You are on page 1of 80

Election Update

This serves as a sequel to Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth
Century?
Table of Contents
Update 1...............................................................................................................................2
An Papa ereticus !eponi Potest...................................................................................2
"n#alli$ility% A &urther !e#inition?..................................................................................'
Update 2...............................................................................................................................(
E)ECT"*+ ASSE,-). S)ATE! #or ,*+!A./ 0U). 1'/ 1112/ ( a3/ at 421
-5*A!WA./ -E)6UE/ 7A+SAS/ U+"TE! STATES.............................................(
E5ET"CA) C*+&US"*+.........................................................................................12
CA+*+ )AW/ !"SC"P)"+E/ A+! TE 5ES*)UT"*+ *& !*U-TS *& )AW "+
TE CU5C T*!A...............................................................................................12
A W*5! T* *U5 C5"T"CS.......................................................................................1(
TE !"&&"CU)T"ES *& C*+T5*6E5S. revisited................................................11
Update 4.............................................................................................................................11
!"SC"P)"+E/ *-E!"E+CE A+! TE W")) *& 8*!...........................................22
E5ET"CA) C*+&US"*+ Part ""% Pro9i3a &idei.....................................................2:
"S TE E)ECT"*+ *& A P*PE SC"S,AT"C?......................................................2;
TE WESTE5+ SC"S,...........................................................................................21
The Western Schis3.....................................................................................................42
TE ,*ST ,"SU+!E5ST**! CA+*+................................................................41
Update <.............................................................................................................................<2
"8+*5A+CE A+! E5ES......................................................................................<2
C)E5"CS A+! PU-)"C !E&ECT"*+......................................................................<4
&*5,"+8 A +*+=CAT*)"C SECT......................................................................<'
!"6"+E "+TE5!"CT?.................................................................................................<;
"S !A6"! -AW!E+ A +*+=CAT*)"C?..............................................................<1
PAPA-")E....................................................................................................................:4
E)ECT*5A) >UA)"&"CAT"*+...............................................................................::
ACC*5!"+8 T* TE )AWS 8*6E5+"+8 CA+*+"CA) E)ECT"*+..............::
8**! &A"T A+! CA+*+ 22<2.............................................................................'4
5i?hts *# The Universal Church To 6ote....................................................................''
-asic )aw.................................................................................................................''
>uali#ication *# )ay3en To 6ote...........................................................................';
"s Election A 0urisdictional Act?..............................................................................';
"s Election a Privile?e...............................................................................................'(
Can Clerics >uali#y as )ay3en?..............................................................................'(
Chan?es "n Election Procedure................................................................................'1
A3end3ent o# Election Procedure..........................................................................'1
Su33ons............................................................................................................................;2
1
!eclaration ,ade 0uly 1:/ 1112 Prior to the Papal Election........................................;4
!avid -awden as " 7now i3.....................................................................................;<
Why !id Wo3en elp Elect Pope ,ichael "? ............................................................;(
Update 1
An Papa ereticus !eponi Potest
$y Andre Perlant
As soon as the sha3 popes had started destroyin? the Church/ Specious pleas
appeared to 3a@e Catholics $elieve that it was not possi$le #or a pope to preach or
pro3ul?ate heresies/ #or the real do?3a a$out papal in#alli$ility #oresees that the charis3
o# truth is ?ranted only when a pope clai3s that what he is teachin? is in#alli$le. "t was
then le?al that 3erely pastoral directions 3i?htAlead a christian #loc@ to the poisoned
pastures o# o$vious heresies. The ne9t step was ta@en $y the Econian School that
persuaded deluded innocent./ that a pope could en#orce error./ it was necessary to protest
and #ollowthe esta$lished Tradition despite diso$edience which #ar #ro3 entailin? schis3
or heresy $eca3e a theolo?ical virtue% isnAt $etter to o$ey 8od than a scandolous 5o3an
Ponti##?
To=day survivin? Bsede vacantistsB are al3ost everywhere preached the last
verisi3ilar/ $ut ne#arious/ #alse doctrine that/ althou?h a pope 3ay la3enta$ly #all into
heresy/ luc@ily the Catholic doctrine has providentially asserted that a heretical pope was
auto3atically deposed at the very 3o3ent his heresy $eca3e 3ani#est. A two#old
de3onstration is proposed #or this $ale#ul do?3a that would ?reatly i3pare papal clai3s
to o$edience in nor3al ti3es/ and which today is an e9cuse #or the status=quo/ i. e. $ein?
contented with a 3erely episcopalian survivin? Church.
The #irst proo# alle?ed is that theolo?ian discussin? whether a pope 3ay or 3ay
not #all into heresy indisputa$ly shows that the Church has ac@nowled?ed the
potentiality. This is $latantly to $e3oc@ the Christian people/ #or the ar?u3ent should $e
valid to pro3ote any heresy/ thou?h conde3ned as this one has $een. To delude readers
the liars no lon?er rely on 3isinterpretin? the de#inite procla3ation o# the 8eneral
Council o# 6atican C1(;2D. They only partially quote St. 5o$ert -ellar3ine when he
deals with the question that was still #reely discussed in his CE6"thD century% An papa
hereticus deponi potest. C,ust a heretical pope $e deposed?D &or ad3ittedly -ellar3ine
e9a3ined what solution was to $e ?iven to the pro$le3 and answered that a heretical
pope was not/ to $e deposed/ $ecause he would $e so auto3atically Cdepositus not
deponendusD. -y this i3per#ect quotation they i3ply and a#terwards overtly pro#ess that
St. 5o$ert -ellar3ine supported the thesis/ that a pope 3ay turn heretical durin? his
ponti#icate.
2
-ut i# you read the EEEth chapter o# )i$er "" in the #irst to3e o# the co3plete
A*pera -ellar3iniA you #ind the reverse in the #irst para?raph/ under the title AAn papa
hereticus deponi potestA you #ind at once what #ollows.
B" answer that there are #ive solution/ to $e #ound to the pro$le3. The #irst is the
one Al$ert Pi?hio has ?iven in his wor@s C*n the Ecclesiastical ierarchy/ chapter (/
$oo@ ""D% A Pope cannot $e hereticalF there#ore there never can arise any cause
whatsoever that 3ay $rin? a$out his $ein? deposed.. .This Gud?e3ent is pro$a$ly
true and can easily $e Gusti#ied/ as we shall see later in the proper place. This truth
however is not certain and is ?enerally o$Gected to. There#ore it is worth while studyin?
what answer is to $e ?iven to the dile3na o# a heretical Pope.B "t is then evident that St.
5o$ert -ellar3ine would not have discussed this cruel hypothesis i# he lived a#ter 1(;2/
when a 8eneral Council #i9ed the doctrine that a pope a #aith can never #ail and that he
tells the Truth in#alli$ly when spea@in? e9cathedra. .e 3ust also not #or?et that as a
private individual a pope 3ay say erroneous thin?s and re3ain as ?ood a catholic as any
o# us who never spea@s assured o# the oly 8hostAs assistance we cannot $e $randed as
heretics i# we do not pertinanciously clin? to our wron? utterances.
To #urther de3onstrate what -ellar3ineAs opinion was really/ let us read a
para?raph o# the Acaput 6". li$er "6/ to3us ""A o# his treatise A!e Ponti#ice 5o3anoA whose
$oo@s all e9plain what was later to $e de#ined as part o# the deposit o# the #aith
Cdepositu3 #ideiD. The title o# the #ourth $oo@ is A!e potestate spiritualiA. -e#ore writin?
this si9th chapter/ the saint deals with the #our theses e9tant on e9=cathedra in#alli$ility.
e pro3ptly discards the #irst two o# the3.
The #irst heretical proposition is this% BA Pope even when spea@in? in his capacity
o# Supre3e Ponti##/ 3ay prove heretical/ even when he de#ines a tenet with the assistance
o# a 8eneral Council. Cthe sa3e thin?s as an Ecu3enical Synod in ?ood catholic En?lish
o# 8ree@ e9tractionD
The second heresy says% BA Pope is lia$le to teach heresy only when lac@in? the
assistance o# a 8eneral Council.B St. 5o$ert -ellar3ine contradicts this opinion o#
8ersonAs. e does not want however to su$stitute hi3sel# #or the ,a?isteriu3/ #or he
write.% We dare not say that this opinion is heretical/ #or we can see that its e9ponents
have $een tolerated $y the Church till today. +evertheless it sounds quite wron? and so
near to heresy that the ,a?isteriu3 could Gustly du$ it heretical.B This wish was achieved
in 1(;2.
There#ore the only theses le#t are those in which it is said that a Pope cannot teach
anythin? heretical. St. 5o$ert -ellar3ine does not support the 3oderate one that alle?es%
B"rrelevant o# his $ein? or not $ein? a heretic/ the 5o3an -ishop CPopeD cannot in any
case de#ine so3e heretical doctrine and declare it to $e $elieved $y the whole Church as
an article o# the True &aith.B The Saint e9actly li@e St. Alphonsus de )i?ouri who
protested that it is not possi$le to distin?uish and separate private character #ro3 pu$lic
$ehaviour in a popeAs personality/ reGects the dichoto3y C3an and #unctionD. *n the
4
contrary he ar?ues that there can $e $ut one person who is elected ead o# the ,ystical
-ody o# Christ/ a person assisted $y the oly 8host to dischar?e his #unction. is
con#idence in PeterAs #aith#ulness is as a$solute as in the trustworthiness o# his successors.
The si9th chapter con#ounds all the liars a$out the saints ad3ittin? the #railty o# the
PopeAs #aith% B"t is pro$a$le and piously to $e $elieved that the Supre3e Ponti## not only
cannot err as the vicar o# Christ/ $ut also that/ considered as a private person/ he cannot
$eco3e a heretic $y $elievin? and pertinaciously adherin? to anythin? contrary to the
!eposit o# &aith. This is proved $y the $enevolent charity o# !ivine Providence. "ndeed
the Supre3e Ponti## cannot and 3ust not preach any heresy/ #or 3oreover he is o$li?ed to
teach the Truth. e actually does so/ without any dou$t/ since the )ord has char?ed hi3
to stren?then his $rotherAs #aith/ e9plicitly addin?% " have $e??ed Cprayed in the !ouay
5hei3sD #or you that your #aith 3ay not #ail. This 3eans at leastF #ro3 your Chair you
shall always preach the True &aith. -ut/ " as@ you/ $ein? a heretic/ how is the 5o3an
-ishop to stren?the3 his $rotherAs #aith/ how will he 3ana?e always to preach the oly
&aith? To $e sure/ yes/ 8od 3ay co3pel even a 3alevolent heart to proclai3 the truth it
is denyin? ha$itually/ and e once wran? words out o# the 3outh o# -alaa3s sheass. -ut
@eepin? people under constraint would $e quite unusual a $onda?e in#licted $y 8odAs
Providence that is only usin? 3ild $enevolence in all thin?s.
"n the second place istory a##ords this de3onstration a practical Proo#/ #or up to
now/ no Pope has ever $een #ound to $e a heretic. St. 5o$ert -ellar3ine then devotes si9
chapters reviewin? all the cases o# all the popes that have $een accused o# heresy. e
particularly shows that onorious " has $een the tar?et o# calu3nies thou?h he was
$la3elessly orthodo9.
"t is then o$vious that the dou$le proo# o# a Popes accidental landin? in heresy or
worse/ cannot $e #ound anywhere in A!e Ponti#ice 5o3anoA. We do #ind the reverse% a
con#utation o# the lies a$out Tradition. "# not conscious o# lyin?/ the specious advocates
o# the possi$ility o# a Pope turnin? into a heretic would si3ply quote the 1(;2 do?3atic
de#initions on the su$Gect/ #or these are $ound to ?ive the su33ary o# the Catholic
Tradition in their articles. ere is a quotation #ro3 the do?3atic constitution entitled
APastor AeternusA
BThe oly 8host was not pro3ised to PeterAs successors that they 3i?ht herald
any new doctrine e would reveal/ $ut in order that they should/ with his assistance
saintly preserve and #aith#ully e9pound the 5evelation the Apostles had received and
trans3itted/ i.e. the !eposit o# &aith.B And now there #ollows the practical proo#% BTheir
apostolic doctrine has $een received $y all the venerated &athers/ revered and #ollowed
$y all hallowed doctors/ #or they @new that saint PeterAs oly See re3ained untainted $y
any error whatsoever/ accordin? to what our )ord and SaviorsAs had pro3ised the Prince
o# is disciples% B" have $e??ed #or thee that thy #aith should not #ail% and a#ter co3in?
$ac@ con#ir3 thy $rothersHB The crownin? #inal de#inition is the well @nown do?3a% then
the 5o3an Ponti## spea@s e9 cathedra i.e. when he #ul#ills his o##ice that o# Pastor and
!octor o# the whole christian #loc@ and decrees that a doctrine a$out #aith or 3orals is to
$e received $y the universal Cor catholicD Church/ he #ully enGoys the !ivine Assistance
that was pro3ised to hi3 personally throu?h $lessed Peter/ he e9erts the in#alli$ility with
<
which our !ivine 5edee3er has desired to endow is Church .. . *ne is not allowed to
understand this as a restrictive de#inition/ #irstly $ecause it is less di##icult to preserve the
deposit than to e9plain what it consists o#. to pass a Gud?e3ent on contested points than to
repeat all that has $een clearly trans3itted. Secondly the conte9t o# APastor AeternusA
leaves no dou$t a$out what the catholic Tradition 3eans. "33ediately $e#ore the
wordin? o# the de#ined do?3a/ we can read indeed the epito3e o# the depositu3 #idei on
that point/ #or it is always use#ul to repeat what liars will a#terward endeavor to
trans3ute% BThis charis3 o# Truth and un#ailin? &aith has there#ore $een ?ranted to Peter
and his successors so that they 3i?ht #ul#ill their pree3inent o##ice o# procurin? universal
salvationF in order that they should @eep the whole o# ChristAs #loc@ away #ro3 the
poisonous pastures o# heresy and #eed it with celestial teachin?.B
We 3ust $elieve what/ the Church has always said a$out her divine constitution/
and not SatanAs acco3plices who have constantly lied a$out and sha3elessly a$used
ChristAs envoys. The question o# papal in#alli$ility was already sealed in the capital
#or3ula o# :11 which is care#ully shrouded in deep silence/ thou?h it was canonised $y
the &athers o# the #ourth Constantinopolitan 8eneral Council and repeated $y the catholic
6atican one. This #or3ulary was proclai3ed Gointly $y St. or3idas CPope Sy33achusA
deacon who succeeded his 3aster in the oly SeeD and -yIantiu3As e3peror 0ustin "/ and
it accounted #or the reunion o# the west and East #elicitously acheived% BWe desire in all
thin?s to adhere to the co33union o# the Apostolic See/ wherein the whole solidity o# the
Christian &aith resided/ whrein reli?ion is preserved i33aculate. = A century $e#ore St.
