Bawden’s connections to Fr. Peter Tran Van Khoat

To better explain the details of David Bawden’s association with Fr. Peter Tran Van Khoat, I have revised the previous article presented under this same title because questions have been raised concerning some of the comments made in the earlier version of this piece. Thanks to the discovery of additional information, what is presented below now will provide a more exact relation between events and better clarify times and dates. Except for my own recollection of the time I spent in Port Arthur, Texas in 1989, the facts presented below are based entirely on statements made in the writings of David Bawden. This use of the accounts found in Bawden’s own writings is NOT intended as any endorsement of the truth of his statements. These writings are referred to only for the purpose of contrasting what Bawden says with other accounts of the same information, also with his later actions.

A supporter of Fr. Khoat’s has incorrectly stated that I said Bawden sought ordination in 1989-90, allegedly from a “Siri bishop.” I said nothing of the sort, and those who have seen the document I referred to know that this document does not state that, either. The document in my possession states that Bawden sought ordination once in 1979, from the Old Catholic bishop Joseph Maria, and if he was a “Siri” bishop at that time I knew nothing about it. In fact I did not even know Bawden approached him until he (Bawden) told me in 1996. Bawden also talked to Fr. Nicholas Gruener in 1984 (year not certain) about seeking ordination from the same source that ordained Gruener, but Gruener said that the source no longer was open for ordinations. These are the only two incidences of Bawden seeking ordination that I have any knowledge about. This person indicates, however, that he has information that proves I knew Bawden accepted the Siri theory and that I was aware of Bawden approaching the Siri bishop. This is impossible. Since I never even received the firm impression from Bawden that he had formally accepted the “Siri as pope” proposition, how would I have known about a Siri bishop or any ordination plans made in 1989-90? If he made any plans of this sort he never revealed these plans to me. The letters from Bawden that the Khoat supporter provides on his site are letters I do not have copies of and, to the best of my knowledge, have never seen. In his letters to me, Bawden went back and forth on the Siri issue, probably because he knew I didn’t buy the idea. As I later discovered, there were many things Bawden never told me.

Bawden himself admits that he and I were not in agreement about many different things, and Siri, in retrospect, obviously was one of those things. He was willing to investigate it and consider it, and I hung back, but I never realized he “accepted” it and told anyone this. I refuted Siri’s claims to the papacy in the book I wrote with Bawden in 1989, “Will the Catholic Church Survive…?” and I have never rescinded from that initial position. Certainly Bawden at that time did not support him, since he was dead, or believe his “line” survived after his death. I did not trust the Siri information from the very first time I saw it, precisely because it was printed in Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes by Fr. Jones, a “priest” who promoted many strange and unCatholic theories. The Khoat supporter assumes that Bawden was totally honest with me and that I agreed with him on every possible point, but this is simply not the case. In fact, he maintains that Bawden has not been honest on the subject of Khoat, so I have no idea why he would think that Bawden was honest with me. To make what is presented here more palatable to those supporting Khoat, I can summarize Bawden’s position concerning him in fewer words, but I cannot state something I don’t know. The bottom line here is that Bawden could not have come away from Port Arthur as a member of the Catholic Church eligible for papal “election” according to his own beliefs, and that is all I am trying to prove here. Below is a brief summary of why this is true.

Bawden/Khoat Chronology

David Bawden first met Fr. Khoat in 1978 at a funeral in Dickinson, Texas while he was a member of the Pope St. Pius X Society. Khoat and Bawden were to meet “several times” after that, both in St. Mary’s Kansas and in Texas. Both men quit the Society of Pope St. Pius X in 1981. In the early 1980s, Bawden received some negative information from an acquaintance about Khoat, but didn’t know whether to believe the information or not since it came indirectly from Hector Bolduc. In August 1988, Bawden corresponded with Khoat about studying under him for the priesthood and further investigating the claims of Cardinal Siri to the papacy. He visited Khoat in October 1988 to attend a retreat, as Bawden’s own comments prove. He then corresponded with him until February, when he left Kansas to stay with Khoat for two months, arriving in Port Arthur on Feb. 19, 1989. Bawden himself states that he stayed in Port Arthur “two months.” This would be from Feb. 11 to April 19. While at Khoat’s he assisted in arranging a retreat and attended Khoat’s Mass, receiving the Sacraments. He also assisted at the altar, from some reports. Bawden wrote letters to me describing his doubts about Khoat, even asking me to “research” something he had questions about. He also offered to send Khoat to Denver to bring my family the Sacraments.

