Holy Family Publications + 7645 S. Chuckwagon Rd + Safford, Arizona 85546
Phone: 928-
Introduction about the following text: In the late 1980s and early 1990s David Bawden and Teresa Benns wrote a book explaining reasons why they wanted people to come together and elect a pope. It did not bring many people to the “conclave”. However, the five or six that did show up and vote claimed at that time that David Bawden was elected; and he chose to be known as Pope Michael I. By 1998 a family I knew was having problems with David Bawden splitting up the children from the parents. The parents wanted to know if I would explain to the family why I did not think David Bawden was a pope of the Catholic Church. As a result I recorded the following message onto two cassette tapes. Copies of the tapes were sent out to the family and a few others, including David Bawden and Teresa Benns. In February of 2008, Teresa Benns told me she never listened to her copy of the tapes. I sent her a copy of the transcript of the tapes, and she asked me to upload the following transcript of the tapes to http://www.JMJsite.com . Teresa Benns’ answers to the questions I asked toward the end of the tapes will be found at the end of the following transcript of the tapes. Please take notice that Teresa Benns no longer supports David Bawden. By the Grace of God, Teresa Benns now knows that David Bawden has never been a Catholic Pope.
WHAT DO DAVID BAWDEN and TERESA BENNS TEACH?
By: Patrick Henry
Benns and Bawden wrote in their book about the necessity of observing the laws of God, and as they state on page 41,
“We are bound by Canon Law and the penalties prescribed by Canon Law.”
On Page 344, they wrote,
“if we observe His law we will not be able to receive the sacraments from traditionalist priests who lack jurisdiction since the Council of Trent has decreed that anyone who denies the necessity of jurisdiction is to be considered anathema.” [Denzinger 903.]
“If we observe His laws we must observe them all, and as we have seen in Parts 1 and 2, this a tall order indeed.”
Having made it plain that they (Bawden and Benns) are bound to observe the laws of God and of His Holy Church, as are all Catholics, let us review Canon 1258 which states:
“It is unlawful for the Faithful to assist in any active manner or to take part in
the sacred services of non-
When you study their book, and know what they have done during their lives you will
find that Benns and Bawden have actively taken part in non-
We should know Canon 2316:
“A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy or who communicates in sacred rites with heretics in violation of the gravitation of Canon 1258 incurs suspicion of heresy.”
So now we see from the laws of the Church that Benns and Bawden have incurred “suspicion
of heresy” for being part of non-
In Canon 2315 we read:
“A person who is suspected of heresy and who after admonition has not removed the cause for suspicion shall be forbidden to exercise legal ecclesiastical acts, if he is a cleric and after repeated admonition has not removed the cause for suspicion, he shall be suspended a divines. If a person suspected of heresy has been punished with the penalties herein stated and does not amend within six months after their imposition, he shall be considered as a heretic and be liable to the penalties for heresy.”
On Page 352, they remind us,
“it should be obvious to all that if heretics participate they could also be elected and as Leo here said, ‘A man who is not a Catholic could never be a pope.’”
Beginning on page 345 Benns and Bawden wrote a section entitled, “Countering Objections.” By the time we get to page 354 we read the Tenth Objection:
“(Q)-
“(A)–Allow me to introduce myself. I, David Bawden, was born September 22, 1959
and baptized in Christ the King Church, Oklahoma City, in October of the same year.
By the strictest interpretation, I am a baptized non-
“If the other electors wish to take the strictest view, (which is advisable) and this disqualifies me from voting, then so be it. However, under the laws governing the use of the system of probabalism, they must take the same strict view and consider all priests ordained after the election of John XXIII illicit, as well, and therefore, suspended from all exercise of Orders.”
So here from his own statements we find that David Bawden has doubts that he was a member of the True Church, or why did he write “if there was someone whom I could approach to receive with certainty into the Church I would jump at the opportunity.”
If Benns and Bawden would have truly thought themselves to be Catholics in good standing, as well as all the other electors, then why did they insist upon everyone participating in the election to take the Profession of Faith, as we have already covered from page 445? Good Catholics in good standing are not in need of taking an Abjuration of Error and Profession of Faith. After having truthfully written that they are not Catholics in good standing, as we have just covered we wonder why they wrote on page 309,
“We are Catholics in good standing, not excommunicates.”
