For one who believes his vocation was confirmed beginning July 16, 1990, evidence of this belief in actual practice is sketchy. First of all, David Bawden left the SSPX seminary in Armada for two months May-July 1978, (see #12 under 1955 Instruction,, Investigation of the Character…). He was planning to leave again in December 1978 but was dismissed before he could leave. In a truly Catholic seminary these departures would amount to grave doubt, at best, concerning a seminarian's vocation, (although we realize here that there were extenuating circumstances). When requested to come to be with his flock in 1999-2000 following his father's death, Bawden declined on the basis that he would have to work here and could not leave his mother because he had made a deathbed promise to his father to care for her. It would appear that the duties of the papacy would preclude such a promise, one his mother later released him from observing anyway. (Pope Gregory XI walked over the prostrate body of his elderly father at Avignon to journey to Rome at the bidding of a saint, despite his father's profuse entreaties to remain in France.)

Ordinarily, priests and religious are only released from their duties to care for destitute or bedridden parents who have no other means of care or support. This is suggested by Rev. Mahoney in his Priest's Problems and stated by Rev. Augustine in his commentary on Can. 542§2. Nor, as Rev. Mahoney notes, is it necessary to look forward to a time when a person now able to care for themselves may not be able to do so. The decision presenting itself and the time frame in which it is presented is all that is to be considered. Such was not the case with Bawden's mother who was in good health and had adequate means. When a priest or religious leaves his domicile for an extended period to care for a parent, this is considered a release from religious obligations or secularization, especially among those not in major orders. In other words the vocation is abandoned for other more pressing duties. If the duty ceases, the one released may request to pursue a vocation once again, but is not guaranteed readmission to the seminary or religious institute previously attended.

The Council of Trent addresses the duties of bishops and priests in this regard, (Bawden claiming to be Bishop of Rome by appointment but not yet in Orders). The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, On Reformation, Ch. 1, on Prelates; also Sess. XXIII, On Reformation, Ch. 1, on Pastors) taught that, "Whereas it is by Divine precept enjoined on all, to whom the care of souls is committed, to know their own sheep; to offer sacrifice for them; and by the preaching of the divine word, by the administration of the Sacraments and by the example of all good works, to feed them; to have a fatherly care of the poor and of other distressed persons and to apply themselves to all other pastoral duties, all which offices cannot be rendered and fulfilled by those who neither watch over nor are with their own flock, but abandon it after the manner of hirelings; the sacred and holy Synod admonishes and exhorts such that, mindful of the divine precepts and made a pattern of the flock (1Peter 5: 3), they feed and rule in judgment and truth…All persons…who are set over any patriarchal, primatial, metropolitan, and cathedral churches whatsoever, are obliged to personal residence in their own church or diocese where they will be bound to discharge the office enjoined them; and may not be absent thence save for the causes and in the manner subjoined," (absence may not exceed a total period of five months, for serious reasons only).

Ordinarily such absences, except for grave reasons known to the Roman Pontiff, were not expected to "exceed two, at the most three months…and that regard be had that it be done from a just cause, and without any detriment to the flock; which, whether it be the case, the Synod leaves to the conscience of those who withdraw themselves, which It hopes will be religious and timorous, seeing that their hearts are open before God, whose work they are bound, at their peril not to do deceitfully, (Jer. 18: 10)." The papal penalty decreed by Paul III for remaining away from the flock in violation of this decree stated that "in addition to other penalties…and the guilt of mortal sin which such an one incurs, he acquires no property in any fruits in proportion to the time of his absence; and that he cannot, even though no other declaration but this follow, retain…these ill-gotten fruits… with a safe conscience." That bishops not in orders ruled their dioceses until they received Orders or died is an historic fact. This was the case with at least two lay Popes who reigned only for brief periods of time. Certainly they received the benefices from the parishes of Rome, but then they also resided in their own diocese and were obviously Popes whose elections were unquestionably valid. It has been proven elsewhere that even when laws are rendered unobservable owing to impossibility, those laws that safeguard the common good still bind. This the Council of Trent has adequately proven above.

Accordingly, Rev. Amleto Cicognani writes: "Invalidating [and disqualifying] laws…certainly bind in conscience. An invalidating law commands that certain acts be regarded as invalid…[that they] are not to be upheld as valid, nor are they to be considered as a source of rights or emoluments, [profit from office; fees or salary — Webster]… A disqualifying law is one that renders a person incapable of certain acts," (Canon Law), and the teaching of the Council of Trent above disqualifies a non-resident priest or bishop from collecting benefices. Rev. Augustine also says that only clerics have the right to emoluments. This decree of Trent is the basis for Canon Law. Canon 118, while not an invalidating law, states that only clerics can obtain orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction and are entitled to ecclesiastical benefices. This includes any voluntary donations from the faithful.

