WARNING: Please don't read this book

Many have asked, since my denunciation of David Bawden as "pope," how this affects the case for a papal election presented in the book I co-authored with Bawden in 1989, Will the Catholic Church Survive…?. Bawden contributed about a third of the material compiled for this work, that mainly dealing with Canon Law and election details. He later, of course, became "Pope Michael;" and I unfortunately was one of his electors. At that time, however, I fervently believed that the Church could not exist without a Pope and that in light of the defection of the Cardinals, the laity could elect even a layman as Pope. Needless to say, continued study and more mature years have put a different light on the matter, just as it also did for St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori. In 2006, Bawden made public statements that demonstrated he held heresy pre-election and thus never became pope. I have dedicated my website to condemning his heresies and exposing his unfitness for the priesthood and the papacy, also to explaining my obligation to withdraw from his "obedience."

Since Bawden's public defection from the Church, I have become aware of several errors in the book he helped me write that appear in the sections he wrote. I probably was at fault for not checking out his work before going to print, but I had no reason to believe at that time that he had not fully investigated what he wrote. His treatment of the history of lay elections in the Church, also Church law and practice concerning the appointment of laymen and mere clerics to ecclesiastical offices presented a picture of leniency toward laymen concerning clerical positions that did not exist. Based on these reports, I went on to ground my position for the participation of laymen in an election and the possible election of a layman. Bawden was unquestionably at fault in presenting what he did, especially in the careless and unprofessional manner in which it was presented. But it was imprudent zeal, and my failure to understand the subjects treated as well as I should have, that caused the problem. Bawden, whether through ignorance or deliberately, undermined the foundation supporting the very institution and functionality of the hierarchy; and that is what finally sank the election boat. This makes more sense in light of the fact that I was unofficially "tutored" by Bawden in theology and Canon Law from 1985-1988, at his insistence.

Had I prolonged my studies on my own, without being encumbered by the ball and chain of Bawden's prejudices and misinformation, the impossibility of conducting an election without valid hierarchy would have become painfully clear. Many objected at length to the election prior to the event. Some even took the time to voice these objections in writing. But not once, in all these objections, were any proofs advanced concerning the nature of Bawden's unfitness, or any claim made that Catholic teaching forbade an election of a layman where no certainty concerning subsequent valid ordination and consecration (within the first year) could be had. Without demonstrable proofs that what we were doing was contrary to faith, no certainty could be gained that would have at least postponed the election. Even though I had reservations and fully expected other candidates to appear, I voted for Bawden believing that he was the only one willing to accept this position which Christ willed should exist. But then Our Lord would never have willed that in order to elect a pope, the electors should violate other Divine laws to accomplish an election, either.

For many years I believed that a conflict of law (allowing only cardinals to elect a member of the hierarchy pope), could be resolved in favor of the common good to promote unity among the faithful, thus resolving the crisis in the Church. But neither unity nor the common good is ever served when a man not possessing apostolicity claims to be fit for the priesthood, far less the papacy. No one can, in good conscience, recognize such a one as a true successor of the Apostles. Many pre-election did object that a layman, and particularly Bawden, could not be elected; they refused, however to explain why. Today, we know what they meant; but then hindsight is always 20/20. The moment I obtained certainty that Bawden never became pope, I wrote my withdrawal from "Pope Michael" and his ill-fated group.

While Will the Catholic Church Survive…? is definitely flawed in its conclusions, this does not necessarily affect the truth of what is generally presented in the sections of the book I personally authored. This is especially true because so much of what was presented came directly from the works of others writing with Church approval prior to 1959. Their works and statements cannot be discredited simply because they were (unknowingly) used to arrive at a wrong solution to a very difficult problem. The different terms of a syllogism can be correct, while the conclusion of the syllogism is false. It seems the book fell on the sword of what is called the "fallacy of the complex question" in the study of formal logic, used by scholastics. The question of whether only laity could elect a layman pope was never completely addressed or explored, as it should have been. And there were reasons for this.

To begin with, the conclusion was based on Bawden's faulty theological "training" and information. Secondly, much has come to light in the past 18 years since the book was written, and what has been discovered changes the landscape completely. While certainly today I deny that a layman in our present situation can be elected pope, because this contradicts Catholic teaching, I do not deny the necessity of the papacy for the Church's existence, or the fact that laymen can participate in a papal election along with valid and licit clergy, (in an emergency situation only). Because so much in the book would have to be restated in light of new discoveries and developments, I have to warn anyone against reading Will the Catholic Church Survive…? I say this primarily because the book contains Bawden's veiled heresy and his errors; but also because it does not properly distinguish between the situation in the Church in normal times and our dilemma today.

I therefore forbid that anything be quoted in my name from the above-mentioned book without my express prior (written) permission; also the clarification necessary to understand my statements in the book in light of recent developments and true Catholic teaching.