© 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

(Reference below to the Errors document is made to that document entitled Dogmatic Errors Against the Definitions of the Church.)

Below you will find a summary of errors found in the works of David Bawden, ("Pope Michael"). These errors came to light in the course of Bawden's pursuit of Ordination and consecration by an Old Roman Catholic bishop.

Doctrines of faith denied directly or indirectly by David Bawden

1. The proposition, condemned by Alexander VIII, that "It is not permitted to follow a (probable) opinion, or among the probables, the most probable," (condemned as absolute tutiorism or rigorism; DZ 1293). Adopting this opinion is ruled as heretical. The first heresy Bawden engaged in, noted by the author in a private letter written to him April 13, 2006 was the denial that one can follow the most probable opinion in matters of conscience. Despite the fact that he was not a priest and was never Pope, Bawden did not hesitate to judge the internal forum in this instance and on other occasions. One of his favorite tactics, anytime he accused another of a serious sin, was to refuse to accept what he referred to as rationalizations, when what was offered actually was evidence of a certain conscience built on probable opinions. (See the Betrayed Catholics homepage under Accusations of schism for more evidence of this heresy).

2. Church teaching on lay investiture formally condemned as heretical, publicly denied over the Internet by Bawden on two separate occasions, in three different places. Lay investiture means appointment to an ecclesiastical office by the laity rather than by the proper ecclesiastical authority, as when Protestants select their own pastors.
3. The Church's definition of vocation is directly contradicted and other teachings on vocation condemned by the Church also are denied.
4. The Church's teaching that by Divine institution the hierarchy is composed of bishops, priests and deacons only and that only members of the hierarchy can be appointed to ecclesiastical offices — denied both in word and in fact.
5. Pope Pius XII's teaching that without at least a canonical provision, appointment to ecclesiastical offices is null and void and attended by excommunication — implicitly contradicted.
6. The Church's teaching that Her doctrines are to be understood always in the same sense and interpretation — implicitly contradicted.
7. Maintaining contrary to Church teaching that one has a strict right by virtue of lay investiture and a command vocation to receive ordination, when Pope St. Pius X says that "No one ever has any right to ordination antecedently to the free choice of the bishop."
8. Canon Law, which teaches that "Ignorance and good faith are immaterial as far as the effect of invalidating and inhabilitating laws is concerned. The common welfare demands that these laws have absolute effect," (Woywod-Smith, Can. 16). Bawden has ignored or dismissed several invalidating and inhabilitating laws found in the Code. Yet he taught in the May, 1990 issue of Update: "Rejection of the binding force of Canon Law is heretical…Rejection of Canon Law…entails a rejection of papal authority," (see DZ 326).
9. The Church's teaching under moral theology that where the reception or conferral of the Sacraments are concerned, the safer course is always to be followed, (found in Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, pg. 215).
10. The Catholic Church's condemnation of the practice: "[That] without examination, priests are ordained in order that they may preside…," (DZ 301); — directly called into question.
11. Those decrees laid down by the Church concerning the directives and decisions of the Sacred Congregations, especially in the positive proofs of fitness required for Holy Orders.
12. The Church's teaching on ambiguity: Pope Innocent XI condemned the use of ambiguous terms in 1679, (DZ 1177). The statement he condemned reads: "A just reason for using these ambiguous words exist, as often as it is necessary or useful to guard the well being of the body, honor, property, or for any other act of virtue, so that the concealing of the truth is then regarded as expedient and zealous." Bawden duly notes in the book Will the Catholic Church Survive…? that this error is condemned as heretical. (See Pre-election heresy.)
13. The Church's teaching on the reception of Minor Orders and faithful adherence to the rite of Ordination. In paragraph six of his infallible Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII states: "What we have above declared [concerning the fact that only the imposition of hands constitutes the form for Holy Orders] is by no means to be understood in the sense that it be permitted even in the slightest detail to neglect or omit the other rites which are prescribed in the Roman Pontifical; on the contrary, We order that all the prescriptions laid down in the said Roman Pontifical be religiously observed and performed…Let NO MAN therefore infringe this Constitution which we have enacted, nor dare to contravene the same."
14. The most recent heresy, promoted by Bawden with the cooperation of his "secretary," preposterously contends that there is no papal document that specifically states a true Pope can never commit heresy as a Pope. This is a blatant denial of the definition of infallibility by the Vatican Council, (see Cum ex and heresy, sidebar).

" I reject the error that 'Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him if you cannot prove it,'" (DZ 1105).