Au?ustine had already written% B5o3a locuta/ causa #inita.B C5o3e has spo@en./ the case
is closed.D Then 5o3e has ?iven a solution to a pendin? question/ there is no denyin? it/
#or it is 8odAs voice. Au?ustine repeated what Constantine had proclai3ed a #ew years
$e#ore at the Council o# Arles which put an end to the !onatists schis3 CA.!/ 41'D. This
constant doctrine could not $e asserted a?ain and a?ain whenever there was any trou$le
to settle as in -ellar3ineAs protestant revolutionary period. The 6atican Council and all
the saint !octors indeed tau?ht nothin? new. )et us ?ive a conclusion what )eo "E did
write in 12:4 to ,ichael Caerularius/ when the latter was leadin? the Eastern Church into
a renewed lon?lastin? schis3%Will there appear a 3an #oolish enou?h to dare thin@ that a
wish o# i3 #or who3 wantin? is equivalent to acheivin? 3ay e##ect nothin? to the
present end? asnAt the See o# the Prince o# the Apostles/ the 5o3an Church/ either
throu?h Peter hi3sel# o# throu?h his successor re#uted/ vanquished and conde3ned all
the heretical errors? asnAt it stren?then the $rotherAs hearts in PeterAs #aith/ that till now
has never #ailed and will never #ail unto the end. =
Those who love Truth will always $e ?iven opportunities to hear the 8ood
ShepherdAs 6oice and they will reco?niIe it. )et the3 not $e scandalised i# a sha3 Pope
has 3ana?ed to rule as SatanAs vicar #ro3 PeterAs very ChairH +ow we have Athe
a$o3ination o# desolation in 8odAs te3ple/ now redee3in? sacri#ice is no lon?er o##ered
in it. +ow all nations cry out with ad3iration% APeace/ peace at last.BF now a world
?overn3ent is $ein? esta$lished. )et us $e Goy#ul too/ let us li#t up our heads/ #or all this
has $een #oretold in the Christian !eposit. As #or 5oncalli crawlin? up into PeterA. Chair/
$e sure that he never $eca3e 8odAs vicar% as Paul "6 warned urn/ a hereticAs Cand a
#ortiori an apostateAsD election into the papal #unction is null and void. This is the sole
:
possi$ility% 5oncalli was not a 3e3$er o# 0esusA Church when he was elected. "# he had
$een 8odAs vicar the ?ates o# ell would not have prevailed a?ainst hi3/ he would not
hurry have started carryin? out his apostatic a??iorna3ento.
Co3pleted on the &east o# the "33aculate Conception/ 11(1F
0ean Andre Perlant
:: rue -ras,arie
'<4<2 )e -oucau/ &5A+CE
Ccirculated $y C7) with per3issionD
+ote/ althou?h we went to press on !ece3$er 12th/ the &east o# the *ur )ady Ao#
8uadalupe/ we were una$le to include this i3portant in#or3ation in the $oo@ as
co3pletely as ,r. Perlant so $eauti#ully e9pounds the doctrine. We 3erely re#er you to
pa?es 214 and 4'2 to 4(2/ which were written/ @nowin? this was also $ein? prepared. We
are very happy to #orward this i3portant wor@ to you with the #irst Election Update.
"n#alli$ility% A &urther !e#inition?
Certain theolo?ians writin? well a#ter the 6atican Council see3ed to
consider that/ even in view o# the CouncilAs de#inition/ the Pope could yet #all into heresy
as a private doctor/ "# not in 3atters o# #aith and 3orals #or3ally presented to the
universal Church #or $elie#.
"n the wor@ AThe )i#e and Wor@ o# )eo E"""A/ $y 5ev. 0a3es ,c8overn/
!.!./ the author clai3s that this possi$ility was even discussed at the Council Cprior to
the de#initionD and the answer was ?iven/ ... There has never $een such a caseF the
Council o# -ishops could depose hi3 #or heresy/ #or ... a heretic is not the head or even a
3e3$er o# the Church ... he would cease to $e pope/ $ein? deposed $y 8od i3sel#.B
Cpa?e 2<1D This/ o# course/ was the opinion o# Torque3ada and others considered $y St.
5o$ert -ellar3ine in his A!e Ponti#ice 5o3anoA.
)i@ewise/ 5ev. S.-. S3ith o$served in his AEle3ents o# Ecclesiastical
)awA Cvolu3e "D% A... accordin? to the 3ore pro$a$le opinion/ the pope 3ay #all into
heresy and err in 3atters o# #aith/ as a private person/ yet it is also universally ad3itted
that no pope ever !"! #all into heresy/ even as a private doctor.A Cpa?e 2<2D
The two instances o# such occurrence cited $y the Protestants were that o#
Pope )i$erius and onorius ". Arch$ishop 7enric@ adequately e9plained )i$eriusA pli?ht
$y notin? that his Arian captors physically #orced hi3 to si?n certain docu3ents which
3ade hi3 appear ?uilty o# contradiction/ which )i$erius hi3sel# later disproved $y
issuin? other docu3ents contrary to the #or3er/ once his captivity had ended. "n the case
o# onorius "/ the conde3nation $y the Council o# Constantinople approved $y )eo ""/
was indeed #or heresy/ $ut personal correspondence o# )eo "" proves that it was onoriusA
#ailure to C*+!E,+ heresy Cthat o# the ,onothelitesD which $rou?ht a$out his
conde3nation. The Catholic Encylopedia C6olu3e 6""D attests that onoriusA intentions
'
were never thou?ht to $e other than honora$le. As in the case o# 0ohn EE"" and 0oachi3
o# &iore/ the heresy ascri$ed to onorius was not conde3ned as such until several years
a#ter his death. Possi$ly the notion o# heresy co33itted .$y silence CSee Canon 142:D had
not yet co3e into $ein?/ either/ so onorius was not conscious o# any lac@ o# #aith/ even
thou?h he 3ay have $een ?uilty o# cooperation in win. e appears only to have $een a
heretic A&TE5 the #act/ as we have seen a$ove/ since the Catholic Encyclopedia
concludes he could not have $een ?uilty even as a private doctor. Even a pope could $e
sent to hell/ should he die in the state o# 3ortal sin/ since popes have never $een declared
i3pecca$le. -ut 3any other ways o# co33ittin? 3ortal sin e9ist outside o# heresy.
Paul "6 in his $ull ACu3 E9 ApostolatusA see3s to have indicated that is a
pope even appears to co33it heresy or deviate #ro3 the #aith/ such a heresy o# deviation
occurred prior to his election/ and hence the election itsel# was invalid and the 3an
AelectedA never truly received the charis3 o# in#alli$ility #ro3 *ur )ord/ owin? to his
unworthiness. Pope Paul "6 sets o##/ B... prior to his pro3otion or elevationA/ in co33as
only $e#ore his re#erence to a 5o3an Ponti##/ and not $e#ore any re#erence to the
cardinals/ $ishops or others. +or does he distin?uish #ro3 heresy co33itted as a private
doctor vs. any atte3pt to de#ine heresy/ e9 cathedra. Since Canons 1; and 1( $id us to
consider such thin?s in their conte9t/ and Canon 11 provides that such invalidity 3ust $e
stated e9plicitly Cwhich it is in ACu3 E9AD/ " #eel it is clear that this $ull de3onstrates that
a pope cannot #all into heresy in any capacity/ and that should he $e seen to #all/ such a
#ailure is only sy3pto3atic o# his status as a non=pope or usurper. +either can it $e
o$Gected that the acceptance $y all Catholics as a true pope validates such an election #or
Paul "6 clearly states that the unani3ous acceptance o# such a ApopeA $y the Church will
not a##ord hi3 even partial le?iti3acy/ re?ardless o# the len?th o# ti3e spent in o##ice.
CSince invalidity is clear under Canon 11/ it cannot $e contested.D Catholics today who
clai3 that such an election can $e validated con#use an irre?ular election with an
unworthy candidate. As Pope )eo E""" and others have pointed out/ a non=Catholic can
never $eco3e pope. A Catholic elected $y a conclave later suspected o# $ein? irre?ular is
a di##erent story/ and the peace#ul acceptance o# such a pope $y the Church could validate
the election.
Even in the case o# the usurper ApopesA/ C5oncalli=WoGtylaD/ the pope
cannot $e said to have #allen into heresy as a private doctor/ since these 3en were
heretics prior to their election/ and er?o/ never $eca3e popes. And so/ i# the pope has
never .Jalien into heresy as a private doctor/ even in this/ the worst crisis in the history o#
the Church/ is it not sa#e to presu3e he will not? Truly this is a question which 3ust $e
decided $y the newly elected pope. The doctrine o# in#alli$ility has
evolved steadily/ and we have proven/ #ro3 the 3outh o# 5ev. 0.C. &enton and others/ its
application is 3uch wider that ori?inally supposed. Cas we ?o to press with this issue we
have a nor3ative decision #ro3 5o3e supportin? 5ev. &entonAs position=editorD -ecause
o# his true develop3ent o# doctrine/ the scope o# the pope as private doctor has $een
narrowed considera$ly/ since even Pope )eo E"""As ATeste3 -enevolentiaeA Con
A3ericanis3D is considered de #ide/ and this despite the #act that it was not addressed to
the universal Church/ nor did it show evidence o# the lan?ua?e o# in#alli$ility/ Cwe
decree/ declare/ de#ineD% "t was addressed to certain $ishops concernin? #aith and 3orals.
"t would appear that the pro$a$le opinion on the popeAs li@elihood o# co33ittin? heresy
privately has shi#ted to the other side/ as it has done on 3atters in the past. Certainly the
;
pope has #ree will/ $ut i# Christ ?uaranteed his #aith would not #ail/ would e not 3ean
Gust that? )i@e the Ultra3ontanists who cha3pioned the papacy at the 6atican Council/
and 5ev. 0. C. &enton hi3sel#/ we pre#er to side with ChristAs 6icar/ all the while
swearin? to accept whatever de#inition o# the 3atter 3ay issue #ro3 the oly See.
Teresa Stan#ill -enns
EditorAs Co33ents
avin? presented ,r. PerlantAs and ,rs. -ennsA articles on the #act that a Pope
cannot #all into heresy/ there is little " can add. "t is 3y opinion $ased on the !octrine o#
the 6atican Council C1(;2D/ that all docu3ents #ro3 a Council/ which receive Papal
approval are in#alli$le/ not Gust the Canons o# the various Councils/ as so3e clai3.
5e3e3$er it is not su##icient to avoid heretical error/ $ut to reGect anythin? even
re3otely rese3$lin? or approachin? heresy. These docu3ents are true/ as they are the
#oundation o# Catholic !o?3a and to dou$t the3 is to dou$t Catholic !o?3a/ which is
$ased upon the3/ and there#ore to dou$t any Conciliar docu3ent/ which is approved $y
the Pope is heresy. CCanons 142: and pa?es '4 and the #ollowin?D
"# a ApopeA #alls into heresy/ he proves that E +E6E5 WAS P*PEH We prove
that 5oncalli C0ohn EE"""D was never Pope and a heretic prior to the election/ $ecause o#
the con#usion on this one point. *n several counts 5oncalli proved he was never pope nor
ever could have $een Pope.
+e9t issue we $e?in a discussion o# so3e points a$out heresy/ which are ?reatly
3isunderstood. "n addition we e9pand our discussion $eyond heresy to other related and
serious cri3es/ which were o3itted to prevent the con#usion we will clari#y.
Update 2
,arch 22/ 1112
E)ECT"*+ ASSE,-). S)ATE! #or ,*+!A./
0U). 1'/ 1112/ ( a3/ at 421 -5*A!WA./
-E)6UE/ 7A+SAS/ U+"TE! STATES
The date on which we received the $oo@ #ro3 the printer C0anuary 2:D has
deter3ined all other dates #or the election process/ since on this day the $oo@s were #irst
received #or distri$ution and our #irst orders were #illed. "t is interestin? to note that the
$oo@ was 3ailed to the printer on the &east o# *ur )ady o# 8uadalupe/ althou?h it was
#irst stated to $e 3ailed !ece3$er (th or 11th. Csee pa?e <(2 and the #ollowin? #or the
si?ni#icance o# the Apparition o# *ur )ady o# 8uadalupeD The printers #inished printin?
the $oo@ on the &east o# St. PeterAs Chair at 5o3e/ and the $oo@ was shipped $y truc@/
parcel post and UPS the #ollowin? day C0anuary 11thD/ and received 0anuary 2:th/ the
&east o# the Conversion o# St. Paul. All deter3ination o# these dates were out o# our
control. Ship3ent could not $e 3ade as planned on !ece3$er (th or 11th/ since the
(
artwor@ was not co3pleted until the a#ternoon o# !ece3$er 12th. *nce the printers
received the $oo@/ the printin? was delayed twice/ owin? to the Christ3as and +ew .ear
holidays. C*ri?inally the $oo@ was slated #or delivery the wee@ o# 0anuary 1:th/ and we
had hoped #or a 0anuary 14th pu$lication date.D +o one with any e9perience o# printers or
pu$lishers will contest these #acts. "# proo# o# the a$ove is required we can happily veri#y
these dates.
avin? received the $oo@ on 0anuary 2:th/ pro3ul?ation ends on April
2:th and the ti3e li3it #or the election $e?ins on that day. The 2:th o# April is the &east
o# St. ,ar@ and the 8reater )itanies. The ti3e li3it #or the election e9pires on 0uly 2:th/
the &east o# St. 0a3es the Apostle. We cannot convene until it $eco3es clear that no one
will issue an o##icial su33ons/ since we are not allowed to o##icially su33on anyone
ourselves. "# no su33ons is issued/ we 3ay co3e to?ether o# our own accord/ lest we
lose the ri?ht to vote. CParsons attests to this in his co33entary on Canon 1'2.D 8uardin?
a?ainst any encroach3ent on the election deadline and allowin? #or travel ti3e/ the 3ost
practical choice o# a day to convene is ,onday/ 0uly 1'th. This allows three to #our days
to clear any electoral $usiness and three to #our days to acco3plish the election o# the
new Pope. A#ter decidin? that this date was the one 3ost convenient to voters and distant
enou?h #ro3 the deadline to allow #or a two.. to three day delay i# strictly necessary/ we
a?reed it should $e held on this day. *nly later did we discover 0uly 1'th to $e the &east
o# *ur )ady o# ,ount Car3el. +o $etter day could have $een chosen #or the election
A! we done it deli$erately/ i.e./ $y slatin? it #or oly Wee@ or to coincide with the
&easts o# St. Peter and Paul/ as others had su??ested. These dates are the $est suited to
our e##ort $ecause they are per#ect in 8odAs si?ht/ $ein? con#or3a$le to the laws o# oly
,other Church.
The United States has $een chosen as the country in which to hold the
election owin? to the #act that the lar?est nu3$er o# >UA)"&"E! electors reside here.
-ecause no o##ers o# an election cite have $een #orthco3in?/ we have accepted the o##er
o# 7ennett and Clara -awden o# a $uildin? in -elvue/ 7ansas/ currently the ho3e o#
Christ the 7in? )i$rary. Pro9i3ity to the li$rary is especially i3portant since 3any
questions 3ay $e posed durin? the election process which can only $e answered $y
consultin? the various theolo?ical sources availa$le there. 5e3odelin? is already
underway/ and this accounts #or an early announce3ent o# the location since 3any
chan?es need to $e 3ade to con#or3 to conclave re?ulations laid down $y Pius E"".
So3e will o$Gect that this ?ives the -awden #a3ily the opportunity to
control the outco3e o# the election. To answer such o$Gections !avid -awden will
?ladly renounce any possi$le quali#ication as voters to allay such #ears o# those present/ i#
such is dee3ed necessary. "T "S +*W ",PE5AT"6E TAT 5EA!E5S 5ETU5+
TE"5 P5*&ESS"*+S *& &A"T in order to deter3ine who is quali#ied to vote and
how 3any 3ay $e e9pected to participate in the election.
"n this issue o# Election Update we will answer o$Gections to the use o#
ACu3 E9 Apostolatus *##icioA as a law retained in the Code/ the invocation o# Canon 1 to
3a@e @nown the laws o# the Church/ and the application o# the laws ?overnin? canonical
elections to supply the ?aps in Pius E""As Constitution and deter3ine the ti3e li3it. ,ay
the oly 8host $e ever at your sideH
1
The Sta##
E5ET"CA) C*+&US"*+
As pro3ised/ in this issue we $e?in our series on eresy with Part 1.