Certainly the Church would wish that a true Pope be supported as head of the Church. And yet the Church expected a great deal of physical and mental labor from clerics in return for their meager support; far more, in fact, than the lowest paid worker in the work force. Surely it is only common sense that where the largest portion of the flock is located, there the pastor should also be. This is, in fact, what one group, now no longer associated with Bawden were objecting to years ago when they expected "Pope Michael" to move to Ohio, (and at that time there were a greater number of "faithful" there than anywhere else). Bawden's mother objected to the move, and it was never undertaken. Still, the reasons for the expectation should have been appreciated, and the willingness to make the move made manifest.

If one truly believed himself "called" in any way to a pastoral life, then is it not fitting for the pastor to abide with those he considers his sheep? If the sheep are to obey and to support their pastor, is it not logical and fitting to believe that one-on-one, not long distance care should be available for members of the flock? Bawden objected he could not work because of his status as "Pope"; yet in reality he was never a cleric, and so no Canon Law forbids him to work, since the law binds only clerics. Bp. Robinson, from whom Bawden sought ordination, has worked for many years in addition to his church duties. True; a true (lay) pope would need to find a position of some sort that did not interfere much with papal duties yet provided a modest income. Are not all laymen required to employ themselves in work of some kind, and face the challenges that such work brings? Weren't the Apostles so employed right up until the time they became priests and bishops? Aren't priests in a parish and bishops in their dioceses consumed night and day with the care of the faithful?

It is true that if the bishop appoints someone to watch over the flock during his absence, he is said to have provided for them. But in an absence lasting eight years, can this really be the case if a truly grave reason for said absence does not exist? Shouldn't one who believed himself ready at any moment to receive priestly and episcopal Orders have acted in that full capacity, insofar as lay status allows, long before the event? Canon 118 states that only clerics are entitled to ecclesiastical benefices, that is, any revenue that accrues from an established ecclesiastical office such as donations from the area's faithful. And the Council of Trent teaches that even clerics cannot collect their benefices unless they reside in their own diocese.
Actually Bawden's case, had it been legitimate, would have fallen under another type of benefice called patrimony. As Rev. Augustine explains, patrimony is "an inheritance received from one's ancestors, especially parents," (Can. 979). A will drawn up naming the one to be ordained as an heir to real estate and cash funds is considered sufficient proof that he will be provided for in lieu of a benefice; and actual support of a candidate for the priesthood until ordination is adequate guarantee that such a patrimony would be honored. Indeed many parents have supported their adult children in the secular life who were unable to engage in gainful employment in this same way. Assuming such a person is a cleric, there is no obligation to provide further financial assistance unless such assistance be voluntary (vs. obligatory). The bottom line, however is this: Even lay bishops-elect not living in their diocese or personally tending their flocks cannot legally lay claim to tithes; this according to the holy canons of the Church. Nor can a cleric being adequately supported under what identically resembles a patrimony, request additional funds unless he resides with his flock. Nor can anyone not a cleric pretend to have any right to benefices or tithes of any kind. "The laborer is worthy of his hire," but if he does not fit the Church's job description, one cannot justify wages.

Basically we find a dichotomy here between Bawden's claims to be a pastor worthy of instant obedience and his actual behavior. This behavior illustrates the principle of contradiction laid down in Scholastic philosophy: The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied of the same thing, at the same time, and under the same respect, (Mahony). I am a cleric — but I am not bound to the laws governing clerics — yet I may avail myself of the privileges accorded to clerics. Surely one truly considering himself in training for Holy Orders would be careful to observe all the rules and laws, all the teachings of the Church on the conduct and formation of clerics, in anticipation of becoming one. This is especially true when that person is already, by his title, known as the Universal Pastor. And if the person concerned already considered himself admitted to the clerical state by virtue of election, and had already begun to perform many of the duties connected to Orders, (preaching, teaching, blessing, counseling and so forth), why would this residency not logically follow? With privileges come responsibilities. Certainly one believing himself Pope should be very careful to observe God's laws, for He is a steward only and must answer for much.

Clerics must be holier than their flocks. As Pope Benedict XV taught concerning the canonization process, "Sanctity properly consists in simple conformity to the Divine Will expressed in an exact fulfillment of the duties of one's proper state." Sainthood consists in heroic sanctity. God's signified will, as Tanquerey teaches is expressed in His law and the laws of His Church. And as those teaching on priestly formation have written, God's will of good pleasure must be rightly interpreted. The development of a superior sanctity, the submission to the necessary examinations, the completion of any studies necessary for reception of Orders — and especially in these times continuing pastoral education — all are included in the duties of one who aspires to the clerical life.