That is just a blanket cover statement. How can they be Catholics in good standing when they belonged to the Schismatic Church of Montini? as they describe on page 114? On page 362 they wrote, “In a day and age when so few remain Catholic, the only reasonable and necessary qualification must be the demonstrable Catholicity of all voters. We have not taken this responsibility on ourselves–rather we have had it thrust upon us. We are qualified electors, because God has not seen fit to leave us with those who are more qualified.”
We have already mentioned how they spoke practically the same thing on page 318,
“Papal election is ordinarily a jurisdictional act, but because there are none more qualified to perform this act, and for this reason only, we are allowed to proceed.”
On page 109 they wrote,
“A syllogism is proof of probability.”
Benns and Bawden clearly state they’re not allowed to proceed with an election if there is anyone more qualified than themselves to elect a pope.
On page 419 Benns and Bawden wrote,
“For as we have already seen, the promise of indefectibility to the Church would never allow for Holy Orders (hence bishops and priests) to cease to exist....”
On pages 138, 139, 356, 357, and elsewhere in their book, Benns and Bawden also teach that
“truly Catholic bishops will always exist, therefore it follows that true Catholic
bishops have persevered in keeping the Faith are more qualified than a few non-
And, therefore, Benns and Bawden, on their own testimony, may not proceed to a papal election. Although they have done this, they themselves beforehand stated it would not be proper to do in the eyes of the Church nor lawful and licit before God and His Holy Church.
Benns and Bawden taught this on page 360:
“In a doubt, the safer course should be followed.”
The doubt that they were Catholics was manifested by David Bawden in that just recently quoted from page 354. He doubted that he was a Catholic in good standing, and Benns and Bawden prove that all the electors, including David Bawden and Teresa Benns were doubting that they were qualified electors, and therefore, they made it very plain to us they all needed to take the abjuration of error. They also taught us very plainly that there can be no doubt, it’s against the Catholic Faith to doubt, that there are truly Catholic bishops living in the world, as well as Catholic priests who have not defected from the Faith in any way. It simply follows that they (such priests and bishops) are more qualified than Benns and Bawden and therefore Benns and Bawden do not have the right to proceed with a papal election.
Maybe this is a time to cover more extensively their objections of countering Objections starting on page 345, first Question:
Objection One:
“(Q)–Your substitute inside the front cover for an imprimatur does not satisfy me. If you are indeed such great lovers of the law, how can you excuse your violation then of the Canon which prohibits anyone from publishing without ecclesiastical approval?”
Then we go to this inside the front cover and read their part about “Where is Your Imprimatur? Part of their statement reads:
“Heresy is now so widespread and all-
It is true that they are obliged to present the truth, for the truth that Benns and Bawden did show is the fact that true bishops existed elsewhere, but because there were true bishops they would not and could not give an imprimatur to this book because, although Benns and Bawden presented part of the truth, they also presented many contrary errors. In this same book these bishops do not exist in some of the things I have already covered. Why did Benns and Bawden totally excuse themselves for not doing the one truly important thing they should have done–go and seek out the true shepherds left in this world, work with them in electing a true pope? Toward the end of this first objection Benns and Bawden wrote,
“In a conflict of law the higher law prevails. Hence we are allowed to faithfully relay the faith, to defend the faith, and to increase our faith among each other, by written and other means. Strict precautions must be taken to guard against errors, but as in all else, God will come to the aid of those who are pure of heart and keep His law.”
So Benns and Bawden remind us they must “faithfully” and they emphasize that in their
book, “faithfully relay the faith,” –that means not to put in contrary things or
write something and then not observe it themselves. And they must be strict in taking
care to guard against errors, which means there should be no contradictions, not
stating one thing and contradicting it later, “...but as in all else God will come
to the aid of those who are pure of heart and keep His law (s)” they have shown in
their book the laws of the necessity of an Abjuration of Error and Profession of
Faith for those who have been members of non-
Objection 2:
“(Q) What you have written is only your opinion. Why should we believe you when our priest, who spent eight years in the seminary, has far more training and knowledge than a layman?
Benns and Bawden’s answer:
“Unless your priest has somehow retained his jurisdiction, which is indeed a rarity,
he is transgressing the laws of the Church and encouraging you to commit sacrilege
and committing mortal sin himself, by violating the suspension he incurred when he
heard that first confession without the proper jurisdiction. If he is so knowledgeable,
why would he do such a thing? What we have written here is not merely our opinion.
