vocation followed by first tonsure is proximate preparation. Thus these young men are advanced "by degrees," as the Church desires. St. Thomas then explains how the function of the bishop in this regard is truly peculiar to his particular position.

Since a bishop does not have a higher power of Order than a priest does, and since the power of Order is always directed to the Eucharist, in this sense, St. Thomas says, "The episcopate is not a [separate] Order. In another way Order may be considered as an office, in relation to certain sacred actions; and thus since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in relation to the Mystical Body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order…At his promotion a bishop receives a spiritual power in respect of certain sacraments…[because] the episcopal power is one not only of jurisdiction but of Order," Suppl., Q. 40, Art. 6). Just as there are those sacraments specifically entrusted to priests, the sacraments assigned to a bishop are confirmation, and all things pertaining to ordination. As part of their sacred Order, bishops are entrusted with the most solemn task of all — both the supervision of the remote preparation of priestly candidates and the actual selection and admission of these candidates to the ranks of the clergy in proximate readiness to receive the Minor Orders and Ordination. They are especially set up in perpetual vigilance over these men who shall one day be entrusted with the handling and distribution of the Body of Christ and the sanctification of the faithful. This is a direct exercise of their priestly character and Order as well as the higher exercise of that Order, granted only to bishops.

The analogy can be drawn from the priest who administers the Sacrament of Penance. St. Thomas says that the priest is commissioned to judge the fitness of a man about to receive the Eucharist. "The ecclesiastical judge, by means of the key, admits the worthy and excludes the unworthy," (emph. St.Thomas'). And he emphasizes that "He who promotes the unworthy sins mortally…He is guilty of unfaithfulness who gives any man Divine things above his measure, and he who promotes the unworthy does this…He commits a mortal crime…especially since this is detrimental to the Church and to the Divine honor, which is promoted by good ministers," (Suppl., Q. 36, Art. 4). St. Thomas then goes on to explain that the key of judging opens a preliminary lock. However, the key of binding and loosing "opens the lock of sin immediately, but the key of knowledge shows to whom that lock should be opened…With the conferring of Orders, knowledge becomes a [subordinate] key which it was not before…The key of knowledge cannot be accepted without sin by one who lacks knowledge, whereas knowledge void of authority can be possessed without sin," (Suppl.,Q. 17, Art. 3). Here we can see the great similarity to the exercise of the episcopal Order in regards to judging the fitness of candidates for the priesthood. This is a particular and official act issuing from his Order, since a bishop is carefully selected for his mature knowledge and judgment in things spiritual and consecrated specifically to exercise "the fullness of the priesthood…to rule [Christ's] Church and people…for the correction of wrongdoing...[to] pass judgment without anger [and for the] reproof of vice," (pre-1968 ritual for the Consecration of a Bishop).

And so the bishop judges whether his priestly candidates truly posses the Divine vocation, separates the worthy from the unworthy and opens the door to the priesthood to the worthy. Thus does he exercise a higher function, fuller knowledge, more mature judgment and greater wisdom than the priest; a true "fullness of the priesthood." And while a true lay Pope may grant ordinary jurisdiction to the bishops as "divinely appointed successors of the Apostles," (Mystici Corporis), he cannot interfere with those things directly connected to the worthy administration of the Eucharist (the deflecting of unfit and unworthy candidates); nor can he reserve to himself any power of Order granted to a validly consecrated bishop or priest. One cannot give what he does not have and cannot exercise what he has not himself received. Rev. Kearney admits only that the lay pope would possess a supplied jurisdiction that does not "presuppose the power of Orders," (Ibid). A layman has no use of the key of Orders in calling men to the divine ministry, for this key is entrusted alone to the bishop, (just as a priest by absolution calls the faithful to the reception of the Eucharist.) This understanding of episcopal Orders is expressed by the Council of Trent (also Pope Pius VI), which condemns those lay people who would presume to call a man to the divine ministry, (DZ 960, 967, 1502).

Bawden's condemnation of the assertion that a bishop can judge the fitness of a lay pope about to receive Holy Orders arises from his misunderstanding of the difference between the right exercise of the keys of episcopal Order and the exercise of external jurisdiction. A bishop cannot fail to so examine the priestly candidate in the manner prescribed by the Church without directly disobeying and thus contradicting Divine law and infallible decrees, which demand that such candidates be examined. For the bishop this is the equivalent of confession, and is a power directly annexed to his Order. Pope Pius XII taught that even should a layman be elected by cardinals (for this was the law enacted by Pope Pius XII as it stood in 1957), he would need to be fit for ordination. Now cardinals at that time were at least high-caliber priests and many were bishops; they knew and understood the requirements laid down by the Church for priestly fitness. As representatives of the universal Church, the laity could elect a Pope who possessed only external jurisdiction, but by the laws and teachings of the Church they could not judge such a man's fitness for the priesthood. So lay inferiors can appoint their superiors, but they have no share in those things that would involve the exercise of Orders. Likewise a priest can hear the confession of his superiors, for as St. Thomas says, concerning the use of the keys by priests on their superiors:

" The higher prelate also is compassed with infirmity, and may happen to sin. Now the power of the keys is the remedy for sin. Therefore, since he cannot use the key on himself, for he cannot be both judge and accused at the same time, it seems that an inferior can use the power of the keys on him, [and this is done in practice]. Further, absolution, which is given through the power of the keys, is ordained to the reception of the Eucharist. But an inferior can give Communion to his superior, if the latter asks him to. Therefore he can use the power of the keys on him if he submits to him…[A superior] cannot use the power of the keys on himself because this power requires to be exercised on a subject…for no man can be subject to himself. Although the bishop whom a simple priest absolves is his superior absolutely speaking, yet he is beneath him insofar as he submits himself as a sinner to him…External judgment is according to men, whereas the judgment of Confession is according to God, in Whose sight a man is lessened by sinning, which is not the case in human prelacy. Therefore just as in external judgment no man can pass sentence of excommunication on himself, so neither can he empower another to excommunicate him. On the other hand…he can give another the power to absolve him although he cannot absolve himself. [For] absolution in the tribunal of the confessional belongs principally to the power of the keys, and consequently to the power of jurisdiction whereas excommunication regards jurisdiction exclusively," (Suppl., Q. 21, Art. 1).

