In the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, the question was asked about receiving a baptized non-Catholic into the Church. The usual procedure was followed with absolution from the excommunication for heresy. However, in the accompanying confession the woman admits to having had an abortion, which also is an excommunicable offense. The answer appears below:

"… Practically there is no difficulty about censure for the sin of abortion or any other offense which the Code of Canon Law punishes with a censure, because ignorance excuses from censures (See Canon 2229, paragraph 1), and it is reasonable to assume that ordinarily the convert was ignorant of the regulations of the Church. One may object and ask why then must we insist on absolving from censure because of heresy when the convert knows nothing more about that censure than he knows of other censures. There is a difference between a public profession of faith contrary to the teaching of the Church and sins committed in one’s private life. The one is a public affair; the other is a matter of conscience only. In public violations of the rules of the Church the public authority cannot but judge that the violation was done with full knowledge, and the burden of proof that it was done in good faith rests with the one who appears to be guilty. In many instances he may not be able to prove good faith, and he will be considered guilt," (Volume 34, Number 7, page 743-4, April 1934).

The present situation can be compared to a man who has committed murder, since heresy is soul murder. The fact that the victim is dead and it can be proven beyond any doubt that the accused shot the victim in broad daylight, in the presence of numerous witnesses, is one thing. Guilt in the affair is another. Let's say it is brought to light that the accused believed the man to be an assassin whose identity was known to him and he believed the man was sent to kill him, so he shot him first. Tragically however the victim simply bore a striking resemblance to the assassin, and the killing was a case of mistaken identity. It would still be a killing, a murder; but the guilt probably would be lessened and the punishment lessened accordingly.

Regardless of any mitigating circumstances, a heresy is a heresy and results in ipso facto excommunication. One can be absolved and other punishments also connected to the crime may be softened, but the heresy will still remain a heresy. Can it be adjudged as material and not formal heresy? Not unless very plausible and convincing evidence can be produced. Generally heresy is considered material only when the following three conditions are fulfilled: a) The offender is a baptized non-Catholic raised among Protestants who is following his own religion, as in the case above; b) nevertheless, this person is sincerely seeking the truth, and c) is fully prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church as soon as the heresy is discovered. There also is such a thing as aggravating circumstances in such cases, which make the delict (crime) more grave. Canon 2207 says offenses are aggravated owing to the dignity of the offender's [perceived, in this case] position and the abuse of his office. Canon 2234 states that a person who has committed several offenses "shall not only be punished more severely, but shall also be subjected to surveillance…," although such surveillance by superiors is no longer possible. These factors would offset any mitigating circumstances.

" One who is well versed in the law, or one who holds an office in regard to the things pertaining to the office," is presumed to be unable to claim ignorance of the law or its penalty or ignorance of some fact concerning the delict, (Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts, Rev. Innocent Swoboda, O.F.M., J.C.L.) Swoboda explains that in a pastor, priest or judge, a knowledge of the law is so strongly presumed that even if ignorance is claimed, it would most likely be considered crass by an ecclesiastical court, or culpable, (meaning the offender is at fault). Crass ignorance is subjectively defined by Swoboda as "a complete lack of diligence when it is known that the truth could be easily discovered….a complete and total failure to use any effort to fulfil the obligation of knowing the law or the pertinent facts surrounding the law. The failure itself may arise from mere sloth or from a sinful habit of acting without due consideration of the results of one's own conduct…Only the ignorance of those things which can be easily learned can be considered crass or supine," (and Swoboda combines both error and ignorance for the purposes of his dissertation).

Two conditions must exist to make ignorance crass or supine. First, the truth must be easily available; secondly the delinquent must fail to use any diligence in searching for it. It has been proven that the offender has the truth readily available and is able to access it at will when circumstances require. It is already proven the offender is fairly well versed in the law and equal to the necessary canonical work. It also has been demonstrated that Pope Pius XII insists that prior to undertaking any unusual or unprecedented action, canonical provision consisting in the reconciliation of various canons (in a situation where there is no law or the law is not clear) must be made. Furthermore, it should be mentioned that Pope Pius XII taught in his 1957 address, Six ans se sont, that a layman elected to the papacy cannot accept the election unless he is fit for ordination and willing to be ordained. If one attempts such an acceptance despite this lack of fitness and because he is ignorant of the Divine teaching that only a full-fledged member of the hierarchy can occupy the papal office, the election is invalid. This is true because Canons 154 and 453 are said not to apply to a lay Pope who receives his jurisdiction from God immediately on valid acceptance and immediately receives all the Orders afterwards. As observed in Dogmatic Errors, presumption must yield to truth. According to Rev. Swoboda, the delinquent is presumed unable to claim ignorance of the law. It appears this ignorance, then, was crass and/or supine according to what was presented above. As shown below, even a true Pope is never exempt from taking due diligence in determining what is to be taught to the Church, even when the actual decision is his own.