In fact, we have not so much written as we have presented what duly approved, pre-
When you first read this answer to the objection it seems very good and sound and
like a nice cover-
“...unless your priest has somehow retained his jurisdiction which is indeed a rarity he is transgressing the laws of the Church and encouraging you to commit sacrilege and committing mortal sin himself,...”
And so on. Yet on page 445 and in other places in this book, we find that Benns and Bawden are absolutely relying on these same priests, these rarities, ones they have never found, to somehow have that jurisdiction to be able to bring all of these electors back into the Church, absolve them in the external forum first, and then hear their confessions. Well, Benns and Bawden did not find these rare priests and therefore, they violated the laws of the Church they themselves brought out. They did not follow what they preached in so many places. As part of their answer to this Objection 2, remember Benns and Bawden wrote,
“...what we have written here is not merely our opinion.” And yet, looking at what
they have actually written we find there are many such statements with no quotes
as they go on to say in fact, “...we have not so much written as we have presented
what duly approved pre-
I have another booklet here in my hand titled “St. Therese Returns a defense of fundamental Catholic Teaching.” by Albert H. Dolan, Order of Carmel. Under Chapter 2, page 18, there is something that is important to understand:
“by way of preliminary let me formulate some principles which will serve as excellent guides whenever in your reading you encounter any objection against religion in any of its departments. First principle: The most important of these guides is this: It is one of the first principles of logic of correct thinking, that mere statement is not proof.”
“I wish that all my auditors who read a great deal would try to engrave that principle
upon their memories. “Mere statement is not proof.” Modern journalism and current
literature abound in statements for which no proof is offered, and if that principle
is kept in mind it will guide you safely over nine-
“I shall not apologize for repeating that principle often during this series of talks. Just what do I mean by “mere statement is not proof?” Well, let me illustrate. In my talk last week I proposed some twenty objections to Christianity in the form of statements taken from the New York Press, and they offered no proof for any except one of those statements. To say, “the days of dogma are over” proves nothing. It is a mere statement without proof. I could encounter the statement with another contradicting it, “the days of dogma are not over.” Again, the following statement, “the idea of God is an antique–the notion of God originally developed from a primitive fear of the unknown. Psychoanalysis and behaviorism have demonstrated that man is not responsible for his actions.” All these are statements and merely statements proving exactly nothing. But there is one type of smart statement which recurs continually against which permit me particularly to warn you. And that is a statement beginning with the words, “no intelligent man nowadays believes.” Modern unbelievers are very fond of this phrase. If they wish to indicate their own private disbelief they say not, “I do not believe in creation or in Hell or immortality.” No, they say, “no intelligent man nowadays believes in creation.” Or they vary it a bit by saying, “every intelligent man knows that man’s responsibilities for his actions has been long since disproved.” Or they say, “the modern trained mind cannot accept the miracles of Christ.” Do not be disturbed by such statements, my dear friends. They are all violations of the first principle of logic. Violations of the first rule of the art of thinking, namely, that mere statement is not proof. The answer to all such objections is the same, namely, prove your statement. When a man says, “no intelligent man nowadays believes this or that.” The answer is, “you mean YOUR mind cannot believe. For it is simply not true that every trained mind disbelieves. On the contrary, I can give you a formidable list of highly intelligent men of giant intellect who DO believe what you deny.” So much for the very important principle to be remembered in all our reading, “mere statement is not proof.” So when people make mere statements, either verbally or at least mentally, say “prove it, prove your statement.”
And that’s what Benns and Bawden are obliged to do is prove what they have said is
always the truth. Prove that they are Catholics in good standing, not excommunicated.
Prove that they are the most qualified voters. Prove that non-
No. 3 of their Questions (and Objections) against them:
“(Q)–But you’re positively anti-
Their answer:
“On the contrary this is the teaching of St. Thomas, St. Pius XI as well as the Council of Trent.”
Here I’m not trying to be critical about them, but it must be a misprint in their book. I’ve never heard of him, but that’s what they wrote in their book. I’m not sure what Pope Pius they are speaking about. And I’m not sure as to how they came to this statement of this objection of Part 3.
“Do you teach that wicked ministers cannot confect valid sacraments? This is the Donatist Heresy.”