&ollowin? Part 1/ we will address the applica$ility o# ACu3 E9 Apostolatus *##icioA/
$ecause it is so closely tied to the su$Gect at hand. -ecause o# the co3ple9ity o# this
question/ we shall present it in several issues to cover each part in #ull. owever/ we shall
rely heavily on what has already $een discussed/ clari#yin? and addin? pertinent
in#or3ation where necessary.
Part "
*n pa?es '4 and 4;;. we quote #ro3 the in#alli$le decree A"ne##a$ilis
!eusA. "t states that heretics/ are conde3ned -. TE"5 *W+ 0U!8E,E+TF... and
what is 3ore/ that -. TE"5 *W+ ACT they su$Gect the3selves to the penalties
esta$lished $y law/ i# they ... si?ni#y CheresyD $y word or writin?/ or A+. other e9ternal
3eans.A There#ore/ those who clai3 that so3e ecclesiastical warnin? 3ust $e ?iven/ or
so3e ti3e period 3ust elapse $e#ore in#lictin? the penalties we set #orth in pa?es '2 and
the #ollowin?/ are holdin? a heretical doctrine and the3selves $eco3e su$Gect to these
penalties -. TE"5 *W+ 0U!8E,E+T.
Conclusion% eretics conde3n the3selves and su$Gect the3selves to the
penalties descri$ed $y law $y their heretical act without any need o# ad3onition/
warnin?/ noti#ication or #urther censure $y the ChurchH
This su##ices to clari#y the con#usion a$out the e##ects o# heresy/ which con#usion
e9ists to this day.
Where !oes This Con#usion Co3e &ro3?
Canons 241< throu?h 241; descri$e #our di##erent $ut si3ilar cri3es/
heresy/ suspicion o# heresy/ propa?ation o# heresy and teachin? conde3ned doctrines.
Canon 241: provides that those who are Gud?ed $y the Church as under suspicion o#
heresy $eco3e heretics "PS* &ACT* si9 3onths a#ter their noti#ication. We shall
discuss this in 3ore detail later.
!avid -awden
+e9t issue we will cover those thin?s which are APro9i3a &ideiA or
Pro9i3ate to &aith.
CA+*+ )AW/ !"SC"P)"+E/ A+! TE
5ES*)UT"*+ *& !*U-TS *& )AW "+ TE
CU5C T*!A.
12
CTo ?uarantee that the su$Gect discussed is Aproperly understood/ we would
li@e to as@ the readers to review once 3ore pa?es 212 to 4:; and pa?es <2; and <2( o#
W")) TE CAT*)"C CU5C SU56"6E TE TWE+T"ET CE+TU5. $e#ore
readin? this co33entary.D
Already we have noted that ACu3 e9A ?overns the laws on canonical
elections/ heresy and deposition. As such it is the source #or these canons and 3ust $e
adhered to whenever there is a dou$t o# law or #act. CCanon ' K<D A reader has e9pressed
dou$t as to whether we 3ay use the laws #or canonical elections in electin? a Pope/ since
Canon 1'2 states that only the law o# Pope St. Pius E Cand su$sequently Pope Pius E""D
3ay $e used #or a papal election. When in dou$t/ we loo@ to the old =law ?overnin? the
quali#ication o# electors/ which happens to $e .ACu3 e9A. There. we #ind that e9press
3ention is 3ade o# the Pope $ein? included under the scope o# quali#ication o# electors in
para?raph si9/ which speci#ically deals with heresy as invalidatin? an election to an
ecclesiastical o##ice. This also a?rees with the e9clusion o# deposed Cardinals #ro3 a
papal election $y Pius E""/ #or Canon 1(( 1< has also #or its source ACu3 e9A. "n dou$t as
to whether the deposition 3ust $e 3ade $y declaratory sentence/ or whether it su##ices
that it $e incurred auto3atically $y co33ission o# a certain cri3e/ we return to ACu3 e9A
which states that the deposition #or heresy is incurred $y the act/ and ta@es place without
any #urther declaration Cpara?raph si9D. CWe should also note/ that the do?3atic decree
A"ne##a$ilis !eusA 3entioned earlier in this issue/ states that heretics are conde3ned $y
their own Gud?e3ent/ which 3irrors the state3ent/ Awithout any #urther declarationA/ o#
$oth Canon 1(( L< and ACu3 e9A=editorD While Pius E"" speci#ically 3entions deposition
as disquali#yin? Cardinals #ro3 the election/ it #ails to deal with the consequences o# an
election posited $y Cardinals who have $een deposed $ut #ail to heed the dictates o# Pius
E""As Constitution. +o other laws ?overnin? the quali#ication o# electors e9ist in the
Code. And it is hardly possi$le to o$tain any records o# elections held prior to 12:1 and
the law li3itin? election to Cardinals/ since even 5ev. Philips ad3its that the Church has
$een #orced to de=e3phasiIe the role o# the laity owin? to conciliaris3 and the 3ove
toward litur?ical re#or3 $e?un in the #orties. We atte3pted to acquire these $oo@s as
early as the late A;*As only to #ind that they were i3possi$le to o$tain. The ene3y
o$viously tar?eted such $oo@s #or destruction early on/ that an end run 3i?ht not $e
atte3pted to #oil their plans. As we o$served earlier/ Pope St. Pius EAs law Cas well as
Pope Pius E""AsD treats 3ainly o# .the election P5*CESS and not the quali#ication o#
electors or validity o# the election. When we e9a3ine para?raph si9 o# ACu3 e9A we
discover that the 3ost necessary quali#ication o#. A+. voter is a$solute Catholicity/
re?ardless o# who those voters 3i?ht $e. *n pa?es 422 and 421 o# the $oo@ we learned
that the law o# Pope )eo the 8reat Caccordin? to 5ev. ParsonsD was never a$ro?ated/ $ut
only #ell into desuetude. Even +icolas "" ad3its it would $e law#ul to return to it. 5ev.
ParsonsA o$servation that the law o# Pope )eo the 8reat/ with over ;22 years o# custo3
$ehind it/ would $e law#ul were it returned to has a sound $asis in #act. As we @now #ro3
our e9a3ination o# ACu3 e9A/ a law which e9e3pts #ro3 a$ro?ation is e9cluded #ro3 the
scope o# Canon ' 1'. Even i# Pope )eo the 8reatAs law WAS so e9cluded/ it can $e
invo@ed under Canon 22%/ #or 5ev. +eu$er?er in writin? o# laws a$ro?ated $y the Code
states% A"n very rare cases will the le?islator tolerate recourse to these discarded laws.
Whenever there is a ?ap in the le?islation $e it ?eneral or particular/ the canonist 3ay
11
appeal to laws enacted in si3ilar circu3stances. "n such a case the old law 3ay serve as a
nor3 #or supplyin? the de#icient le?islation.A Cpa?e '4. ere a #ootnote is 3ade citin?
Canon 22D +eu$er?er states that this is the Asole e9ceptionA to these nor3s o# the Code
concernin? a$ro?ation. "t $eco3es clear now why Canon 1( 3ust #irst $e consulted
$e#ore appealin? to Canon 22.
Canon 'K' also has application to the one other case in history si3ilar to
our own% the election o# ,artin 6/ a su$deacon/ $y e9traordinary electors at the Council
o# Constance in 1<1;. ere we have the case o# a PA5T"CU)A5 law/ also e9cluded.
#ro3 a$ro?ation under this note o# Canon '/ #or Cico?nani states that particular law is one
not universal in nature. Cpa?e :;D The election law at Constance was used only #or that
particular circu3stance and was not universal $y nature. Even had it $een a$ro?ated/ it
could $e cited under Canon 22 as a law #or a si3ilar case. The 3ethod o# selectin?
dele?ates can $e applied to our situation #ro3 this law as we 3ention in the $oo@.
.et our situation 3ay 3a@e. the participation o# the cler?y in this election
di##icult indeed/ since they have incurred e9co33unication #or censures reserved to the
oly See/ which could $e a$solved $y their *rdinary in certain circu3stances i# one
e9isted. "n his canonical dissertation A"?norance in to "3puta$ility o# !elictsA/ 5ev. 5o$ert
Swo$oda writes that while the laity are o#ten considered i?norant o# canonical censures/
they are ?enerally e9cluded #ro3 the3F the the cler?y incur the3 #or the si3ple reason
that they CA++*T plead i?norance as a rule. Cpa?es 1(:=1('D This is in @eepin? with
Canon 222; which we 3entioned in our discussion o# ACu3 e9A. To who3 3ore is ?iven/
3ore is e9pected. Also it is pro$a$le that the cler?y were the last class o# electors to #all
under the devolution principal/ and they/ too/ #or#eited their ri?ht to this election 3any
years a?o. !evolution would surely include the cler?y as a class under devolution in
Papal Elections. The reasonin? is si3ple% cler?y are ordinarily the only ones who can
vote in Canonical Elections/ there#ore in devolution they 3ust have precedence over the
laity as a class.=editorD "n Part Three o# the $oo@ CSection ""-/ pa?e 424D we ta@e ?reat
pains to prove that the Popes o# this century ?ranted a share o# the hierarchy to. the laity
owin? to a shorta?e o# priests. This co33ission ?ranted us $y these Popes was intended
to $e e9ercised under the direction o# the hierarchy/ yet Pius E"" speci#ically stated that
the laity could assu3e all those duties o# the hierarchy not inco3pati$le with litur?ical
laws and laws ?overnin? ecclesiastical discipline. We need not worry that we are
violatin? ecclesiastical discipline/ $ecause we A6E none now/ and are see@in? to
restore/ not escape/ it. "# this discipline/ too/ is in#alli$le/ the Church has le#t a way out.
We 3ap the way out o# our di"e3na usin? Canon 22 and the opinion o# si9 canonists. "n
this 3anner we prove that the Church cannot $e said to sel#=destruct or incur
Aautode3olitionA. 6arious Canons can $e invo@ed to reconcile a lay election with Pius
E""As Constitution and the laws o# )eo the 8reat and Constance. A3on? these are Canons
1:/ 1( and 22. CWe will provide a pro?ression ta$le depictin? the application o# these
laws in our conclusions.D
+ow we 3ust 3ove on to the reason #or our precedin? ar?u3ents% Canon
1. This Canon allows three 3onths #or the pro3ul?ation o# law/ and so3e have accused
us o# invo@in? it unnecessarily/ since we have not announced a new law. .et this is +*T
the reason why we have invo@ed it. "n his thesis/ 5ev. Swo$oda writes concernin? the
duty o# pastors to their #loc@s% BWhen an a$use $eco3es prevalent it $eco3es the duty o#
pastors and especially $ishops to %instruct the #aith#ul and warn the3 concernin?
12
ecclesiastical penalties.B Cpa?e 422D We spea@ o# pro3ul?atin? the law only inso#ar as we
restate Athese penalties and 3a@e @nown the studies co3pleted under Canons 1( and 22.
Today there A5E none to warn us/ none to 3a@e us aware o# our own duties and
o$li?ations under these laws. 8enerally the laity are not e9pected to @now these laws/ $ut
we @now o# +* priests who have $rou?ht the3 to the attention o# the #aith#ul. 5ev.
Cico?nani tells us under Canon 1 that/ no 3ethod o# pro3ul?ation has $een deter3ined
$y the +ATU5E *& TE ,ATTE5 since any 3ode/ however si3ple/ is su##icient/
provided @nowled?e o# CtheD law can reach in due ti3e the entire co33unity...
Pro3ul?ation was always validB/ even when B3ade at 5o3e only.B CACanon )awA/ pa?e
:<(D Elsewhere Cico?nani notes that/ B... pro3ul?ation ta@es place not $y the 3ere
insertion o# the law in the... AActsA $ut $y its PU-)"CAT"*+.B Cpa?e ::2D &or the Canon
reads that laws are pro3ul?ated/ B$y their pu$lication.B The date to $e applied to the law
is the/ Bdate a##i9ed to the cover o# the Acta...B Cpa?e ::2D or in our case/ the date the
$oo@ was delivered $y the printers to the pu$lisher/ Christ the 7in? )i$rary and #irst
distri$uted. C0anuary 2:th/ 1112D The three 3onths/ accordin? to Cico?nani/ are to $e
rec@oned as calendar 3onths accordin? to Canon 4<K4F2. The e9a3ple o# Au?ust 1/ 111(
to +ove3$er 1/ 111( is ?iven/ and this is indeed how we have rec@oned this ti3e li3it
and that required #or canonical election. CSee announce3ent o# election date/ a$ove.D
ere it is pri3arily the election ti3e li3it laws and the devolution principle which
need pro3ul?ation/ #or Cico?nani teaches that% A!eclarations o# the !ivine law/ do?3atic
laws on #aith and 3orals/ $y their very nature require that they ta@e e##ect i33ediately/
e.?./ the conde3nation o# a certain $oo@ or a censure in#licted a?ainst a certain person/
etc...A Cpa?e ::2D There#ore/ even the si9 3onth ti3e li3it is a ?enerous one/ since it is
nor3ally assu3ed that the #aith#ul are in#or3ed o# i33ediate thin?s i33ediately $y their
pastors. Actually we have 3ade use o# the principle o# epi@eia here/ since the *rdinary o#
a place can decree an e9tended ti3e li3it #or any law. The ti3e li3it could not $e
Gusti#ied at all i# the laity were ordinarily presu3ed to $e well=versed in the lesser @nown
Canons. "# Cardinals yet e9isted to elect a Pope/ the 1( day ti3e li3it would yet apply/
$ut they A6E ceased to e9ist. "n the #irst 3illennia o# Christianity/ durin? ene3y
occupation o# 5o3e and civil wars/ the election o# a Pope o#ten too@ a ?ood deal lon?er
than the laws #or the ti3e li3it then in e9istence speci#ied.
St. -ernardAs crusade to ?ain "nnocent ""As acceptance as the true Pope too@
nearly two years. Constance deli$erated #or three years. Today/ co33unications can $e
3ade with li?htenin? speed/ and air travel ta@es not 3ore than a 3a9i3u3 o# two days to
any place. Three 3onths to pro3ul?ate and three to elect wal@s the 3iddle road $etween
the 1( day ti3e li3it required in Papal Elections and the three 3onths required to
asse3$le and elect reli?ious/ yet 3a@es additional allowances #or e9tenuated
circu3stances which require the laity to e9ercise an authority they scarcely realiIed they
had. The law is not so ri?orous that is would require us to asse3$le so quic@ly that 3any
o# those capa$le o# votin? could not $e asse3$led. .et neither is it to $e seen as so
$eni?n that the interests o# the 5o3an Ponti## and the ChurchAs ,ission *# salvation are
sacri#iced to o$serve it to the letter. The SP"5"T o# the law requires ti3ely action A+!
le?iti3ate convocation. We #eel con#ident that the law has $een su##iciently reconciled to
re#lect $oth/ $ut we will ?ive so3e space to the consideration o# the ti3e li3it allowed
under Canon 1'1 $elow.