Later I attended one of Khoat’s seminars in Holy Week (last week of March) 1989. While there I saw Bawden receive the Sacraments, and I received them myself. I objected to a large picture of Karol Wojtyla hanging over Khoat’s office door; I saw no pictures of Siri in Khoat’s office. I also left Khoat’s seminar early because he questioned the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium of the pope and embraced the material/formal heresy. Before leaving the seminar, I corrected him on this. Bawden also noted and commented on Khoat’s strange behavior. I left shortly before Easter and he left sometime after that, based on Khoat’s comments in the seminar. Bawden remained in Port Arthur for an indefinite period of time after my departure. He did not leave Texas for Kansas until April 19. From April 5-April 8, Bawden does not make it clear whether he was with his uncle in Huntsville or still at Khoat’s. In any case, he was “with” Khoat in the sense that he had not yet publicly withdrawn his support for him, and would not send out a letter to friends doing this until April 26, 1989. So it is not known for certain if Bawden, or Khoat, either one were in Port Arthur on April 8, 1989, when Khoat, according to Bawden, married a Buddhist couple. On returning to Kansas, Bawden began to actively promote the papal election idea and we both began writing the pre-election book. At the time of his return, and by his own admission, Bawden was no more Catholic than Billy Graham. He would later lay down qualifications for potential electors, in the pre-election book, that he already knew disqualified him for election.

Requirements for returning to the Faith

In the pre-election book “Will the Catholic Church Survive…?” a section written by David Bawden stated that in order for anyone to vote in the “papal election” they must first have been free from any traffic with Traditionalist, NO and other non-Catholic sects for at least three years. Canonists Woywod-Smith recommend this as the method for reconciling religious for readmittance to their orders. In addition to this three-year period, religious must abjure their heresy, profess their faith, do penance and be absolved by the proper confessor or the bishop. In this same pre-election book, it is stated that in order to be counted as a true Catholic for purposes of voting, one must be absolved by a valid and licit priest from even material heresy. Later, in Election Updates printed in 1990, Bawden stated that those wishing to vote could make their professions of faith in the presence of each other and that would supply for absolution, since St. Thomas Aquinas states that lay confession is allowable when no priest is available, and laymen can absolve from censures in danger of death when there is no priest to do so.

The Profession of Faith was made pre-election, but no one remembers that it was made with any specific intent to “absolve” each other from censure. It was just generally assumed that the profession freed so-called electors from any heresy or contagion where non-Catholic sects were concerned for the purpose of voting. Canon 2248 states that, “any censure once contracted cannot be removed except by legitimate absolution.” Revs. Woywod-Smith comment: “Only a superior who has power to attach a censure to his precept can absolve under such a condition, unless the law gives the confessor faculty to absolve under that condition.” Canon E. J. Mahoney comments in his “Questions and Answers: The Sacraments” that, “The rule, very familiar to us in reconciling non-Catholics, requires a general confession from the newly reconciled person, the reasons being that every post-baptismal sin must be absolved by direct absolution.” Now here Mahoney notes that this is not required from schismatic Orthodox because their confessions in the Orthodox church are presumed to be valid, either through jurisdiction supplied owing to common error or because the Church has never withdrawn Her jurisdiction in the first place. (Mahoney says in his work that no general confession is required from the Orthodox received back into the Church, nor does the Church re-confirm the infants that Orthodox priests have confirmed.) But this cannot be said of those who have not been to confession for several years, or even several months, as was the case with all those voting in the “papal election.”