Long before I discovered Bawden's pre-election heresy, I was denouncing his rash decisions and unconscionable refusal to prepare for the priesthood. Over a period of time, I gained formal certitude in those matters treated on this web site. Nor, in all honesty, can it be said that I tarried too long in this task, for as Rev. A. Vermeersch wrote on Tolerance: "A private individual has no right to accuse another of being in error — by which is meant religious error — except after mature deliberation… It cannot be denied that the decisions of the Church or the Holy See lay down directions which must not be exaggerated or over-strained, but which a loyal Catholic will refuse to evade by quibbles or minimizing interpretations." Formal certitude has for its motive only infallible truth, which repeatedly has been presented here. We have demonstrated that despite what Bawden taught in the pre-election book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?  and in other writings, he contradicted himself in actual practice, using the powers of the "papacy" as a blank check made out to himself. In Will the Catholic Church Survive…? David Bawden quoted the following from St. Thomas Aquinas on heresy: "'Now a thing may be of faith in two ways…In one way, directly and principally; e.g., the articles of faith; in another way indirectly and secondarily; e.g., those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith'…'" The second definition covers Pope St. Pius X's definition of vocation; also the Church's teaching on probabilism (where liciety is concerned) and the authority of the Sacred Congregations. Bawden also quotes from Rev. Eric McKenzie's The Delict of Heresy: "'The very commission of any act which signifies heresy; e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient grounds for the juridical presumption of heretical depravity. There may be excusing circumstances which may excuse from grave responsibility in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of proof, ALL such excuses are presumed not to exist.'"

Next he quotes from Can. 1323 on what must be of faith: "'By the Divine and Catholic faith must be believed all those truths which are contained in the Word of God, as written and handed down to us, and which are, either by solemn pronouncement or by the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church, proposed for belief as divinely revealed truths." Here we have such things as infallible pronouncements in the papal encyclicals, some of which are quoted above; also the decisions on matters of faith or morals decided by the various branches of the Holy Office. Bawden continues: "Solemn judgment in this matter is reserved to an Ecumenical Council and the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra; that is to say, in his capacity as supreme teaching authority. No religious teaching is to be understood as dogmatically declared and defined unless such a declaration or definition has been clearly made.'" Bawden himself writes: "Basically any denial of an article of faith is heresy. Any teaching which leads to a doubt or denial of an article of faith is heresy. Anything which has been formally condemned as heretical is heresy. Anything which has been condemned as erroneous, proximate to heresy or in any other manner is not heretical per se, although it may become heretical…" Bawden finishes by quoting Can. 2200: "Given the external violation of a law the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved."

Canonical election is what makes a pope-elect a valid pope, (see DZ 570d, DZ 674 and Pope Paul IV's Cum ex apostolatus officio § 7). In other words, a valid election is accomplished only by faithfully adhering to all those Canons which have any bearing on the actual method of election or the conditions and handicaps under which the pope elected will reign. In the case of election law that involves canonical provision, many different Canons can be involved including those based in whole or in part on the Divine law and Canons that are invalidating or inhabilitating laws. As seen above, this latter type of Canon cannot be ignored or dismissed. (Lay) theologians and even a Pope must give a reasoned explanation for what they teach, especially in unsettled times when so much could appear as innovation. And a consistent refusal to examine all the facts, especially where they have bearing on one's personal (erroneous) beliefs or ambitions, is unthinkable.

Despite the Profession of Faith signed before the election, several laws and teachings were violated during the election process. Canon 147 requiring that proper canonical provision be made prior to any assignment of office was fulfilled only in part. Canons 154 and 453 also were violated. Canon 147, as an invalidating law, automatically voids or annuls the acts described, including the election, and this is proven by the censures attached to it by Pope Pius XII. Censures are attached only to those crimes that are gravely sinful. And only the worst crimes are reserved especially to the Roman Pontiff for absolution. Although the election could at least have been defended as quasi-legitimate without the commission of Bawden's heresy, it now appears it was invalid for other reasons.

David Bawden has stated that his vocation was confirmed and he received the equivalent of tonsure prior to his acceptance of the papacy. This was publicly posted on Bawden's Internet site and a Catholic discussion board on Sept. 7-9, 2006 and March 7, 2007. The Sept. 7 posting remained on the VaticanInExile site from Sept. 7, 2006 to mid-April 2007, when it was taken down by Bawden following these objections. (See sidebar for these web pages.) In his Sept. 7, 2006 post, Bawden expressed in his own words what he believes in his mind and heart: On July 16th, 1990, when We received the necessary votes, the Church called Us not only to the priesthood, but also the episcopate and the Papacy, which we accepted. Canonically, a man does not have a vocation, until the Archdeacon on behalf of his Ordinary calls out his name at the various ordinations. Therefore on the day a man is tonsured, he has a vocation to the clerical state…" (Sept. 7, 2006, all emphasis mine. This was Bawden's response to a letter from a Traditionalist inquirer published to both the Christania discussion group and the Internet site Vatican in Exile). "By our election we have been called to the priesthood…When we became Pope [we became] head of the Catholic Church and of the hierarchy and thus de facto a cleric," (March 7, 2007 communique published by Bawden published to both the Christania discussion group and the Internet site VaticanInExile).