14
A $rie# su33ary o# 5ev. Parsons wor@ ACanonical ElectionsA will reveal
the #ollowin? concernin? the three 3onth ti3e li3it%
1. B>uestions o# @nowled?e do not depend on 3aGorities. A #act is said to
$e @nown in a certain locality even i# here and now/ relatively #ew @now o# it.% Cpa?e 2:MF
ere we see that it su##ices only that the vacancy o# the oly See $e @nown in a ?eneral
way and the duty to #ill it $eco3e ?eneral @nowled?e within the three 3onth ti3e li3it.D
2. Canonists $e#ore the Code held that the interests o# the Church 3ust $e
placed $e#ore the interests o# the individual voter. The person una$le to attend .he
election within the three 3onth period was not considered a voter #or all practical
purposes pa?e 1'D. C+ote well% Pius El"As Constitution/ also provides #or i33ediate
votin? $y availa$le Cardinals/ allowin? #or those who arrive late to enter whenever they
arrive. .et they have no ri?ht to delay the election.= editorD Since the sa#ety o# the Church
3ust $e our ut3ost concern/ and since we have already ta@en li$erties $y e9tendin? the
ti3e li3it #ro3 1( days to three 3onths/ we #eel this old law yet o$tains/ $ein? the
"8E5 )AW. "t is a ?eneral principle o# law that the ri?hts o# the #aith#ul AS A
W*)E are to $e considered superior to those o# any individual.
4. Ayrinhac 3aintains that/ BAll who have a ri?ht to vote 3ust $e
convo@ed.B Cpa?e 121D ,any Catholics have pu$licly surrendered their ri?ht to vote
owin? to notorious heresy. These need not $e su33oned. We are $ound only to su33on
those who have a 5"8T to vote and/ B... Who3 it is possi$le to reach.B CParsons pa?e
122D As lon? as we 3ade every reasona$le e##ort to reach all those possi$le/ we cannot $e
accused o# #ailin? to convo@e quali#ied electors within three 3onths.
<. BA voter 3ay renounce his vote.B Cpa?e 124D
:. BAny 3ethod o# convocation will $e valid... i# the voter can arrive in
due ti3e.B Cpa?e 12<D The election su33ons can $e declared invalid i# insu##icient ti3e
is allowed.
'. BThe place 3ust $e convenient #or the voters... where no law #i9es the
place/ the advanta?e o# the voters should $e considered.B C"$idD ,ore quali#ied voters
reside in the United States and Australia than in Europe. A3ericans are not #luent in
=European lan?ua?esF also an adequate En?lish li$rary is availa$le here/ and 3ost
Europeans can read and spea@ En?lish. 8enerally spea@in? it is also less e9pensive #or
Europeans to travel to the United States than vice versa. A3erica is also 3ore convenient
to the Australians/ Asians and A#ricans.
;/ A"# the ti3e li3it is close to e9piration and atte3pts to o$tain a
le?iti3ate convocation have #ailed the voters/ can co3e to?ether without #or3al
convocation/ lest they $e deprived o# the ri?ht to vote.B Cpa?e 122D We have waited 41
years #or a #or3al su33ons and none has $een issued. We are +*T duly appointed
o##icials so we cannot issue an *&&"C"A) su33ons. +otice only o# day/ date/ place and
ti3e o# the intended election is required/ and i# no *&&"C"A) su33ons is #orthco3in?/
the voters 3ay asse3$le $e#ore the ti3e li3it e9pires. An o##icial su33ons could only
$e issued $y the hierarchy duly esta$lished/ or so3e hi?h=ran@in? national o##icial/ as
happened in the case o# Si?is3und at Constance.
Since all irre?ularly consecrated $ishops o# the Thuc line .and other AlinesA
are e9co33unicated and these e9co33unications are reserved specialissi3i 3odo to the
poly See/ C#or proceedin? in violation o# the lawD/ they cannot issue an o##icial su33ons
or quali#y as voters. The laity are not #it to Gud?e e9cusin? circu3stances in their case/
1<
and so all 3ust $e re#erred to the oly See/ Ca#ter the presu3ptions *# Canon 2222 are
o$servedD until the Gud?e3ent o# the oly See can $e o$tained.
(. Those who respond to the uno##icial su33ons and appear on the
speci#ied day/ elect/ #or Parsons writes% B... the 5"8T to vote pertains to those who have
asse3$led on the day set ... only one voter ... 3ay proceed with the election.B +u3$ers
do not 3atter. As #ew as si9 Cardinals have posited a valid election. The preoccupation
with nu3$ers so prevalent a3on? Traditionalists has to do only with a desire #or
credi$ility Ci.e. hu3an respectD and has nothin? to do with liciety or validity. "# all those
quali#ied are duly su33oned Cand we have ?iven away 3any copies o# the $oo@ to insure
they areD TE+ W*E6E5 APPEA5S C*+ST"TUTES TE U+"6E5SA)
CU5C.
1. Parsons tells us that in the early a?es o# election law/ BAn early election
was i3portant and a period o# three 3onths was considered the e9tre3e ti3e li3it.B
Cpa?e 12(D *win? to reasons already 3entioned and listed in the $oo@/ it is Gust as
i3portant today.
12. *nly/ B"# 3ore than hal# the voters are le?iti3ately i3peded #ro3
holdin? the election...B/ 3ay the ti3e li3it $e e9tended $eyond the three 3onths. Even
then/ the e9tensions ?ranted are only o# two wee@s duration. Cpa?e 12(D The three 3onth
ti3e li3it is to $e interpreted strictly/ and the election can only $e postponed #or ?rave
reasons.
"t has $een necessary to use Canon 22 in the case o# Canon 1'2 to clari#y
what 3ust $e done in an unprecedented case. Certainly Pius E""As law has not provided
#or this situation. We also interpret Canon 1;( under the provisions o# Canon 22 since the
principle o# devolution cannot $e understood in li?ht o# our circu3stances without such a
detailed e9a3ination. &inally we use Canon 1:/ Canon 1( Cepi@eiaD A+! Canon 22 to
@noc@ down the last o$Gection to Pius E""As le?islation which de3ands that *+).
Cardinals 3ay elect a Pope.
&irst we 3ust esta$lish the #act that Pius E""As Constitution is only
ecclesiastical law. This is o$viously the case/ since nowhere does !ivine revelation
3ention a pre#erred 3ethod o# Cor any 3ethodD o# election. The very #act that these laws
have chan?ed throu?hout the centuries is evidence that these were never even partially
$ased on !ivine law/ which CA++*T chan?e. The only constant which has +*T
chan?ed is the election principle itsel#. The Popes have always $een chosen $y election.
We #ind Canon 1: listed under the headin? o# AEcclesiastical )awsA in the
Code/ and Cico?nani states that it is only to these that it should $e applied. "t is clear #ro3
Cico?naniAs description o# a dou$t o# law that we indeed have an actual dou$t o# the
)AW in our case/ and not the #act/ Cico?nani descri$es a dou$t o# law as% B"# " dou$t ...
that it includes this particular case/ or that under certain circu3stances/ " a3 o$li?ed $y
Cit.DB Cpa?e :(:D ,ost @now that the le?al 3a9i3 reads/ BA dou$t#ul law is no law.B We
7+*W that Peter 3ust have perpetual successors/ and @nowin? this we dou$t that the
law $inds us under these circu3stances/ and #or this particular case/ since to o$ey this
law would $e to diso$ey the hi?her law o# perpetuity/ proclai3ed $y the 6atican Council.
ere we also have a con#lict o# law/ where the hi?her law prevails.
We co3plied with Canon 1( in the $oo@ $y drawin? parallel cases
$etween Canons 22'1 <4 and Canon 221/ $oth o# which concern the sa3e thin?s/ i.e.
3a@in? an e9ception to the law. "n addition/ the principle o# epi@eia is ?enerally listed
1:
under Canon 1(/ and has application here. Cic?onani tells us that epi@eia 3ay $e used/
when the law ceases contrariwiseF... in so3e ... case to o$serve the law would wor@
evil ... or its o$servance $eco3es 3orally i3possi$le.B Cpa?e '14D "n our situation $oth
provisions can $e seen to $e true. &ailure to. elect a Pope has wor@ed and would continue
to wor@ evil/ and we cannot continue to ac@nowled?e the See as vacant and not #ill it i#
we wish to re3ain Catholic.
&inally Canon 22 allows us to e3ploy the rules o# law to assist us in
arrivin? at a le?al solution. *ne o# these rules reads/ B... presu3ption Co# the lawD 3ust
yield to truth.B Pius E"" o$viously never envisioned that the Church would $e without
Cardinals. Since none now e9ist who have not $een deposed/ presu3ption 3ust yield to
truth/ and this portion o# the law ceases to $ind. We cannot discard any parts o# Pius E""As
Constitution not dealin? with the Cardinals/ #or it is yet the hi?her law/ superior in its
institution and application to that o# the process o# canonical elections. "n the $oo@ Cpa?es
42(=442D/ we use the si9 opinions o# theolo?ians to supply the requisite certainty and
#ul#ill the precepts o# Canon 22 concernin? the validity o# an election posited $y
e9traordinary electors other than Cardinals. We have also the precedent o# Constance.
-ut 3ore i3portantly we de3onstrate the ,"+! *& TE )E8"S)AT*5/ CPius E""D
under Canon 1( in the $oo@/ $y provin? that Pius E"" wished the laity to act in the stead
Ao# the hierarchy/ whenever the hierarchy were i3prisoned or otherwise incapa$le o#
actin?. Without such a de#inite indication o# the law?iverAs 3ind in this 3atter/ we could
not act with a clear conscience.
-elow we wish to su33ariIe the various Canons invo@ed to resolve the
questions concernin? the $indin? nature o# Pius E""As Constitution/ A6acantis Apostolica
SedisA/ the pu$lication o# the law/ the cessation o# law/ equity accordin? to the law/
analo?ies o# law/ laws laid down in si3ilar cases/ and the co33on opinion o#
theolo?ians.
1. Canon 1 has $een invo@ed in order to 3a@e laws ?overnin? canonical
elections @nown to the #aith#ul/ since they ?enerally are i?norant o# these laws and their
application to our situation. &ailure to pro3ul?ate the law su##iciently could invalidate
the election/ since the ti3e li3it #or the election and its utiliIation 3ust #irst $e @nown
and understoodF %hat quali#ied voters 3i?ht asse3$le to elect $e#ore %he ti3e li3it ends.
2. Canon 1: has $een invo@ed to prove Pius E""As law on papal elections
not $indin? in our case/ since the law does not allow #or our particular case or
circu3stance.
4. Canon 14 under the headin? o# epi@eia has $een invo@ed%
a. to adopt the 3ore lenient ti3e li3it/ since #ew are aware o# Canon )awAs
application to us/ and so #ew understand these lawsF
$. since to o$serve Pius E""As law is 3orally i3possi$le and would wor@ evil. C"n
the $oo@/ Part """/ Section.""-/ we present parallels in law and e9a3ine other decrees o#
Pius E"" to deter3ine the 3ind o# the law?iver in our situation. Parallel passa?es are also
consulted -. &*))*W"+8 TE )AWS &*5 CA+*+"CA) E)ECT"*+S.D
<. Canon 22 has $een used to%
a. invo@e the rules o# law to disquali#y Cardinals as electorsF
$. consult the laws #or si3ilar cases/ i.e./ the election laws o#
Constance and #or3er elections prior to 12:1F
1'
c. assay the co33on opinion o# theolo?ians/ used to de3onstrate
support #or the devolution o# the ri?ht to vote to the universal Church.
:. We have also used Canon 'K< to ?uide us in the use o# Canon 1'; Cthe
disquali#ication o# electors.D The source o# this law is ACu3 e9A/ as ascertained $y Parsons
and ,oc@. Pius E""As Constitution also re#ers us to ACu3 e9A since the disquali#ication o#
Cardinals who are deposed is the only disquali#ication e9pressly 3entioned in the
Constitution and can only lead us to Canon 1(( 1t<. "# this route $e used to disquali#y
A)) the Cardinals/ what would Pius E"" have us do #or electors?
"n closin? we wish to re3ind the readers o# the a$solute pree3inence o#
the law. ad all these #loatin? priests and $ishops ESTEE,E! the law/ 3any o# our
pro$le3s today would not e9ist. We have $een accused o# Ae9a??erated insistenceA on
Canon )aw/ and 3isapplication o# the Canons. =-ut it ?oes with the territory. &or
Cico?nani writes% BCanon )aw 3ay $e de#ined as ... the $ody o# laws 3ade $y the law#ul
ecclesiastical authority #or the ?overn3ent o# the Church. The law#ul ecclesiastical
authority #or the Universal Church is the Supre3e Ponti##.B Cpa?e <4D Canon law has as
its end/ the ?overn3ent o# the Church and the ?uidance o# the #aith#ul to sancti#ication
and li#e eternal.B Cpa?e <:D The principles o# Canon )aw are/ ... certain/ #or they are
#ounded on reason/ and 3ore particularly on !ivine revelation... CwhileD 3any
ecclesiastical laws are !ETE5,"+AT"*+S o# the natural law ... its laws are holy
ordinances.B Cpa?e '4D Psal3 11(/ Cwhich is read E6E5. Sunday and on 3any #easts in
the !ivine *##iceD proclai3s/ B,uch peace have they who love the lawB/ and Prover$s
'%24 tells us% ... the co33and3ent is a la3p/ and the law a li?ht/ and reproo#s o#
instruction are the way o# li#e.B Cpa?es :<=::D *ne cannot underesti3ate or conte3n
Canon )aw without callin? into question the very 3eans necessary to salvation/ and the
le?islative authority o# the 5o3an Ponti## hi3sel#. "# we are to $e true cha3pions o# the
papacy/ we 3ust $e Iealous #or A)) law e3anatin? #ro3 the Ponti##s throu?hout the
centuries.
Those who yet pretend that the Church can $e $ac@ed into a corner with
er own laws/ and that $ecause o# this She has rendered it i3possi$le to elect a Pope/
should consider the #ollowin?% AThe Church is in#alli$le in its discipline as a secondary
o$Gect o# in#alli$ility../ nothin? in the discipline o# the Church can $e #ound which is
contrary to #aith or 3orals... The ,ission o# the Church is to @eep the #aith in its inte?rity
and to lead the people to salvation $y teachin? the3 to o$serve all thin?s which Christ
co33ands. The discipline could not there#ore prescri$e or enGoin or tolerate anythin?
contrary to #aith or 3orals/ or create a haIard #or souls.B C+eu$er?er/ ACanon 'A/ pa?es 42=
41. +eu$er?er quotes !N 1:</ 1:2< and 1:2: as proo# o# the a$ove. We reco33end the
reader loo@ these up.D The Catholic Encyclopedia Cunder )aw/ CanonD tells us that it is
the unani3ous teachin? o# theolo?ians that the Church cannot contradict ersel# in any
o# er laws/ or le?islate in such a way that er laws could wor@ evil a?ainst er. That
the Church was in#alli$ly instituted $y Christ/ who ?ranted Peter and his successors a
unique le?islative power to rule/ re?ulate and edi#y the #aith#ul is tau?ht as de #ide $y the
6atican Council. C!N 1(41D
As we stated earlier/ the Church cannot #all victi3 to Aauto=de3olitionA or
ever $e seen to contradict ersel#. To say that the election law o# Pius E"" yet $inds and
1;
that lay3en 3ay not vote on pain o# e9co33unication is to say that Christ created an
i3per#ect syste3 capa$le o# #ailure. Say it and you have denied that Christ is true to is
pro3isesF you have called i3 a liar. There cannot +*T $e a way our o# this crisesF #or
the disciplines o# Canon )aw e3anate #ro3 the Ponti##s and cannot $e used to destroy the
Church. The +aIi Stor3troopers success#ully used terror and inti3idation tactics in
?atherin? up the 0ews and sendin? the3 to concentration ca3ps. ,ost o# the3 3adeA no
resistance/ re?ardless o# whether they were personally ?uilty o# the Acri3esA attri$uted to
the3 $y the +aIis Cusually ?iven as Gust $ein? non=AryansD The +aIis played on the
$uilt=in tendency o# the 0ews to sel#=pity and sel#=$la3e to ?ood e##ect/ and only very
rarely did these people #i?ht their arrest or escape their captors. TodayAs treacherous
thou?ht police have done 3uch the sa3e to Catholics $y playin? on their ready o$edience
to authority and over=dependence on the hierarchy to do all their thin@in? #or the3. )i@e
the 0ews/ Catholics have 3ade little resistance in this $attle/ save #or ver$al diatri$e. )i@e
the 0ews/ they have 3ee@ly $een led as la3$s to the CspiritualD slau?hter. "# the end is
indeed i33inent/ and the ChurchAs ?lory all in er past/ we pre#er to do that one thin?
which will assure er passa?e #ro3 this earth to the +ew 0erusale3 intact% provide er
with a ead. &or i# Christ is to soon co3e a second tire/ e 3ust #ind the Church e9istin?
as e le#t it. "# this is the only reason #or such an election/ is it not a no$le one?