The condition in resorting to only the Perfect Act of Contrition is that one will seek valid and licit sacramental confession whenever available. Only direct absolution can remove a censure, not an Act of Contrition, unless a priest is not available in danger of death. Why else would St. Thomas say that the laity could absolve from these censures in danger of death? Certainly lay absolution outside such danger of death could not be considered legitimate, having never been practiced in the Church. And no one at the election was in danger of death. There must be certainty concerning the Catholicity of electors and one cannot have certainty in using a method of absolution outside the laws of the Church when this is forbidden by these very laws, especially when St. Thomas’ method is never mentioned as used by the Church even in emergencies.

Exempting oneself from the law

Bawden thought Khoat had jurisdiction because he was serving a flock who some believed were parishioners who had come with him from Vietnam in 1977. It is not known whether Bawden ever asked and received positive proof from Khoat that he was able to function validly and licitly as a priest. In fact according to the principles laid out in Bawden’s 1984-85 work, “Jurisdiction During the Great Apostasy,” Khoat seems to have been validly ordained (the Church requires that positive proofs of this be provided), but he was certainly not licit per Bawden’s article, and could never have received jurisdiction of any kind at any time. So basically he was in the same boat as many other Traditionalist “priests.” Bawden clearly states in his work that such men cannot confer the Sacraments because no one may receive Sacraments when there is any doubt concerning sacramental validity or licitity. Khoat was required to prove he possessed jurisdiction under Can. 200 and Bawden was obligated, especially given what he knew, to request this proof. When Khoat first contacted him, Bawden talked about an interim “emergency jurisdiction,” derived from “Divine Law” (?) that supplied priests with faculties to a) hear the confessions of those truly Catholic, b) who believed in sede vacante and c) believed in the necessity of the papacy and at least thought it possible to elect a pope. This was entirely contrary to Bawden’s previous writings on jurisdiction. It apparently was an opinion based only on his own assumptions, not solidly any laws of the Church. For Pope Pus XII’s 1945 election law forbids any usurpation of papal jurisdiction during an interregnum, and ultimately it is the Pope who must supply such jurisdiction according to Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz.

The case which Bawden later cited to justify seeking Sacraments from Khoat is found in Can. Mahoney’s work, “Answers and Questions: Sacraments.” It assumes that a refugee parish priest (parochus) can absolve any parishioners who fled with him out of his diocese and anyone else in danger of death, (but this assumes such a priest actually had jurisdiction prior to leaving his territory). It assumes no more. Bawden was neither one of Khoat’s original parishioners, nor was he in danger of death. Mahoney also cautions that knowledgeable men certainly knowing that a refugee priest actually didn’t have jurisdiction couldn’t request the Sacraments, and Bawden believed himself to be knowledgeable concerning theology. And for other reasons, it seems impossible that Bawden ever thought Khoat was a Catholic in the first place.

I began writing the pre-election book shortly after my return from Texas. Bawden eventually submitted the copy to me explaining the necessity of the three-year time frame required away from Traditionalists. I asked him how he justified our involvement with Khoat and he said we were “covered” by the emergency jurisdiction he had proposed because we thought Khoat had jurisdiction, and most Traditionalists don’t even consider asking about jurisdiction. He later explained that we could not have incurred formal censure for material heresy because to incur the censure requires the commission of a mortal sin. To commit mortal sin, he said, one must know an act is sinful. Because we didn’t know Khoat did not possess jurisdiction, the sin wasn’t mortal, and we were still considered members of the Church.

Further studies into jurisdiction over the years since then have shown that common ignorance concerning whether jurisdiction exists is not good enough; there must be a solid reason for believing it actually exists, even if that reason is an erroneous one, (Rev. Raymond Kearney, other theologians). Seeing Bawden’s reasoning in his 1984-85 article, later expanded for inclusion in the pre-election book in 1989, it is difficult to understand how he ever squared Khoat’s “faculties” with what he taught in his initial articles and professedly believed. This even though Bawden claimed at the time that he did not realize that those ordained after 1963 could be considered as laymen until writing further on jurisdiction in “Will the Catholic Church Survive…?” The Church teaches that doubt alone is sufficient to avoid the Sacraments of any priest whose jurisdiction cannot be positively affirmed. Certainly, by 1988, Bawden had learned and understood enough to know that there was sufficient doubt concerning Khoat’s ability to function as a priest, even if such doubt sprang only from the fact that Khoat at one time had operated under the auspices of the Society of St. Pius X, (SSPX), a society Bawden despises to this day.