Well, I state that if Benns and Bawden are truly teaching that wicked ministers cannot confect valid statements, then that is also their heresy. The answer Benns and Bawden give are on the contrary,
“This is the teaching of St. Thomas, St. Pius XI as well as the Council of Trent.”
What is the teaching of St. Thomas, St. Pius XI and the Council of Trent? That wicked ministers cannot confect valid sacraments? Whoa, friend. Just the opposite! St. Thomas and the Council of Trent teach that wicked men DO CONFECT VALID SACRAMENTS.
Opening now the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas we turn to Question 19, Article 5 of the Supplement. Under his fifth Article it is asked whether wicked priests have the use of the keys.
Objection 1: “It would seem that wicked priests have not the use of the keys. For
in the passage where the use of the keys is bestowed on the Apostles, John 20:22-
But in reply to this Objection, St. Thomas Aquinas gives the teachings of the Catholic Church when he says,
“On the contrary, No man can know whether another man is in the state of grace. If therefore no one could use the keys in giving absolution unless he were in a state of grace, no one would know that he had been absolved, which would be very unfitting. Further, the wickedness of the minister cannot void the liberality of his Lord, but the priest is no more than a minister, therefore, he cannot by his wickedness take away from us the gift which God has given through him.”
St. Thomas goes on when he says,
“I answer that: just as participation of a form to be induced into an effect does not make a thing to be an instrument, so neither does the loss of that form prevent that thing being used as an instrument. Consequently, since man is merely an instrument in the use of the keys, however much he may through sin be deprived of grace, whereby sins are forgiven, yet he is by no means deprived of the use of the keys.”
But there is more here that possibly Benns and Bawden were referring to that made them form their opinion. It is very confusing what they said, but for the sake of those who are involved in the many false religions of the traditionalist movement today, let us go on here to cover what St. Thomas said in Objection 3 in this Fifth Article.
“Further Augustine says (De Bapt. v, 21) that God gives the sacrament of grace even through wicked men, the grace itself only by Himself or through His saints. Hence He forgives sin by Himself, or by those who are members of the Dove. But the remission of sins is the use of the keys. Therefore, sinners who are not ‘members of the Dove’ have not the use of the keys.”
So that is someone’s objection and now St. Thomas gives the Church’s teaching in reply:
“Augustine speaks of the remission of sins insofar as holy men cooperate therein, not by virtue of the keys but by mere congruity. Hence he says that God confers the sacraments even through evil men, and among the other sacraments, absolution, which is the use of the keys should be reckoned: but that through ‘members of the Dove,’ i.e., holy men, He grants forgiveness of sins, insofar as He remits sin on account of their intercession.
“We might also reply that by ‘members of the Dove’he means all who are not cut off from the Church, for those who receive the sacraments from them, receive grace, whereas those who receive the sacraments from those who ARE cut off from the Church do not receive grace, because they sin in so doing except in the case of Baptism, which in cases of necessity, may be received even from one who is excommunicate.”
Now I, Patrick Henry, comment that I hope people understand what St. Thomas, the Prince of Theologians, just explained. If you receive sacraments from those who are cut off from the Church, which includes the priests in the traditionalist movement, because they never were called to the priesthood by any true ecclesiastical authority, they are cut off from the Church. When you go to the sacraments to those men you do not receive grace because you sin in so doing, except in the case of Baptism.
Now we continue with (St. Thomas) Article 6, Question: 19:
“Whether those who are schismatics, heretics, excommunicates, suspended or degraded, have the use of the keys.”
Objection 1: “It would seem that those who are schismatics, heretics, excommunicate, suspended or degraded have the use of the keys. For just as the power of the keys results from Orders, so does the power of consecration. But the above cannot lose the use of the power of consecration since if they do consecrate, it is valid, though they sin in doing so. Therefore, neither can they lose the use of the keys.”
That is the objection, and now St. Thomas writes the truth,
“On the contrary, Augustine says [Tract. cxxi in Joan.) ‘that the charity of the Church forgives sins.’ Now it is the charity of the Church which unites its members. Since, therefore, the above are disunited from the Church, it seems that they have not the use of the keys in remitting sins.”
“Further, no man is absolved from sin by sinning. Now it is a sin for anyone to seek absolution of his sins from the above, for he disobeys the Church in so doing. Therefore, he cannot be absolved by them, and so the same conclusion follows.”