Again, the comparison progresses logically point for point. A lay pope has need of ordination and consecration by virtue of his office, and the examination of a bishop (contained in the consecration ceremony) is much more rigorous, even, than that for priests. The power of the episcopal keys is the remedy for admitting unfit and unworthy men to the priesthood, (and more importantly the episcopacy but MOST importantly, in this case, to the fullness of the papacy). A lay pope cannot examine himself; nor may anyone else examine him or deem him fit except the bishop, by virtue of the episcopal keys. A lay pope must ask a bishop to ordain and consecrate him; he must submit to him. His fitness for ordination as well as his ordination itself is directly related to the power given priests over the Eucharist and its ministers. Prior to that ordination, he HAS no power over the Eucharist nor directly over anything sacramental. The bishop cannot ordain him if he is unfit without committing mortal sin, and he cannot determine whether or not he is fit without examination. Although the pope is the bishop's superior in jurisdiction, he is his inferior in Orders. The bishop has been given his power immediately from God to judge the fitness of priests and ordain them; this is Divine law directly confirmed by Holy Scripture. As in confession, where the bishop lends the priest jurisdiction to absolve him, the pope must likewise grant the bishop jurisdiction to ordain and consecrate him. The power to examine a man, deem him worthy and then ordain and consecrate him resides principally in the power of the keys held by the bishop, and only consequently to the jurisdiction required from a (lay) Pope. This statement is truer in the case of the bishop than the priest, since the bishop receives immediate jurisdiction from Christ while the priest receives his jurisdiction only mediately.

Bawden has insinuated that he was more or less "pushed" to pursue ordination. But he never pursued the matter aggressively on his own. This pushing occurred only after years of frustration, while he indulged his "hurry up and wait for God's will" approach. Also it was assumed that he was studying all along for the priesthood, advancing in knowledge, acquiring some of the final polish needed for the lawful reception of Orders, when clearly this was not the case. Benefit of the doubt was given right up to the very end, despite his repeated accusations of sins against charity; but only because it was assumed that the preservation of the priestly and episcopal succession was at stake. It is simply not true that until that time, Bawden was on the right course. Gradually, his professed "papal" motto, "Thy will be done," became "MY will be done." An increasing tendency over the years to rely solely on his own judgment, without reviewing the teachings and practices of the Church or duly considering advice, was in evidence long before his heresy became manifest. Also in evidence was his failure to solidly ground such decisions in Canon Law. Determined to concoct some spiritual advantages issuing from his election for his followers, the falsification of the sacramentals was embarked on after his creation of a lay cardinal. Obviously, however, it was in his mind all along, since he assumed to be automatically enrolled in the clergy.

Bawden has repeatedly affirmed that his lay electors called him, and this prior to his acceptance of the election. He also readily admits that even before the election, he opined that a layman elected pope automatically becomes a cleric. But while a true lay pope can supply jurisdiction for one already in Orders who lacks it, he cannot grant to others the power of Orders he does not possess, no matter how slight that power might be. And most certainly a simple layman cannot grant this key of Orders to other lay men AND lay women, or claim they could ever hope to possess such a key. For "The key of knowledge cannot be accepted without sin by one who lacks knowledge…He is guilty of unfaithfulness who gives any man Divine things above his measure, and he who promotes the unworthy does this…He commits a mortal crime…especially since this is detrimental to the Church and to the Divine honor." Bawden has had over two months to examine his position and refuses to even consider the fact that he could possibly be what in reality he is: yet another usurper claiming the papal chair. He continues to hide behind the title of "Pope," forbidding any who still may listen to read the rantings of the "heretics;" a posture assumed by every failed, pathetic sect leader who ever lived.

Bawden's most telling maneuver by far is that he offers absolutely no scholastic proofs to refute the heresies he has committed. He cannot point to one single incidence of laymen creating a cleric in the entire history of the Church. He cannot even provide the six opinions necessary to justify a probable opinion on this subject. He has no reasoned explanation for his violation of Divine law in refusing to submit to clerical examination. He cannot offer any credible reasons why he threatened to contradict the teaching of an infallible Constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis, by omitting the ancient rite of (lay) scrutiny from the ordination ceremony. Quick to condemn the clandestine nature of "ordinations" conducted by Traditionalists, in the end he resorted to the same tactics. His remaining followers will never realize that every moment they continue in his "obedience;" every instance of resisting the known truth, the worst kind of mortal sin, they involve themselves in idolatry and Pharisaic hypocrisy. If they would read (and were able to understand) the teachings of St. Thomas, they could learn the true distinctions which must be drawn between the keys of priestly and episcopal Orders and the key of jurisdiction. They also would understand that the recent excommunication issued by Bawden is not only null and void because he is a heretic; it is most importantly null and void because it is not true and contradicts the scholastic teaching of St. Thomas. God alone grants the fullness of the power of Orders to the bishop according to the laws and teachings of the Church. For "There is no power but from God" (Romans 13:1), and clearly by his actions, David Bawden was powerless from the beginning.