Bawden apparently was aware, then, on some level, that there could be no certainty whatsoever that Khoat ever possessed jurisdiction in the first place. Jurisdiction is lost through heresy. Certainly he became fully aware that this applied to Khoat after the fact, for he wrote in “Will the Catholic Church Survive…?” that all bishops lost jurisdiction when they signed documents from the false V2 council in 1965, and all those who were ordained after 1963 could be considered laymen until the Church decides otherwise. This finding is probably what led to Bawden’s statement, in 1989, that he had again excommunicated himself. It is not known if Khoat’s bishop signed these documents, but even if he only accepted Paul 6 as “pope,” he lost his office under Can. 188 §4 and was not able to transmit jurisdiction. Khoat himself, as a priest, accepted Paul VI after the false Vatican II Council, so incurred the censures for heresy on this basis. It also is probable that he said the Novus Ordo “mass” for several years. All jurisdiction derives from the Pope and Paul 6 was not pope, so there was none to give. Khoat may have been validly ordained, but because he issued from a non-Catholic sect and seminary, based on Her practices in the past, the Church would probably have insisted that Khoat be at least partially retrained. She may even have decided that he should be conditionally reordained, depending on the result of any investigation into the quality of his Novus Ordo seminary education and the background of his seminary instructors and bishop. Bawden, who aspired to the priesthood, should have known this, since if one is training for a profession for nine years they are bound to know the laws and requirements that qualify them for that profession.

The bottom line: heresy and schism

Why would Bawden apprentice himself to a man ordained in 1967, a man who spent almost eight years in a non-Catholic seminary and who never possessed jurisdiction according to Bawden’s own calculations in other cases? Was it because Khoat was the only one who invited him? Was Bawden really that desperate to follow his “command vocation”? It is time to connect the dots and see where all this leads.

Bawden was well aware of Khoat’s background. He was advised to accept Khoat’s invitation by “Father” Dan Jones, who Bawden agreed that the Hunt and Benns families should reject in 1983 as lacking jurisdiction and Catholicity of any kind. He was advised not to go to Khoat’s by myself and possibly one other person, but said he must do so against all advice to follow his “vocation.” I warned him about being precipitous in assuming Khoat had jurisdiction when he offered to send Khoat to Denver, Colo. to bring me the Sacraments. I warned him that the Siri claim, which Bawden at least considered for a time and Khoat was then zealously promoting, was a hoax. I warned him that I did not trust Gary Giuffre, and Bawden, before going to stay with Khoat in Texas, told me HE did not trust Giuffre. While with Khoat in Texas, it is assumed Bawden and Khoat studied together. Bawden waffled back and forth on the Siri issue and helped Khoat promote his retreats. This we know from a bulletin advertising the next round of retreats (held in late April, after Bawden’s departure), entitled “April ’89 Retreat News No. 2.”

In this Bulletin, Bawden states the following: “After many years of confusion, Fr. Khoat invited me to come for a retreat, (October, ’88). Through the retreat, I received the grace to end my confusion. Now I am able to see my vocation: to promote these retreats so other Catholics might receive the same graces I have received. Therefore, I wish to hear from you.” His comments are listed among those of five other people who attended the various retreats. Because the next retreats announced are for late April, Bawden easily could have written and mailed out the retreat bulletin before he ever left Port Arthur. Some of the wording in the bulletin seems to indicate that he did so, or at least contributed material to be included in the bulletin before he left. Who exactly compiled the newsletter is not certain, and Bawden’s comments may have been used without his knowledge, (although he never protested the use of these comments). Certainly there is no doubt that while he was with Khoat he worked with others to promote and help prepare for these retreats. These same people, in addition to myself, witnessed his reception of the Sacraments from Khoat. There is NO doubt that while he was in Port Arthur, he was part of Khoat’s Traditional group there and presented himself as such. He left in mid-April, 1989. He was “elected pope” July 16, 1990. Because of Bawden’s erroneous advice; seeing that I cautioned Bawden against Khoat and never supported him; because I only received the Sacraments during my stay and only before publicly denouncing Khoat for heresy, not afterward, my involvement would not be considered as serious as Bawden’s involvement. This is indicated in the resolution of cases cited by the commentators, for as Revs. McHugh and Callan comment, “A greater reason is required for assistance on several occasions than on one…for assistance by a priest than by a layman, etc…,” (“Moral Theology: A Complete Course,” Vol. 1).