St. Thomas continues:
“I answer that in all the above the power of the keys remains as to its essence, but its use is hindered on account of the lack of matter. For since the use of the keys requires in the user authority over the person on whom they are used, as stated above (Question [17], Article [2], ad 2), the proper matter on whom one can exercise the use of the keys is a man under one’s authority. And since it is by appointment of the Church that one man has authority over another, so a man may be deprived of his authority over another by his ecclesiastical superiors. Consequently, since the Church deprives heretics, schismatics and the like, by withdrawing their subjects from them either altogether or in some respect, in so far as they are thus deprived, they cannot have the use of the keys.”
I will continue by reading the reply to this Objection 1 as stated in the Summa:
“The matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist, on which the priest exercises his power, is not a man but wheaten bread, and in Baptism, the matter is simply a man. Wherefore, just as were a heretic to be without wheaten bread he could not consecrate, so neither can a prelate absolve if he be deprived of his authority, yet he can baptize and consecrate, albeit to his own damnation.”
So my dear friends, in Jesus, Mary and Joseph, we have just learned that the Novus
Ordo clerics, even if they would happen to have valid orders and the traditionalist
movement clerics, mainly those coming from Archbishop Thuc and Lefebvre, as well
as the free-
“...in the case of excommunication, absolution from which should precede absolution from sin, for as long as a man is excommunicated, he cannot receive any sacrament of the Church.”
Do you comprehend what the Church is teaching us here through St. Thomas Aquinas?
If people were once Catholic, then they left that true Faith or for any other reason
joined a non-
Now you know positively that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the exact opposite of what Benns and Bawden say they teach on page 346 where they teach that “wicked ministers cannot confect valid sacraments.” Then they told us that this is the teaching of St. Thomas. Well we found out from his Summa this is not the teaching of St. Thomas. He does teach that wicked ministers can confect valid sacraments.
In their book on page 289 Benns and Bawden reminded us how important it is to listen to St. Thomas Aquinas when they wrote:
“(The testimony of this doctor alone proves our case, since Pius XII averred that you can believe everything St. Thomas said.)
Now we turn to the Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger under No. 860 to prove that the Council of Trent is also contrary to what Benns and Bawden teach. For the sacred and ecumenical Council of Trent teaches under the Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Canon No. 4:
“If anyone shall say that the Baptism which is also given by heretics in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does is not true Baptism, let him be anathema.”
So we see that Trent does teach heretics, wicked men, can confect valid sacraments. This subject is covered in quite a few places in Denzinger’s book. Under 169 it tells us very plainly that schismatic bishops can confer sacraments and it also goes on to explain in the same place,
“therefore, then this person has only injured himself by wickedly administering the good. For the inviolable sacrament, which was given through him, held the perfection of its virtue for others.” [Denz. 169]
The Sacred Council under the Canons on the Sacraments in General states under Canon 12 (p. 263, par. No. 854 Denz.):
“Can. 12. If anyone shall say that a minister who is in mortal sin, although he observes all the essentials which pertain to the performance or conferring of the sacrament, neither performs nor confers the sacrament: let him be anathema. [Denz. 854]
In Denzinger under No. 902 (p. 277) we find the Council of Trent teaching:
“...It also teaches that even priests who are bound by mortal sin exercise as ministers of Christ the office of forgiving sins by virtue of the Holy Spirit conferred in ordination, and that they are of an erroneous opinion who contend that this power does not exist in bad priests.” [Denz. 902]
So, in reviewing again what Benns and Bawden wrote under this third part on page 346, they state,
“It is not because the ministers are wicked that we claim that they claim that they cannot administer valid sacraments, but because the Council infallibly decreed that the Sacrament of Penance cannot be validly administered by those who do not possess delegated jurisdiction.”
In that statement they are correct. The priest needs jurisdiction, but the way they worded the top part of this Question and Answer was heretical, and it may be that this needs to be clarified that they probably were correct in their own thinking, but just wrote it somewhat in this book in a way that was contrary to what the Church teaches. If you read the whole paragraph then they seem to have it correct, that wicked ministers can administer valid sacraments but not absolve someone because they lack jurisdiction.
But here again, we continue on with their next sentence and to the answer to part three,
“The pope is the originator of such jurisdiction, and unless we wish to deny that he has the fullness of said jurisdiction, which is also a de fide teaching (DZ 1823), we cannot pretend that these priests possess it in his absence.”