Teresa Stan#ill -enns
A W*5! T* *U5 C5"T"CS
Since our 3ails have now produced several letters critical o# the $oo@/ we
wish to re3ind our readers o# the necessity o# 5EA!"+8 TE E+T"5E -**7/ and
studyin? the 3ore involved passa?es and e9planations $e#ore 3a@in? such criticis3s. "n
nearly every case/ those 3ost critical o# the $oo@ had #ailed to pro?ress any #arther than
Part " or "". ad they co3pleted a #ew 3ore pa?es/ their o$Gection would have $een
answered. *thers 3erely ?lanced at the $oo@/ and when they #ound it did not support
their chosen theory/ they reGected it out o# hand. "n addition/ 3any o# these criticis3s or
o$Gections were specious in nature/ i.e. casti?atin? us #or shallow sources yet #ailin? to
na3e the3 or to provide $etter sources/ o$Gectin? to our choice o# title/ when $y their
own i3plicit position they have answered the question posed on our cover with a
resoundin?/ A+2/ the end is near.B Astoundin?ly two readers have de3onstrated either
their ina$ility or unwillin?ness to co3prehend the $oo@ $y su??estin? we contact
ACardinalA )e?er or ACardinalA 8le3p as possi$le papal candidatesH/ 3en who lon? a?o
were censured #or heresy ipso #acto $y their #ailure to de#end the #aith. C8le3p is not
even a validly appointed CardinalHD
,ost i3portantly +*+E o# these critics have $een a$le to produce *+E
S5E! o# canonical evidence to support their o$Gections. They have si3ply 3ade the3
and pretended that they will stand o# their own wei?ht/ while de3andin? the 3ost
e9haustive proo#s #ro3 us. &ortunately Canon )aw vindicates the case we have 3ade in
the $oo@ under Canons 1(2: and 1(2;. Canon 1(2: states that/ BPresu3ption is. a
pro$a$le conGecture a$out an uncertain a##air.B Canon 1(2; says a$out such a conGecture%
Be who has a presu3ption =o# law in his #avor is #reed #ro3 the $urden o# proo#/ which
is shi#ted to his opponentF i# the latter cannot P5*6E that the presu3ption #ailed in the
1(
case/ the Gud?e 3ust render sentence in #avor o# the one on whose side the presu3ption
stands.B
As we state in the $oo@/ .*U/ the reader 3ust $e the Gud?e. So3e o# you
o$Gect that you cannot .co33it yourselves to this endeavor until all o# the various
ATraditionalistA ?urus C$e they priests or lay e9pertsD have rendered an opinion concernin?
it. This is all well and ?ood/ $ut they 3ust o##er you 3ore than their personal *P"+"*+S
to ?ainsay the $oo@. *nly the opinions o# Church3en and the Church ersel# have any
value in this $attle. "# any o# these erstwhile Traditionalists pro3ote any o# the heresies so
co33on to their $reed/ o# what value is the opinion o# heretics? Should we send a copy
to 0P""? Canon 1;:; states/ BThe #ollowin? persons are reGected Cas witnessesD as
suspected% CaD e9co33unicate/...B CThis includes all those under latae sententiae
e9co33unication/ especially heretics/ who would also $e reGected under the sa3e Canon
as perGurers and/ BC$D persons who are o# such a vile character that they are not considered
trustworthy.BD The tale is told $y Cico?nani o# the pli?ht o# -uridanAs don@ey/ which
when placed $etween two equally appealin? loads o# hay/ died o# hun?er $ecause it could
not decide to which load o# hay it should turn. As Cico?nani co33ents% BWe 3ust $e
practical unless we wish to #all= into CsuchD ridiculous uncertainty and har3#ul inertia.A
Cpa?e :(:D
What load o# hay appeals to you? That load sweetly per#u3ed with the
teachin?s o# oly &aith or the other load/ rancid and wrea@in? with the #oul odor o#
heresy? "tAs your sto3achH
The Sta##
TE !"&&"CU)T"ES *& C*+T5*6E5S.
revisited
We wish to note/ that since co3pletin? the $oo@ we have consulted 3any
other te9ts/ while conductin? #urther research. The opinions o# these authors also a?ree
with our own position as set #orth in W")) TE CAT*)"C CU5C SU56"6E TE
TWE+T"ET CE+TU5.? We could write an additional #ive hundred pa?es and reach
the sa3e end #ro3 di##erent sources. A?ain/ reread pa?e ;< on this su$Gect. We have
provided proo#/ and the presu3ption o# law is on our side. We repeat this so as not to
3iss anythin? in our discussion. We as@/ nay we !E,A+! that equal or $etter proo# $e
presented to re#ute A+. assertion put #orth in the $oo@. We reGect out o# hand the 3ere
opinion o# a 3an. We require #ro3 others what we have required #ro3 ourselves/
P5**&S &5*, TE ,A8"STE5"U,H *nce 3ore/ we rest our caseH
the Editor
Update 4
April 2:/ 1112
11
!"SC"P)"+E/ *-E!"E+CE A+! TE W")) *&
8*!
"n AElection UpdateA nu3$er 2/ we noted that 5ev. +icolas +eu$er?er in
his Co33entary on Canon ( <' has cited the ChurchAs laws concernin? discipline as
ne?atively in#alli$le/ 3eanin? that they cannot wor@ to the har3 o# souls or the
destruction o# the divine principle o# perpetuity and in#alli$ility on which the Church is
$uilt. 6olu3e 6 CvD/ o# the Catholic Encyclopedia/ under A!isciplineA states that it is the
U+A+",*US *P"+"*+ o# the theolo?ians that discipline enGoys a ne?ative/ indirect
in#alli$ility/ i.e./ the Church can prescri$e nothin? that would $e contrary to the natural or
!ivine law/ nor prohi$it anythin? that the natural or !ivine law would e9act.A We @now
#ro3 our e9a3ination o# in#alli$ility on pa?e 2<( o# W")) TE CAT*)"C CU5C
SU56"6E TE TWE+T"ET CE+TU5.? that Pius "E declared the unani3ous
opinion o# theolo?ians to $e in#alli$le/ and hence anythin? deter3ined $y the3
unani3ously 3ust $e #ir3ly $elieved. C!N 1'(4D &urther3ore/ we have the words o#
Pope )eo E"""/ in his Encyclical A>uartus SupraA/ where he teaches% ... discipline is o#ten
so closely united to do?3a/ it has such an in#luence on its preservation and on its purity/
that the sacred Councils have not hesitated in 3any cases to pronounce anathe3as a?ainst
those ?uilty o# disciplinary violations and separated the3 #ro3 co33union with the
Church.A )eo E""" states in his encyclical ASapientiae ChristianaeA% A"n settin? how #ar the
li3its o# o$edience e9tend/ let no one i3a?ine that the authority o# the sacred pastors/ and
a$ove all o# the 5o3an Ponti##/ need $e o$eyed only inso#ar as it is concerned with
do?3a/ the o$stinate denial o# which entails the ?uilt o# heresy .... Christian 3en 3ust $e
willin? to $e ruled and ?overned $y the authority and direction o# ... Cin the #irst placeD
the Apostolic See .. When the Church spea@s/ even when She does not spea@ with all the
wei?ht o# er in#alli$le utterance/ She does so invaria$ly to ?ive us SA&E 8U"!A+CE...
a Catholic is P5ACT"CA)). secure in listenin? to the voice o# those who3 8od has set
to rule the Church.A Csee !N 1';4 and 1;12D
The constitutions and !ecrees o# the oly Ponti##s are 3ost especially
e3$odied in Canon )aw/ accordin? to 6olu3e "E CiiiD o# the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Concernin? Canon )awAs constitution/ 5ev. &rancis 0. Schae##er writes in this volu3e%
BTE U)T",ATE S*U5CE *& CA+*+ )AW "S 8*!/ whose will is 3ani#ested
either $y the very nature o# thin?s Cnatural !ivine lawD or $y 5evelation Cpositive !ivine
lawD ... to attain its su$li3e end/ the Church/ endowed $y its &ounder with le?islative
power/ 3a@es laws in con#or3ity with natural and !ivine law. The sources or authors o#
this positive ecclesiastical law are essentially the episcopate and its head/ the pope/ the
successors o# the Apostolic Colle?e and its divinely appointed head/ St. Peter. They are/
properly spea@in?/ the active sources o# canon law. Their activity is e9ercised in its 3ost
sole3n #or3 $y the ecu3enical councils ... CtheseD councils/ especially ... Trent/ hold an
e9ceptional place in ecclesiastical law ... the soverei?n ponti## is the 3ost #ruit#ul source
o# canon law% ... &ro3 the earliest a?es the letters o# the 5o3an Ponti##s constitute/ with
the canons o# the Councils/ the principal ele3ent o# Canon )awF ... they are everywhere
relied upon and collected/ and the ancient canonical co3pilations contain a lar?e nu3$er
o# these precious decretals.A "# we wish to @now the will o# 8od/ and the 3ind o# the
22
Church as it has $een consistently e9pressed throu?hout the a?es/ we need only loo@ as
#ar as Canon )aw.
&ro3 ChristAs pro3ises to Peter/ we @now that the Church can never #ail
and. will last/ as it was constituted/ even until the #inal con#la?ration. &ro3 the
unani3ous opinion o# the theolo?ians/ we @now that +*+E o# the laws o# the Church
can ever $e seen to contradict !ivine law. There#ore none o# the ecclesiastical laws
?overnin? papal elections can $e upheld in contradiction to the !ivine pro3ises o#
perpetuity. -ut is it 8odAs W")) that the Church last/ or does e will it to #ail shortly
$e#ore is Second Co3in?/ as 3any Traditionalists 3aintain today? To answer this
question we turn #irst to the letter o# Pope )eo "E/ A"n Terra Pa9 o3ini$usA% ... the
Csa3eD Son o# 8od/ declared that e had won #ro3 is &ather the #ul#ill3ent o# this
pro3iseA/ Cthat the ?ates o# hell should not prevailD/ Bwhen e said to Si3on Peter%
ASi3on $ehold Satan...A C)u@e 22%41D. W")) A+.*+E -E S* &**)"S T* !A5E
",A8"+E TAT T"S P5A.E5 *& ", W"T W*, AT* W"))A "S AT* -E
A-)EA C*U)! &A") "+ A+. P*"+T? "s it not a #act that in the See o# the Prince o# the
Apostles ... the hearts o# his $rethren have $een con#ir3ed $y the #aith o# Peter/ a #aith
which so #ar has never #ailed/ nor will #ail to the end?B
+e9t we wish to quote the encyclical o# Pope )eo E"""/ ASatis Co?nitu3A
which states% BThere#ore/ ACC*5!"+8 T* TE W")) *& "TS AUT*5/ the Church
3ust $e alone in all lands in the perpetuity o# ti3e ... whoever ?o apart C#ro3 itD wander
away #ro3 the will and prescription o# the )ord and ... di?ress to destruction.B C"t 3ust $e
re3e3$ered that this sa3e pope uttered in another encyclical the #ollowin? words% ....
without the Pope there is no Church/ and there is no Catholic Society without the oly
See.B This #ro3 AConsequences o# the Pri3acyA/ Cpa?e 22'.D
&inally to lay all dou$ts to rest/ we wish to quote #ro3 the 6atican
CouncilAs Constitution/ APastor AeternusA/ which reads% as e AsentA the Apostles e had
chosen out o# the world/ Aas e was sent $y the &atherA C0ohn 22%21D/ so in is Church e
W"))E! that there should $e shepherds and teachers Aunto TE C*+SU,,AT"*+ *&
TE W*5)!.AB
There can $e no question o# ChristAs will #or is Church inA this 3atterF no
question/ either/ that is will would $e #ul#illed/ accordin? to Pope )eo "E. Each day
Catholics pray the A*ur &atherA/ and $eseech AThy will $e done on earth...A They have little
i# any idea o# how this 3i?ht $e acco3plished. All they understand is that 8odAs will is
so3ethin? that si3ply AhappensA. The 8reat Apostasy has AhappenedAF and the shepherd
has $eer struc@ as well as the #loc@ dispersed/ and they are all quite resi?ned to all this.
Un#ortunately they understand only hal# o# the #or3ula used to deter3ine 8odAs will/ and
as we 3i?ht e9pect it it the less i3portant hal#/ and that very aspect 3ost li@ely to incline
to >uietis3. St. Cyprian/ &ather o# the Church/ ?ave us a ?eneral indication o# 8odAs will
when he wrote% AThe Will o# 8od is what Christ has done and tau?ht.A 5ev. Aldolphe
Tanquerey/ that ?reat 3aster o# the spiritual li#e/ wrote% A+ow to con#or3 our wills to that
o# 8od is assuredly to cease to do evil/ and to learn to do ?ood. "s not this the 3eanin? o#
that o#t repeated te9t% A&*5 *-E!"E+CE "S -ETTE5 TA+ SAC5"&"CESA C1 7in?s
E6/ 22F *see 6"/ 'F ,att "E/ 4 also E""/ ;D "n the +ew )aw/ *ur )ord declares #ro3 the
very 3o3ent o# is entry into the world that it is with o$edience that e will replace the
sacri#ices o# the Ancient )aw% Aolocausts #or sin did not please Thee. Then " said%
-ehold " so3e ... that " should do Thy will/ C 8od.A Ce$rews E/ '=;F Phil 11/(F Phil/
21
"6/4D And in truth/ it is $y o$edience unto the i33olation o# sel# that e has redee3ed
us% Ae was 3ade o$edient unto death/ even the death o# the Cross.A C0ohn "6/4<D "n the
sa3e way/ it is throu?h o$edience and throu?h the acceptance o# 8od=ordained trials in
union with Christ that we shall atone #or our sins and cleanse our soul.A CAThe Spiritual
)i#eA/ pa?es 2<2=2<1D We 3ust re3e3$er these words well. Christ #orever ?ave us
per#ect e9a3ple in these 3atters $y #ul#illin? every point o# is &atherAs will. e
enGoined our i3itation o# i3 in this practice o# per#ection when he told us% A&or
whosoever shall do the will o# ,y &ather that is in heaven/ he is 3y $rother and sister
and 3other ... not everyone that saith to 3e A)ord/ )ordA shall enter the 7in?do3 .. $ut he
that doth the will o# 3y &ather who is in heaven/ he shall enter ... heaven.B C,att E""/ :2F
,att 6""/21D CAThe eliotropiu3A $y 0ere3ias !re9elius is called $y his editor/ 5ev.
&erdinand -o?3er/ B... the 3ost distin?uished ascetical writer o# 8er3any in the 1;th
century.AD St. &rancis de Sales/ !octor o# the Church/ e9plains #urther that there are TW*
parts to the will o# 8odF the will o# si?ni#ication and the will o# ?ood=pleasure. St. &rancis
lists the #ollowin? #our parts $elon?in? to 8odAs will o# si?ni#ication as the
co33and3ents o# 8od and o# is Church/ the evan?elical counsels/ divine inspiration/
Cand those duties peculiar to our chosen vocationD...B/ CAoly A$andon3entA/ 5t. 5ev.