But according to Canon Law, Bawden deliberately and willfully, on the advice of one who he formerly had designated as a non-Catholic, made the decision (against the advice of one, possibly two Catholics who had already avoided all Traditionalists for three years) to apprentice himself to Khoat. And he did this after writing that all Traditionalist priests were to be avoided by true Catholics. This is at least indirect schism according to McHugh and Callan, (# 1366-67, Vol. I, ibid), since it is an act that “one intends to do from which schism follows…even though he does not directly intend separation from the Church…The sin of schism is committed in two ways, (Can. 1325 §2): By separation from the head of the Church…[or] by separation from the members of the Church.” Bawden temporarily separated himself from the other members of the Church who were abstaining from contact with Traditionalists, as he himself advised them to do. He promoted the activities of this sect and on several occasions received the Sacraments from Khoat in full public view of Khoat’s other followers. He promoted the retreats. He considered accepting the Siri theory, and apparently told some he did accept it. All this occurred from October of 1988 until April 1989, a little over six months. This is more than enough time to establish himself as a confirmed member of Khoat’s sect.

Was cooperating with Khoat something more? Bawden first began corresponding with Khoat in late August 1988. He attended a retreat given by Khoat in October 1988, and later went to Port Arthur in mid-February. He left Port Arthur in mid-April. So for a total of eight months, Bawden was connected with Khoat. He sent out a “Letter to Friends” from his Kansas residence on April 26, 1989, stating that he had left Khoat but never mentioning that he had been attending Mass and receiving Sacraments in Port Arthur. In this letter he publicly accuses Khoat of error and heresy. Since he obviously believed this to be the case, by his own calculations in the book and Election Updates, Bawden himself was under suspicion of heresy under Can. 2316,for working and studying through the mails and in person with Khoat. And because that suspicion was not removed in six months time, the censure for heresy was incurred automatically. To the best of my knowledge Khoat never recanted, nor was he ever abjured and absolved from his involvement with the Novus Ordo and Society of St. Pius X, something Bawden says is the minimum requirement for readmission as a member of the Church. Bawden knew, therefore, or should have known, that the laws of the Church he was then citing state that he became a public heretic, lost his office, and was unable in any way to administer the Sacraments and offer Mass. This involvement provided enough signs of his uncertainty (concerning who he followed, Siri or JPII) and defection from the faith, especially given Bawden’s knowledge of Canon Law, so that no doubt concerning his inability to function should have remained in Bawden’s mind.

Also there was another underlying heresy at work here. By accepting Khoat’s “jurisdiction” to train him for the priesthood, generally granted only by the diocesan bishop or the Pope, Bawden was publicly and implicitly denying the need for apostolicity of orders and jurisdiction in the Church, and therefore cooperating with Khoat in this heresy. For only those called, trained and ordained by a certainly valid and licit bishop can claim apostolicity of orders and jurisdiction according to Canon Law. Bawden believed John 23 and Paul 6 to be heretics and told Guiffre this while with Khoat. He knew of the teaching of Pope Pius XII in “Ad Apostolorum Principis,” explaining that unless bishops function under the authority of the Pope, they function illicitly and are excommunicated specialissimo modo. The Church clearly teaches that even those who have valid Orders do not possess apostolicity, otherwise the Orthodox would possess such apostolicity, when all Catholic theologians agree they do not. Apostolicity consists in both valid and licit Orders and jurisdiction. Traditionalists claim to possess the four marks, (extraordinary) jurisdiction, and all other things necessary to comprise the True Church, but they do not, hence they commit heresy. Khoat did not possess this apostolicity himself, exercised his Orders anyway and was guilty of heresy. And again, according to Bawden’s own reckoning as laid out in “Will the Catholic Church Survive...?,” his articles in Election Update and other material, Khoat should not have been functioning as a priest. This is the hidden heresy which has propelled Traditionalism from the beginning, and it is a heresy that Bawden has never exposed, per se, because it applies to him as well.