Here again Benns and Bawden it seems should have been more specific what they meant by “these priests.” Because the truth of the matter is bishops and priests DO possess jurisdiction during a period of interregnum, if they had jurisdiction before the pope died. That is, of course, if they did not lose their jurisdiction. But as written here, Benns and Bawden are trying to teach, it would seem that priests do not possess jurisdiction in the absence of a pope, which is wrong. There are true bishops and true priests in the world, as I speak right now, 1998, that do possess jurisdiction, although there has been the absence of a pope since 1958. Over 40 years from the time I speak right now.
Let us continue to review together these objections and answers that Teresa Benns and David Bawden put together in their book. And we will pick up again on side B of this tape.
++++++++++++++++
We have now come to the fourth objection put forth by Benns and Bawden which deals with the question,
Objection 4:
“Q. While you cleverly disguise the fact one of the authors of this work is a woman, aren’t women forbidden to teach in the Church?
While Teresa Benns did not teach in the Church, they only wrote this book, so I am going to pass on to Objection Five:
“(Q)–Let’s get down to brass tacks here. Aren’t you really a closet “fem” who wants to include women electors in the Conclave? Isn’t this the real reason you promoted this election from the beginning?
Benns and Bawden answer.
“(A)–Surely you jest. Would either of us have gone out of our way to adhere faithfully to all the articles of faith, law, and opinions in this work, and yet advocate unbridled liberty in something so exquisitely sensitive as the ordering of the Conclave? If you must know the truth in this matter, others have suggested that I be allowed to vote, and I personally wish it was possible.”
I comment, that although Mrs. Benns claims here that personally she wishes it was possible for her to take part in the election of a pope, on page 359 it is written,
“Or certain individuals may have doubts concerning their own qualifications as electors and on that account may wish to exempt themselves. This is perfectly understandable and even praiseworthy, providing that such individuals do not prevail on others to do likewise, or question the necessity of such an election.”
So, though it is “praiseworthy” according to Benns and Bawden for people not to want to take part, to have doubts concerning their own qualifications as electors, Mrs. Benns tells us she wants to take part in it if it’s possible.
But going on under this answer, Objection 5, on page 348,
“But I would NEVER consider such participation, even though we have found precedents in early elections and the opinions of medieval canonists to support the theory that women could be allowed to vote. But under Canon 21, even though an opinion in favor of liberty exists, probabilism cannot be used whenever there is a question of the means to eternal salvation. Since Pope Boniface VIII has declared that all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved, we must consider any election of a pope a means necessary to that end.”
Well, what is the real meaning that Benns and Bawden are trying to put forth in this statement, “Since Pope Boniface VIII has declared that all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved,” and that part of it is very true, but they go on,
“we must consider any election of a pope a means necessary to that end.”
Indirectly, that’s very true, but this certainly does not mean that babies and converts who were baptized and died during a period of interregnum could not be saved. Those babies and converts were never, strictly speaking, subject to the Roman Pontiff as an individual person. And even now since the period of interregnum, after the death of Pope Pius XII, newborn babies who are baptized and died, or converts who were baptized and died shortly thereafter without committing mortal sin, were saved, although they were not directly at that time subject to the Roman Pontiff as an individual person. It would seem here that Teresa Benns gives a very false conclusion to a teaching of the Church. Benns and Bawden go on:
“Therefore, the participation of woman cannot be countenanced. If women took part, those anxious to invalidate the election would claim that they could then be elected and resurrect Pope Joan. Furthermore, there is the danger of scandal whenever men and women are in close proximity of each other for an extended length of time. While there will surely be many women in the outer room, praying and anxiously awaiting the triumphant ‘Habemus papam,’ there will be none found in the Conclave. It will require a great deal more than a cheap shot like this to topple all the evidence amassed in this book.”
When David Bawden and Teresa Benns receive their copy of this tape, please be kind enough to tell me, and also all others who follow you who might receive this tape, the honest truth if Teresa Benns and/or any other women actually took part in the Conclave. Did they follow that which was written in this objection, “there will be no women found in the Conclave.”