!o3 6ital )ehody *.C.5./ pa?e 1D. Co33entin? #urther/ St. &rancis writes% A*$edience
to the Co33and3ents/ $oth divine and ecclesiastical/ is o# o$li?ation #or all/ $ecause
there is question here o# TE A-S*)UTE W")) *& 8*! W* AS ,A!E
SU-,"SS"*+ T* TESE *5!"+A+CES A C*+!"T"*+ *& SA)6AT"*+.A C"$id/
e3phasis oursD St. &rancis o$serves that 8od rather desires than wills the counsels/ or
$indin? ourselves to so3e reli?ious order or spiritual director/ Cwhich today is totally
i3possi$leD. +either can we su$3it our suspected divine inspirations to a spiritual
director today/ $ut this does not 3ean that we should i?nore the3/ either. 5ather we
should do what our director would nor3ally do #or us/ su$3it our AinspirationsA to the
scrutiny o# !ivine and canon law/ holdin? the law superior to such AinspirationsA.
Co33entin? on St. &rancisA o$servations/ 5ev. )ehody writes% ... 5ules are ordinarily the
chie# 3eans at our disposal #or the puri#ication o# our souls. *$edience detaches and
puri#ies us continually $y the thousand renunciations it i3poses/ and still 3ore $y its
de3and #or the 3orti#ication o# our Gud?e3ent and sel#=will... the si?ni#ied will 3ust $e
considered the #i9ed and re?ular path a3idst the accidental and varia$le events o# li#e/ the
tas@s o# our days and o# every instant.A CAoly A$andon3entA/ pa?es 1( and 22D St.
&rancis relates that 8odAs will o# ?ood=pleasure can $e #ound/ A... in everythin? that $e#alls
us% in sic@ness/ in death/ in a##liction/ in consolation/ in adversity and prosperity ... in all
un#orseen circu3stances.A C"$id. pa?e 11D 5ev. )ehody spurns the notion o# the >uietists
that the soul 3ust re3ain passive and advance no e##ort/ lettin? 8od do with it what e
will and warns us a?ainst such a 3isinterpretation o# 8odAs will o# ?ood=pleasure. "# the
Saints see3ed to us to $e e##ortlessly supported $y 8od/ we 3ust re3e3$er how
relentlessly they pursued i3 and how tirelessly they wor@ed on is $ehal#. "# we hasten
to #ul#ill all the laws o# 8od $ecause we wish to $e o$edient to i3/ even thou?h we
have no superiors/ how can e possi$ly $e said to #ault us? St. -onaventure writes% AA11
reli?ious per#ection equals 3artyrdo3 in 3erit.A CAoly A$ndon3entA/ pa?e 1(D And St.
-ernard teaches that neither Ieal #or ?ood wor@s/ nor the sweetness o# divine
conte3plation/ nor the tears o# penitence would have $een accepta$le to i3 apart #ro3
o$edience. C"$id. pa?e 21D e also calls o$edience W"T*UT !E)A. ... the #irst de?ree
22
o# hu3ility...A CAThe -oo@ o# Catholic >uotationsA/ pa?e '<2D And it is useless to say that
havin? no superiors/ we are e9cused/ #or the laws o# nu3erous popes and councils
throu?hout Church history continue to re3ain at our disposal in the #or3 o# Canon )aw/
which it has not $een ?reatly altered in all its 1/(:( years or so o# e9istence. We would do
well to re3e3$er the words o# Pius E"" in his encyclical/ Aortaliu3 Ani3osA% ... +o one
is in this Church/ no one perseveres/ unless he ac@nowled?es and o$ediently accepts the
power and authority o# Peter and his le?iti3ate successors.A )i@ewise we read in the
6atican Council docu3ents% ...the #aith#ul... are $ound $y the duty o# hierarchical
su$ordination and true o$edience/ not only in those thin?s which pertain to #aith and
3orals/-UT A)S* T*SE W"C PE5TA"+ T* TE !"SC"P)"+E A+!
8*6E5+,E+T *& TE CU5C/ so that the Church o# Christ/ protected not only $y
the 5o3an Ponti##/ $ut $y the unity o# co33union as well as the pro#ession o# the sa3e
#aith/ is one #loc@ under one hi?hest shepherd. T"S "S TE !*CT5"+E *&
CAT*)"C T5UT &5*, W"C +* *+E CA+ !E6"ATE A+! 7EEP "S
&A"T A+! SA)6AT"*+.A C!N 1(2;F e3phasis oursD ere/ then/ is the #inal answer to
all those who dare to assail Canon )aw. They cannot understand that it is not inequita$le
)AWS that $ind us/ $ut the #ailure to o$ey these laws and 3a@e the3 @nown to those
who are in i?norance concernin? the3. ere the ,ontinian Church has had a le?iti3ate
co3plaint% We have not o$eyed the laws o# the Church e9istin? $e#ore 1(:(. "nstead we
have erected ille?al ATrad centersA in violation o# A)) the laws ?overnin? the Church. -ut
neither are Conciliarists Gusti#ied in o$eyin? Post 6"" authority. We all @now that the
Church can $ind us only throu?h er )E8"T",ATE pastorsF this is the entire thrust o#
Paul "6As in#alli$le decree ACu3 e9...A We cannot pic@ and choose which laws we 3ust
#ollow either/ unless we have duly #ollowed the 3ethods decreed $y Canon )aw itsel# to
deter3ine whether a law has ceased to $ind/ or whether we 3ay invo@e Canon 22 to
proceed in the a$sence o# any @nown le?islation ?overnin? our present situation. This we
a3ply e9plained in Part """ o# the $oo@. Scripture tells us that the 3an who is #aith#ul/
even in little thin?s/ is the 3an who is pleasin? to 8od.
,any Traditionalists have lost all hope o# a reprieve and have/ as a result/
#allen prey to the Apray/ retreat and await the endA syndro3e. They have not studied to
learn 8odAs will o# si?ni#ication/ so they are i?norant o# the o$edience owed to A)) the
laws o# the Church under pain o# e9clusion #ro3 er pale. They 3a@e no e##ort and
e9pect 8od to carry the3 throu?h whatever trials and tri$ulations await us in the. )atter
!ays. As we o$serve in the $oo@/ this is #atalis3 and is conde3ned $y the Church. Csee
pa?es 2:2=2::D The ?reat &rench orator/ -ossuet addressed this >uietistic error when
he wrote% Aavin? endowed us with intelli?ence/ #oresi?ht and li$erty/ C8odD wills that we
should 3a@e use o# the3 ... To a$andon ourselves to 8od without on our side doin? what
we can/ is cowardice and insolence. There was nothin? o# this $ad tendency a$out the
piety o# !avid .. in the conduct o# !avid we have a$andon3ent in the Christian sense o#
the word and accordin? to Apostolic teachin? Whilst he awaited su$3issively whatever
8od should ordain re?ardin? his @in?do3 and person/ durin? A$solo3As revolt/ without
losin? a 3o3ent he issued the necessary orders to his troops/ his counsellors and
principle con#idants/ to secure his retreat and re=esta$lish his authority ... *ne can see that
Csuch $ehaviourD rests on two #unda3ental principles% the conviction that 8od has care o#
us and the conviction that we 3ust none the less e9ercise our ener?ies and vi?ilance/
otherwise WE S*U)! -E TE,PT"+8 8*!.A CAoly A$andon3entA/ pa?es 4' and 4;D
24
!re9elius/ in his Aeliotropiu3A tells us the sa3e% AThat war and death o# all @inds are
#ro3 8od is clearly enou?h. -ut the conclusion drawn #ro3 this that we 3ust not resist
an ene3y/ and 3ust not ?rapple with disease/ is $ad. The sic@ 3an does not @now hoe
lon? 8od wills that he should $e a##licted.A There#ore he 3ay A... strive a?ainst it and use
any law#ul re3edy #or recoverin? his health ... 8od o#ten willed that the Children o#
"srael should $e attac@ed ... $ut as lon? as it did not appear that e willed they should $e
overco3e/ so lon? did they resist an ene3y ... "t would have $een otherwise i# 8od had
warned the3/ as e did $y the prophet 0ere3ias/ that they should surrender the3selves as
servants to 7in? +e$uchodnasor.A Cpa?es 12=14D ere we see the assertions o# 8eor?e
Tyrell vindicated/ who so plainly de3onstrated that we 3ust not $e content to $e 3erely
static Catholics/ $ut 3ust wor@ to learn our &aith and P5*PE5). P5ACT"CE "T.
5ather than a prohi$ition/ in our case we have a positive C*,,A+! to
act. Throu?h is vicars/ Christ has enGoined us to act in the a$sence o# the hierarchy to
B8o and teach all nations.A Throu?h the reasoned application o# the laws o# is Church
e has ena$led us to o$tain CE5TA"+T. concernin? our actions/ so that we 3i?ht $e
assured that we are not actin? contrary to is will. Since the laws ?overnin? discipline
cannot wor@ to the detri3ent o# the #aith#ul or the destruction o# the Church/ we @now
that Be who wal@s with the law wal@s sa#ely.A The Popes/ saints/ and theolo?ians quoted
here clearly teach that in order to aspire to salvation/ we 3ust o$ey the !ivine and
ecclesiastical laws #ound e3$odied in Canon )aw/ #or it is the direct si?ni#ication o#
8odAs will.
Sadly we 3ust report that so3e o# those who ?ave us ?ood hope o# Goinin?
our e##ort to elect a pope now wish to delay the election #or two years/ while they instruct
and uni#y the #aith#ul/ in order to ?ain ?reater Acredi$ilityA #or this act in the eyes o# the
world. They cite no law nor elicit A+. canonical reasons #ro3 the Code #or their action/
e9cept that the si9 3onths Cthree #or pro3ul?ation/ three #or electionD allowed $y law is
too short a ti3e to reach all who are quali#ied. They diso$ey the law requirin? proo#s/ the
laws ?overnin? certitude Clisted under Canon 22D/ as well as Canons 1; and 1(. This in
addition to those laws which allow three 3onths #or pro3ul?ation/ and an a$solute
,AE",U, o# three 3onths to elect. .et those who A5E quali#ied are char?ed with
prayin? A+! watchin? Cactin?D/ and unless they $e wanderin? in the desert 3ust surely
$e aware o# this e##ort. The laws #or canonical elections state only that every
5EAS*+A-)E e##ort $e 3ade to reach those who are >UA)"&"E! to vote. The law
itsel# states that once noti#ication has $een sent/ statin? the day/ date/ place and ti3e/
those who asse3$le on the day speci#ied 6A)"!). E)ECT. Those who #ollow only
their own will in this 3atter i?nore the perilous ti3es in which we live/ and there$y te3pt
8od $y allowin? the ene3y ti3e to su$vert and eli3inate those Catholics who yet
re3ain. We @now that 8od did not allow 8ideon to do $attle until his ar3y had $een
reduced su##iciently/ that 8od 3i?ht $e seen to $e all the 3ore ?lori#ied $y his victory
over the 3any $y so #ew. So it see3s to $e with us. Those who pre#er delay pre#er their
will to 8odAs. Those who would choose quantity o# voters and the Aa?ree3entA o# all
voters over the "+TE85"T. o# voters invite unholy co3pro3ise and ?uarantee the sa3e
disaster that $e#ell those who AelectedA 5oncalli% the disquali#ication o# the electors #or
heresy and the election o# an unworthy candidate/ i.e. the invalidation o# the election. To
pretend unity can $e e##ected prior to the election we have shown to $e already re#uted $y
Pope )eo/ Ca$ove/ $ut Pal3ieri clari#ied this ponti##As state3ent when he wrote% AThe
2<
whole society is 3ade one $y that authority which does not yet suppose the societyF $ut
#ro3 which the society #ollows. The authority o# the 5oc@ does not suppose the edi#ice/
$ut this #ollows #ro3 it. The authority o# hi3 who has the 7eys o# the 7in?do3 does not
suppose the @in?do3 itsel# as already in e9istence/ $ut E&&ECTS it. ence/
independently o# the 5o3an Ponti##/ there is no unity o# the Church/ and no society
which can $e called a Church.A CA!e 5o3ano Ponti#iceA/ pa?e 4:(D This is $ut a
rein#orce3ent o# Pope )eo/ and a restate3ent o# St. Tho3as AquinasA teachin? and that
o# other saints and theolo?ians. CSee Part """/ pa?e 2';D
ow !A5E any Catholic pretend a ?reater @nowled?e and Gud?e3ent in
such ?rave 3atters a?ainst Saints and Popes and theolo?ians/ whose #aith and wisdo3 so
#ar e9ceed their ownH Certainly this can only $e the hei?ht o# intellectual pride on their
part. We have 3aintained all alon? that only the educated laity/ those #ew who re3ain
#aith#ul to the W*)E law Chence 8odAs willD/ will $e a$le to posit this election. Unity
cannot help $ut #ollow this act/ yet it cannot possi$ly precede it. Those who insist on
3aintainin? the opposite despite 8odAs will would do well to heed the words o# St.
!orothy% BWhen you see a solitary who has a$andoned his state and #allen into serious
disorders/ understand that this 3is#ortune is the result o# his insistence on #ollowin? his
own will. &or nothin? can $e so perilous and pernicious as to ta@e as our ?uide our own
spirit/ directin? our steps $y our own li?hts.A CAoly A$andon3entA/ pa?e 11D
"t 3ust $e re3e3$ered that only )ot escaped the destruction o# Sodo3
and 8o3orrahF that only ei?ht entered the ar@ o# +oahF that only two o# the "sraelites who
le#t E?ypt entered the pro3ised landF and #inally/ that only *ur )ady and St. 0ohn Cwho
later retreated to the upper roo3DF ,ary ,a?dalene/ ,ary the ,other o# 0a3es the less/
and Salo3e/ alon? with +icode3us and 0oseph o# Ari3athea/ were to $e #ound at
Calvary. The Apostles were #ar re3oved #ro3 the si?ht/ hidin? in the upper roo3 A#or #ear
o# the 0ews.A So also 3ay the valid hierarchy re3ain in hidin? who Gusti#ia$ly #ear #or
their lives. We$sterAs !ictionary de#ines Are3nantA as Ba s3all #ra?3ent/ a scant trace.B "n
o$edience to the will o# 8od/ only three or #ive/ or twelve 3ay asse3$le the3selves to
elect a Pope/ $ut this re3nant will asse3$le under per#ect o$edience to that Will and with
co3plete trust in i3 who pro3ised never to leave us orphans. &or wherever two or
three are ?athered in is na3e/ there shall e also a$ide. As Psal3 112 proclai3s% AThey
that put their trust in the )ord shall $e as ,ount SionF he shall not $e 3oved #orever.B
&iat voluntas tuaH
Teresa Stan#ill -enns
E5ET"CA) C*+&US"*+ Part ""% Pro9i3a &idei
Please reread pa?es 4'1 = 4;4 on the su$Gect o# Conde3ned Propositions.