Ignorance of censure in invalidating laws

While all the above could be said to be acts of material schism and/or heresy, the burden of proof, canonically convincing evidence that the one under suspicion is innocent, rests with the one committing the offense, (Can. 2200). Only a true bishop could determine the worth of these proofs with any certainty; formal schism and heresy pre-election in this regard cannot be automatically excluded. This is true according to Canon Mahoney, who writes: “The liberal view [is that] baptized non-Catholics in good faith are members of the body of the Church precisely because they are not excommunicated…The view diametrically opposed to this is [that] the excommunication of heretics applies to material as well as formal heretics…

If a choice had to be made between theses two views…, there is no question that the second fits in best with Catholic discipline, and, in particular, with our practice in reconciling converts...The solution which I think is the correct one consists in perceiving a distinction which the Code itself supplies. The Sacraments are to be denied both to material and formal heretics but for different reasons; to formal heretics because they merit punishment, the censure of Can. 2314 §1; to material heretics because they are excluded by Can. 731 §2, which is a necessary deduction from the concept of the Church: [basically, the Church is a society of men professing the same Christian faith, participating in the same worship, receiving the same Sacraments, from lawful pastors in communion with the Pope, etc…] Those who reject the rule of faith proposed by the Church are not members of the Church, and may not lawfully share in the privileges of members, as, for example, the reception of the Sacraments.”

Mahoney then cites Billot, who explains that formal heresy and schism cannot be excluded as a possibility in these cases. “…In reconciling converts…it is difficult in the first place to say with certainty that a given convert has not incurred the censure. It is not amongst those which crass ignorance excuses, and it is not unlikely that, during a given period previous to his submission, there was sufficient knowledge for incurring a censure. Therefore absolution from censure is given at least ad cautelam…Moreover, the important distinction between the internal and the external forum must always be remembered. The external government of the Church regards the external actions of people…It is open to the authority of the external government of the Church to regard the members of heretical sects as excommunicated, even though, in the internal forum of conscience, they may be guiltless of any act meriting punishment. We say it is “open to them” to do so, but whether they do, as matter of fact, must depend on their own avowal, explicit or implicit. Even though there is no express direction from the competent authority that all converts are reckoned to be excommunicated, the absolution from censure, should, in my opinion, always be given…It is at least a liturgical law…In the “Ordo Administrandi,” [England] …rubric two takes it for granted that absolution from censure will be given to all who have reached the age of puberty. Nothing is said about omitting the absolution in cases where it is said not to have been incurred...Lastly, and the most important point of all…the license of the Ordinary is always necessary before reconciling a convert with the Church.”

Mahoney’s words are only strengthened by the commentary of Revs. Woywod-Smith on Can. 731: “All canonists and moralists agree that those who are heretics or schismatics and know they are wrong cannot be given the Sacraments of the Church unless they renounce their errors and are reconciled with the Church. Numerous decrees of the Holy Office put this point beyond controversy.” As Mahoney observes above, “Those who reject the rule of faith proposed by the Church are not members of the Church, and may not lawfully share in the privileges of members…” These privileges include that of voting, such as is mentioned under Can. 167 §5. This Canon has for its source Pope Paul IV’s “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio,” which deprives heretics and schismatics of any right to vote in ecclesiastical elections. Of course the laity never possessed this right to vote in the first place, but Bawden then held, in both the pre-election book and in Election Updates, that the laity of both sexes could vote. In keeping with his own thinking, then, he would need to have obtained certainty that all electors, himself included, were not material or formal heretics. In any case Bawden himself could never make this decision, since only the Ordinary is the proper judge in these matters. Without absolute certainty in such an important issue as that of a papal election, no “election” could have taken place, even had the laity been able to vote.