This means that before he became Pope, on receiving all five votes, Bawden believed that at that moment the laity confirmed his vocation and administered de facto tonsure outside the laws and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. At that precise moment, Bawden was only a Pope-elect; he had not received universal jurisdiction or the charism of infallibility, which Canon Law says is received only on acceptance. This is proof of pre-election heresy, per Pope Pius VI's condemnation above concerning the Church's teaching on lay investiture. This condemnation declares the one committing the offense automatically (ipso facto) excommunicated under Can. 2314. And as a result of this heresy, Bawden could not validly accept the election. How long prior to the election did Bawden entertain this heresy? Bawden's pre-election intention was obliquely stated in the book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?, pg. 453.  "Once the Pope accepts election, he immediately acquires full jurisdiction, even if he is a layman. It is our opinion that this election automatically enrolls him in the clergy." This opinion, however, was ambiguously expressed by one who, at that time, was considered by most of the electors as far from the only candidate possibly in the running for the papal position. it was posited as an opinion only, with no proofs for its truthfulness offered. Nor was it qualified in any way, and could easily be taken to mean that a bishop-elect, a lay pope, would acquire some status, attached to the office itself, predisposing him to exercise the episcopal position received, (such as when a vicar capitular administers a vacant episcopal see). This is how it was perceived by the co-author of the book.

In the pre-election book, Bawden made no reference whatsoever to the fact that he actually believed the laity was capable of granting any kind of actual ecclesiastical designation related to Orders itself; of calling him to first tonsure. The way the sentence is constructed, one relates the acquisition of jurisdiction, which is the last topic mentioned in the first sentence, to his enrollment in the clergy, which can mean anything from a newly tonsured male to a bishop. Now simple clerics do not possess jurisdiction, but only those who are members of the hierarchy, which is why it was logical to relate this statement to a Pope as bishop. Also the term election is used once again, not acceptance of the election. By not specifying terms here he leaves this statement open to interpretation. A rule of scholastic argument states one is never to use equivocal words unless they are qualified. In fact equivocation renders the statement invalid, even as an opinion, simply because it is ambiguous. Throughout his often redundant and sometimes indecipherable works, Bawden repeatedly commits the fallacy described by scholastics as amphiboly, something he has been warned about over and over again for years. Now amphiboly is a fallacy of argument which consists in "dangling modifiers, loose sentence structure and ambiguous antecedents," according to John Oesterle's Introductory Logic. This also invalidates a syllogism or any statement that should be able to be reduced to a syllogism. The result of this sloppy presentation is ambiguity, and defense of the use of ambiguity, especially when to be truthful would result in some palpable material or spiritual loss, is condemned as a heresy, (see # 11 above).

So we have written pre-election heresy and two confirmations of the delinquent's mind later manifested publicly. But that is not all. When Bawden "accepted" the papacy, he incurred another excommunication. Pope Pius XII levied this censure for invalid intrusion into an ecclesiastic office without the proper canonical provision concerning the Church's necessary hierarchical structure. Only a Catholic can validly be elected Pope; one who has committed heresy or is even suspect of having committed it is no longer considered a Catholic and is outside the Church. A papal election is never official or valid unless and until the one elected accepts the election and this acceptance is documented and certified by Church authorities. This is true only if the one elected CAN accept election, (and heretics and those without the proper canonical provision cannot.) Canon 109 states: "… In the Supreme Pontificate, the person legitimately and freely accepting the election receives jurisdiction by the Divine law itself…" This concept is reiterated in Can. 148§5 which defines one method of ecclesiastical appointment as: "[simple] election and acceptance of the election by the elected, if the law does not require confirmation of the election." So Bawden did not ever receive jurisdiction by Divine law because he could not validly accept the election, having committed heresy prior to his "acceptance."

Bawden plainly knew what heresy meant and was aware of the censures that accompany it. He publicly broadcast precisely what his internal intention was in the book Will the Catholic Church Survive…? and again at the time he obtained the votes of the electors, prior to his actual acceptance. It is assumed that people say what they mean and mean what they say. So we have no doubt as to what actually happened on July 16, 1990, because the Church explains Her teaching to us on this subject: "Wherefore, if any should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than as it has been defined by Us, which God avert, let them know and understand that they are condemned by their own judgment; that they have suffered shipwreck in regard to faith, and have revolted from the unity of the Church; and what is more, that by their own act they subject themselves to the penalties established by law, if, what they think in their heart, they should dare to signify by word or writing or any other external means,"  Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX  (DZ 1641).

Without consulting the electors or considering them at all, Bawden assigned to them an act, which, if not repudiated by each elector remaining, will involve them in heresy. Despite his Profession of Faith to safeguard and uphold all the laws and teachings of the Church in the same sense the Church has always held them, many Church teachings fell by the wayside following the election. These laws and teachings mainly were those unfavorable to Bawden's ideas on a command vocation and his eventual right to ordination based on this "Divine call." We know personally that he entertained false ideas on vocation prior to his election as well.  Pope Paul IV's infallible Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio explains that if a man falls into heresy as a "Pope," it is only an indication that he was a heretic prior to election, and never actually became Pope. This is true because Christ's promise to a canonically elected Pope — that Peter's faith will not fail — preserves him from the public manifestation, at least, of heresy. This papal Bull explains what has happened and the penalties that follow. The laity are generally excused from any support rendered to the one believed to be "Pope," if they depart from his obedience.