+ote well/ that the penalty o# Canon 241; is incurred ipso #acto #or teachin? any
conde3ned doctrine to which a censure has $een attached. owever/ i# the doctrine is
conde3ned as heretical/ then the penalty o# Canon 241< is incurred #or the heresy. Canon
241; is an e9tension o# the ChurchAs ri?ht to teach and de#end Truth/ no 3atter how
Arevealed. Also the holdin? o# so3e doctrine not conde3ned as heretical/ 3ay $y its
application/ lead to heresy or $e considered heresy as St. Tho3as teaches. Cpa?e :1/
para?raph 1D
2:
"n preparin? these articles we have #ound that we un#ortunately o3itted to
?ive the !enIi?er re#erences #or the list on pa?es 4;2 and 4;4. "t is as #ollows%
)ist "
1. !N :(1='2:/ ':;='(1
2. !N ;<1=;(1
4. !N 12((=12(1
<. !N 1121=11<(
:. !N 11:1=121'
'. !N 1221=12((
;. !N 12((=1421
(. !N 14:1=1<:1
1. !N 1<11=1<1:
12. !N 1:21=1:11
11. see the speci#ic propositions.
Please 3a@e the appropriate notations in your copy o# W")) TE CAT*)"C
CU5C SU56"6E TE TWE+T"ET CE+TU5.?
Shortly a#ter ?oin? to press/ we #ound a 3ore co3prehensive list o# do?3atic
pronounce3ents/ provided $elow%
)ist ""
1. Pope )eo "% A)ecti9 !ilectionis TuaeA
2. Pope A?atho% A*3niu3 -onoru3 SpesA/ !N 2((
4. Pope -oni#ace 6"""% AUna3 Sancta3A/ !N <'(=<'1
<. Pope -enedict E""% A-enedictus !eusA/ !N :42
:. Pope )eo E/ AE9sur?e !o3ineA/ !N ;<1=;(1
'. Pope "nnocent E/ ACu3 *ccasioneA/ !N 1212=121'
;. Pope "nnocent E"/ ACoelestis PaterA/ !N 1221=12((
(. Pope Cle3ent E"/ AUni?enitusA/ !N 14:1=1<:1
1. Pope Pius 6"/ BAuctore3 &ideiB/ !N 1:21=1:11
12. Pope Pius "E/ A"ne##a$ilis !eusA/ !N 1'<1
A>uanta CuraA/ !N 1'((=1'11
11. Pope )eo E"""/ AApostolicae CuraeA/ !N 11'4=11''
ATeste3 -enevolentiaeA/ !N 11';=11;'
12. Pope Pius E/ A)a3enta$iliA/ !N 2241=22:2
APascendiA/ !N 22:4=2444
14. Pius E"/ ACacti Connu$iiA
A>uadra?esi3o AnnoA
1<. Pius E""/ B,uni#icentissi3us !eusA/ !N 2441=2444
We should i33ediately note/ that this list is still not co3plete/ as we have
discovered a nor3ative decree concernin? another o# Pius E""As encyclicals/ which is
2'
considered in#alli$le. The question to which the a$ove list answers is/ AWill you please
list #or 3e all the in#alli$le pronounce3ents 3ade $y di##erent Popes since the ti3e o#
Christ and the Apostles? " 3ean those 3ade on their sole authority and +*T -.
C*U+C")S.A Those decrees o# a Council su$sequently approved $y the Pope are also
in#alli$le.
Con#usion a?ain?
"t should $e o$vious that this list and the one we printed in W")) TE
CAT*)"C CU5C SU56"6E TE TWE+T"ET CE+TU5.? covers so3e o# the
sa3e ?round. ave we atte3pted to deni?rate in#alli$le pronounce3ents? -y no 3eans.
&irst the list we now have/ is ta@en #ro3 AThat Catholic ChurchA C11:<D which was
reprinted $y !aniel 0ones in his S!C+/ and it was not availa$le to us at the ti3e o#
preparin? the $oo@. C*ur inclusion o# so3ethin? #ro3 !an 0onesA S!C+ is $y no 3eans
an endorse3ent o# !an 0ones or the 3any heresies printed in his newsletter. We quote
this under St. Tho3asA principle/ A5e3e3$er every ?ood thin? you hear/ and consider not
who said itAF pa?e 4:;D We openly ad3itted that so3e o# those ite3s on our list 3ay have
$eenA in#alli$le and do?3atic. "n any case/ to teach A+. conde3ned proposition is a
3ortal sin. Cpa?e ':D The #act/ that 3any thin?s we only @new were pro9i3ate to &aith/
have now $een shown to $e de #ide and in#alli$le do?3a. Althou?h in so3e cases we
proved this to $e true in a particular case/ we now @now that so3e o# our state3ents 3ay
$e wea@/ $ecause we do not call an act heresy when in actual #act it is an act o# heresy per
se. There#ore/ when considerin? any proposition/ re3e3$er our opinion as presented in
the $oo@ is the widest view/ and due to the in#or3ation in list two a stricter interpretation
is now required. TE5E&*5E chec@ every re#erence to see i# "t is #ro3 an in#alli$le
decree on our list/ and proceed accordin?ly with a note in the $oo@.
This very con#usion is why we pro#ess our &aith/ A&urther3ore/ " declare
anathe3a/ every heresy a?ainst the oly Catholic Church/ and li@ewise whosoever has
honored or $elieves A+. writin?s $eyond those which the Catholic Church accepts
ou?ht to $e held...A CPa?e 4;4D
!avid -awden
+e9t 3onth we shall conclude our study o# eresy Cand related cri3es
which ulti3ately lead to heresyD in our third part% Suspicion o# eresy. +ow we proceed
to the cri3e o# schis3 #or an answer to an interestin? question. We should note that pure
schis3 is nearly i3possi$le/ since the de#initions o# the 6atican Council in 1(;2.
"S TE E)ECT"*+ *& A P*PE SC"S,AT"C?
"n the opinion o# one o# the Thuc A$ishopsA who adheres to the heretical
papa #or3aliterO3aterialiter theory Cpa?e 1;2D/ those who presu3e to announce that the
Papal See is truly vacant and proceed to elect a Pope to #ill that vacancy are to $e
considered schis3atics. -y the very reasonin? set down in the $oo@/ such schis3atics
could not $e considered quali#ied electors/ and any election atte3pted $y the3 would $e
invalid.
2;
Since this o$Gection has $een advanced $y one who e9ercises Gurisdiction
he does not have Cand hence is a schis3aticD we need not consider it at all. CThis schis3
co3es #ro3 his usurpation o# Papal Authority $y e9ercisin? Gurisdiction/ which *+).
the Pope can ?rant. &urther3ore we should note/ that his AtheoryA o# papa
#or3aliterO3aterialiter is heretical.D -ut 3erely #or the sa@e o# ar?u3ent we will prove
that such an o$Gection is ?roundless even i# 3ade $y one who is not outside the Church.
To $e?in with/ we @now #ro3 the ar?u3ents presented in the $oo@ that
there has $een +* pope since 11:(/ and that the 3aterialO#or3al ar?u3ent can only $e
said to hold true #or ?enuinely occult heretics who con#or3 to the nor3s laid down $y
Pius E"" and St. 5o$ert -ellar3ine. Since in de#iance o# these nor3s the heresy o# the
last #our ApopesA has $een notorious/ and especially since we have proven #ro3 St. 5o$ert
-ellar3ine and the 6atican Council that a pope cannot #all into heresy Csee Update 1D
even as a private doctor/ we have 3ost certainly de3onstrated that papa
#or3aliterO3aterialiter is only an heretical #i?3ent o# its creators i3a?ination. /
To discover whether those who question the validity o# a papal election or
the le?iti3acy o# the occupant o# the oly See are indeed schis3atics we turned to yet
another Canon )aw co33entary. "n his dissertation AThe Co33unication o# Catholics
with Schis3aticsA/ 5ev. "?natius 0. SIal/ A.-. 0.C.). writes% there is no schis3 involved ...
i# one re#uses o$edience inas3uch as one suspects the person o# the Pope/ or the validity
o# his election/ or i# one resists hi3 as the civil head o# state.A Cpa?e 2D "n support o# this
state3ent/ SIal cites the concurrin? opinion o# si9 di##erent canonists C5ei##enetuel/
Sch3alI?rue$er/ &erraris/ 6echiotti/ and 6er3eersch and Cruesen. Cpa?es 2=4D As we
@now/ si9 is the nu3$er requisite to o$tain certainty P in any ?iven 3atter under Canon
22 and the laws ?overnin? certitude itsel#. "t also a?rees with the assess3ent o# the 8reat
Western Schis3 $y 5ev. -ertrand Conway/ who in his AThe >uestion -o9A/ who writes%
AThe 8reat Schis3 was/ there#ore/ not a schis3 in the ordinary sense o# the ter3/ $ecause
there never was any question o# the unity o# the #aith/ nor o# the supre3acy o# the Pope...
As &ather 8eor?e S3ith says% AThey were not schis3atics/ $ecause they ac@nowled?ed
the Papal authority/ did their $est to discover who was its true livin? incu3$ent/ and were
prepared to su$3it at once when the discovery was 3ade.A CPa?es 111=122D
A$ove we have proven that the act o# a papal election cannot $e
schis3atic/ since it is o$edience to !ivine )aw and the will o# Christ and as such in
per#ect con#or3ity to the ecclesiastical discipline/ servant o# *ur )ord and is Church. "n
his -ull AE9secra$ilisA/ Pius "" is care#ul to include only those who deny the supre3acy o#
the papacy and those who appeal to a Council over the pope #or 85EATE5 )"-E5T..
We do not intend to convene a Council/ and we wish only to return to the #ull ri?or o#
Church discipline. )i@e Catholics durin? the Western Schis3/ we have never questioned
the authority or %he necessity o# the papacy/ and have done all in our power to uncover
the Truth and do whatever is necessary to end the crisis in the Church.
We have nothin? to worry a$out concernin? Pius ""As law or any censures
a##ectin? schis3atics. Usin? the laws o# the Church/ Cthe very will o# 8odD/ to li?ht our
way/ we can $e sure o# our sa#e Gourney and its ulti3ate destination. +ot so those who
Pharisaically try to trap us/ as they also endeavored to trap *ur )ord. &or it is TE. who
see@ #reedo3 #ro3 the strictures o# the law and the necessity o# #ollowin? any will other
than their own. As the Pharisees #ound the3selves cast into the outer dar@ness #or
2(
denyin? the 3ission o# *ur )ord/ so will these 3odern day Pharisees discover the3selves
outside the Church when a true Pope rei?ns a?ain.
Teresa Stan#ill -enns
EditorAs +ote
As we ?o to press last Sundays C)ow SundayD instruction in 8o##ineAs
AE9planation o# the Epistles and 8ospelsA we #ind an i3portant re#erence to the 3atter
discussed in the a$ove article.
AAre we already saved/ i# we $elon? to the true Church?
A+o/ we 3ust also live up to the #aith which she teaches/ 3a@e ?ood use o#
all 3eans o# salvation/ re?ard and honor all her re?ulations and co33ands CCanon )aw=
editorD/ #or otherwise the words o# Christ 3ay $e veri#ied in us% And " say to you that
3any ... shall $e cast out into the e9terior dar@ness. C,att viii/ 11.DA
ere we #ind the #or3ula #or salvation easily set out. We 3ust $elieve and
live up to the doctrines o# our &aith. We 3ust 3a@e use o# all the 3eans o# salvation/
accordin? to the ecclesiastical nor3s. &inally we 3ust/ A5E8A5! A+! *+*5 A))
E5 5E8U)AT"*+S A+! C*,,A+!S.A That is we 3ust o$ey Canon )aw/ as it is
the e9pression o# 8odAs si?ni#ied will. "t is appropriate that the lesson o# 5ev. )eonard
8o##ine touches on the su$Gect we also discuss this wee@.
the Editor
TE WESTE5+ SC"S,
,rs. -enns has $rou?ht up a very i3portant question/ which is central to
the issue o# quali#ication o# electors. We shall cover the quali#ication o# electors in a
special issue to $e released within the ne9t 3onth. Accordin? to &r. Conway/ the
Catholics livin? durin? the Western Schis3 were not schis3atics. owever/ technically
spea@in? they would $e considered 3aterial schis3atics #or #ollowin? an anti=Pope/ as
A)) three clai3ants were invalid. CThis we prove in the $oo@. pa?es <2:=<2(D The
reason &r. Conway 3a@es his state3ent is si3pleF these people were not schis3atics/ #or
all the reasons he enu3erates. They were 3aterial schis3atics/ $ecause o# the
3achinations o# politicians see@in? to usurp the Papal See/ not $ecause o# any cri3e on
their own part. "n #act/ the 3e3$ers o# the Church were innocent pawns in these
3achinations. &urther3ore they were totally innocent/ $ecause each clai3ant to the See
was +*T a heretic and there#ore not $arred #ro3 $ein? elected Pope. -ecause o# the
doctrine that Peter would have perpetual successors/ which was as true then as now/ these
people #elt o$li?ated to attach the3selves to one o# these anti=popesF $ecause it was 3ore
reasona$le to assu3e that one o# these was valid/ than that all three were invalid. "n #act
historians are unani3ous in declarin? that one o# the three lines was valid/ althou?h they
disa?ree on which line to declare valid. owever/ in researchin? the 3atter/ we have
#or3ed the opinion that A)) three lines were invalid/ thus provin? that a prolon?ed sede
vacante does not invalidate the doctrine o# perpetual successors.
21
So3e have erroneously concluded #ro3 our opinion/ which contradicts the
unani3ous "ST*5"CA) opinion/ that we $elieve the See o# Peter 3ay re3ain vacant
inde#initely. *n the contrary we $elieve #ro3 the precedent o# the Western Schis3 that
<2 years is the 3a9i3u3 ti3e li3it #or the See o# Peter to re3ain vacant. i# the See was
possessed the con#usion was such that the See appeared vacant/ and 3i?ht as well have
$een vacant. !o not thin@ that our opinion is heretical/ as it is per3issi$le to discuss
points o# historical #act which the Church has not rendered a decision on. Althou?h A))
historians thin@ one clai3ant valid/ they disa?ree on which one. -y not conde3nin? this
disa?ree3ent we $elieve the Church allows us to speculate on the 3atter.
,any sede occupantists and the 3aterialO#or3al crowd hold that/ li@e the
Catholics durin? the Western Schis3/ we 3ust attach ourselves to the ApopeA. They tell us
0ohn Paul "" is the only valid clai3ant/ $ecause the other clai3ants are so o$viously
invalid. C*# course/ there is the Siri crowd/ who accepts hi3 as a hidden pope/ Siri is
ru3ored to have appointed a successor. e was also a heretic/ and since he died without
havin? pu$licly retracted his heresy/ we 3ust presu3e he was a #or3al heretic.D
owever/ unli@e the Western Schis3/ each and every clai3ant to the Papal See is a
heretic/ now and was a heretic prior to election/ and pu$licly so. There#ore the precedent
they invo@e is invalid/ $ecause A E5ET"C CA++*T -EC*,E P*PE.
There is one si3ilarity $etween the Western Schis3 and our own ti3e.
0ust as 3aterial schis3atics/ Cwho had dropped all three clai3ants/ provin? they were not
Pope $y the principle Apapa du$ius/ papa nullusAD/ elected ,artin 6/ 3aterial heretics/
Cwho had erroneously $een deceived as Christ prophesied Athe elect will $e deceivedA $ut
who are now returned to the ChurchD/ will elect the ne9t Pope. +ote that in the previous
case these people had reGected A)) three clai3ants $y deposition/ or in one case
voluntary resi?nation o# the clai3ant. "n our case/ we 3ust reGect all the current clai3ants
to the Papal SeeF not only those wearin? white dresses/ $ut also those who clai3 to $e
Pope $y their actions/ Cthe Traditionalist priests and $ishops.D "n addition we 3ust reGect
each and every heresy currently pla?uin? oly ,other Church and re3ove ourselves
#ro3 co33union with these heretics $y pro#essin? our #aith pu$licly and $oldly. *nly
then can we hope to quali#y to elect a Pope/ or e9pect the oly 8host to end this
intolera$le interre?nu3.