St. Francis de Sales
(The Catholic Controversy)
" Though the Holy Ghost enlightens the Church, He wills at the same time that She should use the diligence which is required for keeping the true way, as the Apostles did, who having to give an answer to an important question, debated comparing the Scriptures together; and when they had diligently done this they concluded by the words: 'It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us'…The ordinary means must be employed to discover the truth, and yet in this must be acknowledged the drawing and the presence of the Holy Ghost…Thus is the Christian flock led…Its Pastor, who however does not walk at hazard, but according to necessity convokes the other pastors, either partially or universally, carefully regards the track of his predecessors, enters before God by his prayers and invocations, and having thus diligently sought out the true way, courageously sets sail."

19th Century Pastoral of the Swiss Bishops
(The Church and Infallibility, Dom Butler)
" It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the Divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church, (emph. mine). He is tied up and limited by the Divine law, and by the Constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine divinely revealed which affirms that alongside religious society stands civil society…" (This pastoral received the approval of the Pope.)

Pietro Parente
(Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology)
" Although enjoying [the privilege of infallibility] the Holy Pontiff is not thereby dispensed from preparatory studies, research and prayer, which dispose him for the prudent exercise of his office of universal teacher of the Church…"

Rev. Joseph Cavanaugh, C.S.C, S.T.D
(Evidence For Our Faith)
" As Catholics, we do not believe that the Pope can teach on any subject that strikes his fancy. Nor do we think that infallibility renders him impeccable. Infallibility cannot put truth into his mind. The Pope may be quite ignorant and a poor theologian…Like anyone else, the Pope has to acquire knowledge of God's revelations by diligent study, for what he does not know he cannot teach. Consequently the Pope uses every possible precaution before he defines any doctrine infallibly. He makes sure that Scripture and Tradition have been carefully studied. He considers the opinions of all theologians. Finally he sees to it that the doctrine is stated in the most precise terminology. If the Pope did not take all these precautions, he would be guilty of [the sin against the Holy Ghost known as] presumption."

+++++++++++++++++++

All the above seems to indicate that crass and supine ignorance existed in the case of the censures incurred by the offender. That certain mitigating factors are at play here is not being contested. The offender is a layman, albeit a somewhat educated one, and the law accords greater leniency to laymen. In his role as "Pope," he had not all the resources at hand generally available to past Popes; all the more reason, however, that greater care should have been taken in the first place. He may claim inadvertence, or failure to pay sufficient attention to the matter at hand. But Swoboda says that inadvertence is hard to prove and its diminution of guilt is not always clear. In any case only culpable (blameworthy) inadvertence could exist, because the office of "Pope" demands that such matters be given fullest and most precise attention. Swoboda concludes: "Inadvertence will be very difficult to judge in the external forum and cannot be accepted by the prudent judge as equal with error and ignorance as an excusing factor."

David Bawden freely accepted election to what he truly believed was the papacy and (insofar as his own beliefs are concerned) thereby assumed with it all the obligations that came with the office, including the strict obligation to use due diligence. As Swoboda notes, "If a man is not fit for a certain position [such as that of] a judge, confessor or pastor, he is bound to give it up when he realizes this fact; otherwise he will justly be held responsible for his own mistakes." Bawden never possessed the office of the papacy. It now remains for him to admit this fact so others may salvage what they can of any effort to eventually elect a true Pope. Unfortunately it appears that despite numerous warnings and ample time to retract his errors, Bawden is interested only in demanding obedience, threatening retaliatory and worthless sentences of "excommunication" and shoring up his position. It is telling indeed that he now is reconstructing the site page containing the Sept. 7, 2006 pronouncement on his mystical tonsure and has added to the pages announcing his de facto clerical status, (March 7, 2007 post to Christania and his web site). He also has denied that the quotations used were accurately quoted. Fortunately the original pages were preserved and can be viewed under Bawden web pages, 9/06 and 3/07 on the BetrayedCatholics site sidebar.

The Emperor's New Clothes
This Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale was one of Bawden's favorites; he applied it to the V2 antipopes. Ironically it can be said to describe his own situation with remarkable accuracy. The emperor was a man who neglected the duties of his office. He asked the scam artist weavers to sew the garments to help him point the fingers at others who were unfit for their offices or too simple to exercise them. But in order to see the garments, one had to be fit; to not see them was to indicate unfitness. To accuse the weavers of fraud was to admit being gullible and hence an irresponsible leader. It was a Catch-22 situation all around. The emperor, his advisors and his subjects could not afford to admit they had made a mistake; their credibility was riding on it. And the emperor had too much invested in the weavers to cut them loose. Rather than lose face, all the emperors' attendants preferred to collude in a lie and pretend the clothes actually existed. The emperor chose to be exposed to his entire kingdom as a fool rather than humbly admit he had made a mistake. Even when all his subjects finally told him that he was exposed, he became vexed, for he knew they were right. But still the procession went on, the attendants as attentive as ever as the people stared in total bewilderment.

So the moral of this story as illustrated by the deluded emperor is, "It is not reality in and of itself that matters; it is only my perception of reality that matters." As noted elsewhere, reality is determined by the Scholastic system of philosophy. Whenever the laws of this system are neglected or ignored, there is a departure from reality, (Formal Logic, Michael J. Mahony, S.J.). Heresy is simply the ultimate departure from reality.