When the entire truth is presented, I believe we will find that some of the women then present did vote. Can Teresa Benns truthfully state that no women voted in the attempted election of David Bawden as a pope? Under Objection 6 we come to the question,
“(Q)-
I’m not going to record the entire answer on this tape just now but there is one sentence that might need a comment which states, (p. 349)
“No one man was at the same time more firmly opposed to the efforts of the Jews and yet solicitous for their spiritual welfare than the inestimable Reverend Denis Fahey.”
You might say that Patrick Henry is now being nit-
We come now to Objection 7:
“(Q)–A few priests and layman cannot possibly restore the Church today! What precedent can you possibly quote in support of this?”
For their answer Benns and Bawden give a rather lengthy explanation of how St. Bernard, a religious, called on lay rulers to assist him in vindicating the rights of a man who most considered as a pretender to the papal throne. Benns and Bawden end this chapter to Objection 7 stating,
“St. Bernard’s triumph speaks for itself. It gives us the courage and inspiration to continue our work which, after all, is not so different from that of this great saint who lived some 750 years ago.”
I comment: St. Bernard did nothing similar to what Benns and Bawden did. St. Bernard
fought with the true bishops on earth to uphold the rights of the True Bishop of
Rome. But Benns and Bawden had nothing to do with the true bishops, as they persist
in claiming anti-
We come to Objection 8:
“(Q)–In substituting the laws of canonical elections for Pius XII’s constitution on papal elections, you overlook the fact that Pius XII actually allowed cardinals who had been excommunicated to vote in the Conclave. Doesn’t this serve to topple your entire argument on this point?”
For an answer Benns and Bawden give some good information but along toward the end of the first long paragraph they write,
“...a man who is not a Catholic could never be a pope.”
That is a very true statement of the Church. To be the pope you have to be a Catholic
and you have to be a male, but we already know that from the external forum David
Bawden is a non-
Benns and Bawden include this answer to Objection 8 stating,
“Since heresy concerns the faith (or a lack thereof) and is punished specifically by deposition (Canon 188, No. 4), we must believe Pius XII wished to exclude heretics from the voting.”
As I have been pointing out, all, including David Bawden, were outside the Church in the external forum when the votes were cast that supposedly elected David Bawden as “pope Michael I.” Pope Pius XII, then, obviously wished to exclude such people from voting. If they did find a priest who brought them back into the Church and everything was good, let them bring forth the proof. Canon 2200 demands it. I personally was there the night before the election and talked to them at length. No mention was made of any priest, none was seen around that day, nor the next, the day of the election. It was very uncharitable for them if they had a true priest in the area not to mention it to those who were there to visit them trying to talk them out of their election the night before it all happened.
We come now to Objection 9.
“(Q)–You have no college degree, no official theological training; educationally speaking, you are paupers. How can we believe you when you have no credibility?”
Their answer:
“(A)–Educational paupers we are, in the modern-
‘The education of all Catholics from their childhood must be such that not only shall they be taught nothing contrary to the Catholic faith and good morals, but religious and moral training shall occupy the principal place in the curriculum...parents...have the right and most serious obligation of providing for the Christian education of children.’”
I am going on to Objection 10:
“(Q)–By the strictest reasoning set forth in Part II, one of you is not even a Catholic
in the eyes of the Church, having been born and baptized after the “election” of
John XXIII. How can we take the word of a non-
I have already covered part of this objection in the answer that David Bawden explained
that he is a non-
“If there was someone whom I could approach to be received with certainty into the Church I would jump at the opportunity.”
Then immediately he wrote,
“I submit myself to the pope for judgment.”
What pope will he submit himself to? To himself? when he was not even elected at
the time he wrote this book and did not know who would be elected? But since he
supposedly was elected then we need to be reminded that a pope, as with every cleric,
cannot absolve himself or bring himself back into the church, with the exception
of the Holy Eucharist, not even a pope can give any sacrament to himself. If David
Bawden was not received into the Church before his papal election, or attempted papal
election, he still is out of the Church, unless he has met some true bishop or priest
since that time who absolved him. That certainly has not been brought forth publicly.
They talk in their book of having ordination and consecration of the new pope. Who’s
going to do that? So as David Bawden wrote, “I am a baptized non-
Maybe this is the place to review a few things from a practical course of doctrinal instructions based on the teachings of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, prepared and arranged by Fr. Charles Cullin and Fr. John McCue, imprimatur 1941, from pages 73 and what follows:
“The