So given the above, there are elements here of pertinacity (defined as knowing a law exists and acting outside of it anyway), of resisting the known truth and of rank imprudence and contrariety in Bawden’s affiliation with Khoat. There also is evidence of Bawden’s intent to conceal the fact that he knew, prior to the election, that he had excommunicated himself by adhering to Khoat. In a 1989 document, never released to the public, Bawden stated unqualifiedly that he believed himself excommunicated for his time with Khoat, but his admission was not known until it was made available for eventual publication in 1996. So as Woywod-Smith stipulate above, Can. 731 applies to Bawden, because he knew he was in error and Can. 731 applies to those “who know they are wrong.” In examining a case of ecclesiastical election where a candidate omitted knowledge of such a fact, ecclesiastical authorities would likely view this as an indication of intent to conceal, since no one hides or omits something unless he is afraid it will work to his own detriment in some way, (Can. 2249). As this site has indicated since withdrawing from Bawden, all these things must be decided not on these pages, but by the proper ecclesiastical authorities.

There is yet another aspect of this situation not fully appreciated here. Bawden has repeatedly cited Can. 1827 in his case, claiming he has a presumption of law in his favor and is freed from the burden of proving that he is “pope.” He also vehemently insists he was not a heretic pre-election, a statement which his own writings clearly disprove, thus contradicting Can. 2200. Commenting on Can. 1828, which warns against conjecturing about something not proven as “a fact established by evidence in the case,” Revs. Woywod-Smith write: “(5) All persons are presumed to know the law (Canon Law does not admit ignorance as an excuse from the laws that disqualify a person or render acts invalid…)” Canon 2199 states that “The imputability of an offense depends on the evil will (dolus) of the delinquent.” Canon 2200 defines this evil will as “a deliberate will to violate the law and presupposes on the part of the mind a knowledge of the law and on the part of the will freedom of action. Given the external violation of a law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved.”

Commenting on this Canon, Woywod-Smith write: “The authorities presume, therefore, that a subject knows the law and, if he violates it, he is considered to have broken it willfully. If he claims to be free from liability, the burden of proof rests with him.” The censures for heresy and schism are ipso facto, or latae sententiae, and under Can. 2242 Woywod-Smith observe: “Contumacy of the offender is implied in the deliberate violation of a law to which a censure latae sententiae is attached, and therefore the censure is incurred immediately with the breaking of the law.” The violation is considered to be deliberate where disqualifying and invalidating laws are concerned, such as a lack of jurisdiction which invalidates the Sacrament of Penance, something Bawden knew before ever apprenticing himself to Khoat; the possession of all qualifications necessary for “election” and ordination, something he was bound to know; the laws nullifying any election in which the laity participates and also those laws governing the manner of proceeding during an interregnum. These are mentioned in Chapter I, para. 3 of Pope Pius XII’s “Vacantis Apostolica Sedis” and are conveniently omitted from Bawden’s review of the partial English translation of this Constitution on his web site.

Regardless of whether the schism and resultant heresy was formal or material, using Bawden’s own reasoning, he needed to be absolved from the censures at least three years before he was “elected.” I myself needed to be absolved from them for three years before I could “elect.” As seen above, the censure even for material heresy prevents one from receiving the Sacraments and exercising any legitimate rights concomitant with membership in the Church. Canon 2248 states that censures may only be removed by legitimate absolution. Canon 2250 states that in the case of a censure which prevents the reception of the Sacraments, “The censured person cannot be absolved from the sins until he has been first absolved from the censure.” In urgent cases, any priest possessing jurisdiction may absolve; otherwise, even material heretics and schismatics in good faith cannot be absolved from such censures except in danger of death, (Can. 731).

Not even considered here is a salient fact, agreed upon by all modern theologians, that whenever one is dealing with a matter involving the validity of the Sacraments, eternal salvation or the rights of third parties, one cannot use a probable opinion to determine a mode of action, (Rev. Dominic Prummer, “Handbook of Moral Theology”). Arbitrarily judging oneself innocent of all heresy or schism despite the practice of the Church, cited above; assuming that one is qualified to be elected “pope” merely on a liberal opinion, (not even proven to be probable), violates this teaching. For as Bawden is so fond of saying, “No one is a competent judge in his own case.” First of all, this liberal opinion mentioned by Mahoney is dangerous because it tends to the belief that no absolution is necessary, only a profession of Faith. This would prevent others, who are bound always to take the safer course where salvation is concerned, from seeking the absolution they need to become true members of the Church once again. It would cause those following such a “pope” to believe that by subjection to him, they could be saved, when this is not the case. It would violate the rights of third parties, who believed they could procure the spiritual goods from such a “pope” such as dispensations, annulments, permissions and so forth, endangering their souls since these favors could not be validly or licitly granted. Now we understand why Pope Pius XII refused to allow anyone to dispense themselves from Canon Law during an interregnum.

Conclusion

All the above has been said with full knowledge and conviction that the laity could never have elected a Pope in the first place, and that Pope Paul IV’s “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio,” Pius XII’s papal election law and Canon Law all forbid any participation in a papal election by those who are even suspect of having committed heresy, apostasy or schism. In setting the three-year time limit in the pre-election book for abstention from involvement with Traditionalists, Bawden did with this requirement of the Church for professed religious what he did with the Divine law concerning jurisdiction itself: he set rules for others he himself was not willing to follow. Khoat’s “iffiness” was readily apparent (or should have been) to anyone who knew even a little about his past, and was easily enough confirmed once his actual teachings were expressed. Now Bawden exposes Khoat’s activities on his web site without ever mentioning the fact that he once was a follower of Khoat’s. This is in keeping with Bawden’s approach to things in general: the “rest of the story” just somehow never sees the light of day.

As a material schismatic whose case was never investigated by the proper ecclesiastical authorities, as one never absolved from several counts of (at least) material schism and heresy prior to his “election,” as a candidate who never observed the time limit he himself specified, Bawden, under the laws of the Catholic Church Herself, was never a worthy candidate capable of election because he was not a true member of the Church. And this is considering his pre-election problems from one angle only. It is not taking into consideration the fact that he implicitly committed heresy in the pre-election book by his statement concerning the assignment of clerical status by election. It does not take into consideration that his articles in Election Update promote a definition of the Universal Church — confirmed by the act of attempted election — that the Catholic Church condemns at the Vatican Council (and in other teachings) and defines otherwise in Her Canon Law from Divine law itself. The infallible teaching of the Church is stated as follows: the Universal Church consists of clergy and laity, and the hierarchy alone have the right to legislate and govern, with election being part of the governing process. Nor does what is treated here take into account other heresies committed “post-election” by Bawden as a layperson, heresies that prove he never became pope, since infallibility guarantees no pope could err publicly in a matter concerning faith and morals.

Of all the pages written on this site concerning Bawden, these are probably the most revealing and the easiest to understand. Owing to his heresies, without abjuration and absolution, at least, Bawden was never qualified to enter the seminary, far less be elected “pope.” In ignoring Canon Law and misrepresenting and misinterpreting the teachings and practices of the Church since his “election,” in administering the solemn form of the Sacraments, also sacramentals, when he is not even in minor orders, and in teaching one thing and doing another, Bawden has demonstrated his lack of respect for the laws of his predecessors and the truths of Faith. One can prove the true character of a “pastor” by observing whether he practices what he teaches. Bawden did not observe his own rules of conduct long before his “election,” and does not observe them now. He can be classed with the Pharisees Christ condemned so vehemently for this very same sin and dismissed in the same way: as agents of the Devil.

(Those wishing to review the relevant writings of David Bawden used to document this article may contact the author through the site e-mail to arrange a private viewing.)

Critical factors in papal elections

Avoid false christs