!avid -awden
The Western Schis3
"n Election Update nu3$er 4/ we proposed that all three lines in the Western Schis3
were invalid. CSee "s The Election o# a Pope Schis3atic/ towards the endD owever/
since ?oin? to press in 1112/ new 3aterial has $een discovered. This 3aterial in no way
invalidates the election/ $ut rather provides #urther proo# o# the validity o# the Election o#
Pope ,ichael.
Pope -enedict E"6 says% to-day it is evident that Urban VI, and his successors were
legitimate Pontiffs. Ur$an 6" was the #irst elected at the ti3e o# the Western Schis3/ a
second clai3ant elected $y the sa3e Cardinals si9 3onths later and a third line started at
the Council o# Pisa/ which none hold to $e le?iti3ate. <2 years a#ter the election o#
Ur$an 6"/ his successor/ the true Pope/ 8re?ory E""/ resi?ned in #avor o# a new election
42
at the Council o# Constance. This decision o# Pope -enedict E"6 was not availa$le to us
at the ti3e/ $ut was discovered later.
What this proves is the contention that the #irst election is always considered valid/ with
one notable exception. The election o# a non3e3$er o# the Catholic Church/ such as a
heretic or an apostate is invalid/ $ecause it is i3possi$le #or a heretic to $eco3e Pope.
Saint Antonine o# &lorence Cas reported in Studies in Church istory/ volu3e 2/ pa?e
:42D% Although it is necessary to believe that there is but one supreme head of the
Church, nevertheless, if it happens that two Popes are created at the same time, it is not
necessary for the people to believe that this one or that one is the legitimate Pontiff they
must believe that he alone is the true Pope who has been regularly elected, and they are
not bound to discern who that one is as to that point, they may be guided by the conduct
and opinion of their particular pastor. owever/ note well/ he requires the3 to $e
su$Gect to the Pope. Since he wrote at the ti3e o# the Western Schis3/ he did not
consider the possi$ility o# an heretical clai3ant. owever/ in our ti3es/ certain clai3ants
can $e set aside #or heresy/ since it is i3possi$le #or so3eone to $e head o# the Church he
has le#t $y heresy.
TE ,*ST ,"SU+!E5ST**! CA+*+
There has $een a ?reat deal o# con#usion on the su$Gect o# Canon 22'1 and
Co33unicatio in Sacris. ,any Traditionalists still appeal to Canon 22'1 to provide the3
with per3ission to see@ A+. priest #or the Sacra3ents.P "n this issue we shall review
Canon 22'1/ para?raph 2 and its applica$ility or lac@ thereo#. Althou?h the application o#
Canon 22'1/ para?raph 2 is quite Aaccepta$leA to Traditionalists/ we will #ind that
Canonists consider its use as odiousH
"n our study we shall quote #ro3 the ACatholic EncyclopediaA/ volu3e 6/
pa?es '(2 to '(4 in the article on AE9co33unicationA which ?ives the old law $ehind
Canon 22'1.
Canon 22'1 and 0urisdiction
"n W")) TE CAT*)"C CU5C SU56"6E TE TWE+T"ET
CE+TU5.? Cpa?es 24< and 24:D we prove that Canon 22'1 does not provide
Gurisdiction $ut per3its use o# Gurisdiction which is still possessed/ as e9co33unication
does not re3ove Gurisdiction. "n his dissertation/ AE9co33unicationA/ 5ev. &rancis
Edward yland 0C) states/ A-esides the power o# orders/ there is required #or valid
ad3inistration o# the Sacra3ent o# Penance/ the power o# Gurisdiction. The vitandi and
the tolerati a?ainst who3 a declaratory or conde3natory sentence has $een issued are not
possessed o# the power o# Gurisdiction. ence sacra3ental a$solution $y such
e9co33unicates is invalid/ pa?e (1. There#ore we 3ust conclude that Canon 22(1 does
not ?ive Gurisdiction/ as we have already done. 5ev. yland ?oes on to state that in
dan?er o# death the Church supplies Gurisdiction under Canons ((2 and 22:2/ which the
&aith#ul 3ay avail the3selves o# under Canon 22'1/ Cwhich Canon he states is #or their
$ene#it.D Canons ((2 and 22:2 supply the Gurisdiction/ and Canon 22(1 ?ives per3ission
to use it in cases o# dan?er o# death. There#ore Canon 22'1 only ?ives per3ission to use
#aculties o# Gurisdiction A)5EA!. P*SSESSE! in certain cases.
41
owever/ the old law apparently was stricter/ #or AThe Catholic EncyclopediaA/
pa?e '(2 states/ Bthe e9co33unicated are #or$idden to receive or ad3inister the3 Cthe
Sacra3entsD. The sacra3ents are o# course/ validly ad3inistered $y e9co33unicated
persons/ e9cept those Cpenance and 3atri3onyD #or whose ad3inistration Gurisdiction is
necessaryF $ut the reception o# the sacra3ents $y the e9co33unicated is A)WA.S
illicit.B Accordin?ly/ under the old law all acts o# Gurisdiction $y e9co33unicates would
$e considered invalid/ or at least those o# notorious AvitandiA/ as earlier in the article a
distinction was 3ade. "n the old law/ all those under pu$lic sentence were considered
AvitandiA/ unli@e the current law which li3its this de#inition #urther.
Strict "nterpretation
A)aws which esta$lish an e9ception #ro3 the law/ 3ust $e interpreted in
the strict sense.A/ CCanon 11.D Woywod co33ents/ AThese classes o# laws Cunder Canon
11D are considered odious ... "t 3ay see3 stran?e that a law which contains an e9ception
#ro3 the ?eneral law is called odious/ whereas in #act it 3ay $e very accepta$le.
owever/ it is a reco?niIed principle o# le?islation to #avor the universal or co33on law
and to discoura?e e9ceptions.B/ Cpa?e 1<.D " a3 sure that St. Tho3as would i33ediately
a?ree with this $ecause he teaches that law is #or the co33on ?ood and is quite strict
a$out 3a@in? e9ceptions. Csee pa?es <( and <1.D "t is o$vious that Canon 22(1/
para?raphs 2 and 4 esta$lish an e9ception to para?raph 1 o# the Canon/ which states/ BAn
e9co33unicated person 3ay not licitly consecrate or ad3inister the Sacra3ents e9cept
in the #ollowin? cases...B Para?raphs 2 and 4 are there#ore an EECEPT"*+ to the ?eneral
law/ and 3ust $oth $e interpreted strictly under Canon 11.
Para?raph 2 lays down #ive conditions under which an e9co33unicate
3ay ad3inister the Sacra3ents%
1. A Gust reason on the part o# the &aith#ul #or their request. CThis would
o$viously require us to o$serve the ecclesiastical nor3s/ as Canon '(2 instructs/ since
Canon '(2 is a ?eneral law and supersedes Canon 22'1/ para?raph 2/ an e9ception to
law.D
2. Especially i# there is no other 3inister availa$le. CWe will presu3e this
to $e the case as A)) clerics/ to our @nowled?e/ have incurred e9co33unication/ latae
sententiae/ #or so3e cri3e.D
4. The e9co33unicate is not a vitandus/ or has not $een in#licted with a
declaratory or conde3natory sentence.
<. and the &aith#ul AS7 the e9co33unicate to so #unction.
So3e canonists 3odi#y nu3$er #our to allow #or a presu3ption or
i3plicit request/ and cite as e9a3ples cases o# sayin? a parochial ,ass or hearin?
Con#essions as part o# a PastorAs duty. *$viously they would not e9tend to cases where
the e9co33unicate is operatin? outside the e9ercise o# his o##ice/ as no canonist cites
such an e9a3ple. There#ore in our case an e9plicit request is required. A&ather/ will you
say ,ass #or us today?A Without this e9plicit request/ the priest 3ay not proceedH
:. 5ev. yland tells us that only tolerati who are +*T +*T*5"*US and
a?ainst who3 no declaratory sentence has $een issued 3ay $e approached. Cpa?es :2 and
'(D Even tolerati cannot validly e9ercise their Gurisdiction i# o$Gected to -. TE
&A"T&U). yland writes/ AThe #aith#ul could prevent their Gurisdictional acts #ro3
42
havin? e##ect $y o$Gectin? to the3 on the score o# e9co33unication and provin? the
e9istence o# the censure.A Cpa?e 1<'D This also holds true #or tolerati whoA vote in an
electionF their vote is valid as lon? as they are not o$Gected to $y the #aith#ul. Cpa?e 12'D
These o$Gections 3ade a?ainst those Awhose heresy is otherwise un@nown 3a@es the
delict pu$lic and notorious/ there$y re3ovin? any Gurisdiction/ as St. Tho3as teaches.
AThe Catholic EncyclopediaA also co33ents Cpa?e '(2D/ AE9co33unicated
ecclesiastics CtoleratiD/ however 3ay licitly ad3inister the sacra3ents to the #aith#ul who
request the3 et their hands/ end the acts o# Gurisdiction thus posited ere 3aintained... The
#aith#ul/ on their side/ 3ay/ without sin/ as@ tolerated e9co33unicated ecclesiastics to
ad3inister the sacra3ents to the3F...A *# course the use o# the ter3 AecclesiasticsA
i33ediately $ars us #ro3 see@in? the Sacra3ents #ro3 those/ who the Church does not
consider AecclesiasticsA/ that is A)) those ordained outside the Church/ such as the Thuc
lire -ishops end priests/ end $asically A)) priests ordained a#ter 0anuary 1/ 11:1. +o
Gurisdiction is accorded those ordained outside the Church/ e9cept under Canon ((2/
which is #or the $ene#it o# the &aith#ul. AThe Catholic EncyclopediaA notes/ Be C,artin
6D declares/ 3oreover/ that he has not 3ade these concessions in #avour o# the
e9co33unicated/ whose condition re3ains unchan?ed/ $ut solely #or the $ene#it o# the
#aith#ul.B Cpa?e ((1D "t 3ust $e noted/ that ,artin 6 3ade 3any concessions/ $ecause o#
the di##iculties incu3$ent on the #aith#ul due to the e9istence o# e9co33unicates.
!ispensations
Under Canon 1( we 3ust loo@ to parallel passa?es i# the Canon re3ains
unclear. "t is our opinion that there is nothin? unclear in the Canon. owever/ the
Traditionalist practice renders en e9planation necessary/ as they have atte3pted to throw
dou$t on the 3atter.
The laws on dispensations 3irror those on e9ceptions to the law. Canons
(: end :2 provide that dispensations/ li@e e9ceptions/ 3ust $e interpreted strictly. "n #act
an e9ception is li@e a dispensation in that is a/ Arela9ation o# the law.A/ CCanon (2D This is
where our si3ilarity is 3ost i3portantF the strict interpretation and the #act that a ?eneral
law or other principle can render either a dispensation or rela9ation o# law invalid. +ow
to the parallel Canons%
Canon 1<22% A"n the cases o# $oo@s #or$idden $y the ?eneral law o# the Church or
$y !ecree o# the oly See/ *rdinaries can ?ive their su$Gects per3ission to tread only
individual $oo@s and in ur?ent cases only.A Canon 1<21% BCardinals and $ishops C$oth
residential and titularD/ and other *rdinaries/ are not $ound $y the ecclesiastical
prohi$ition o# $oo@s/ provided they e3ploy the necessary precautions.A Canon 1<2:% The
per3ission to read #or$idden $oo@s e9e3pts no$ody #ro3 the prohi$ition o# the natural
law/ which #or$ids the readin? o# $oo@s which #or the particular reader are a pro9i3ate
occasion o# sin.A Althou?h Canon )aw per3its us to read $oo@s in certain circu3stances
which are $y law #or$idden $ecause o# their 3alicious content/ the natural law #or$ids us
to read A+. $oo@ which is a dan?er to our &aith. The +atural and !ivine )aws #or$id us
to place our salvation in peril.
Canons 12'2% AThe Church 3ost sole3nly and everywhere #or$ids 3arria?es
$etween a Catholic and a person enrolled in an heretical or schis3atic sect. "# there is
44
dan?er o# perversion #or the Catholic party and the o##sprin? such 3arria?e is #or$idden
also $y the divine law.A Canon 12'1 provides the precautions which 3ust $e ta@en to $e
sure there is no dan?er o# perversion. Canon 12'2 provides that the Catholic party 3ust
strive #or the conversion o# the non=Catholics party. Canon 12;1 e9tends the provisions
o# Canons 12'2=12'< to 3arria?es with un$aptiIed people. The !ivine )aw #or$ids
3arria?e with a non=Catholic heretic or apostate i# there is A+. dan?er that the Catholic
party will lose his or her #aith or the children will $e raised non=Catholic. A,*5A)
CE5TA"+T. that the pro3ises will $e @ept is required $y the Code $e#ore a
dispensation #ro3 the i3pedi3ent o# 3i9ed reli?ion is ?ranted.A CWoywod/ pa?e ;22/
e3phasis in the ori?inal.D Without 3oral certainty the dispensation cannot $e ?ranted/
and Ter aar holds it invalid i# ?iven without the requisite 3oral certainty. Canon 12'2
speci#ically 3entions perversion as the #actor which !ivine )aw considers as invalidatin?
the 3arria?e. *$viously our i33ortal soul is 3ore i3portant than our ri?ht to 3arry/
especially i# our soul would possi$ly $e lost $y a 3arria?e/ whereas to re3ain sin?le or
await a Catholic party would save our souls. *ur inconvenience is nothin? co3pared to
savin? our i33ortal soul.
Canon ((2% We re#er you to pa?e 2<1 where we quote the decree o# the
oly *##ice prohi$itin? us to con#ess to a schis3atic priest i# there is cause #or scandal/
possi$ility o# perversion or said priest is not ?oin? to use the Catholic 5ite. *$viously
one cannot e9pose onesel# to the possi$ility o# perversion when in dan?er o# death. -etter
to 3a@e the per#ect Act o# Contrition/ than to ris@ ell #or invitin? heresy #ro3 a priest.
What is said here also applies to heretical/ apostate and non=Catholic priests/ i# these are
per3itted at all to hear our Con#essions. A?ain/ the possi$ility o# losin? the &aith renders
this e9ception to the law as invalid.
Canon 22'1/ para?raph 4% -y re#errin? speci#ically to Canon ((2 it $rin?s
this Canon into its interpretation/ 3a@in? it #or$idden to use this para?raph o# the Canon
when there is causeA #or scandal/ dan?er o# perversion or where the priest would not use
the Catholic 5ite.
Canon 22'1/ para?raph 2% *$viously #ro3 the a$ove precedents/ the
!ivine/ Cand there#ore hi?herD law states that we 3ay not 3a@e use o# an e9ception to the
law or a dispensation i# there is dan?er to the &aith. owever/ Canon 12:( 3ust presu3e
this dan?er/ when it states/ A"t is unlaw#ul #or the #aith#ul to assist in any 3anner/ or to
ta@e part in the sacred services o# non=Catholics.A -ut heretics A5E non=CatholicsF
there#ore it is #or$idden to assist in A+. 3anner/ Ceven passivelyD at their sacred
services. The e9ceptions #or passive assistance at 3arria?es and #unerals requires the
per3ission o# the -ishop.
A Con#lict o# )aw
Canon 22'1 para?raphs two and three are an e9ception to the ?eneral law
o# Canon 22'1 para?raph 1/ as we have already shown. Para?raph 4 provides that
para?raph 2 can only $e invo@ed $y e9co33unicates who have not $een !EC)A5E!
e9co33unicates $y either conde3natory or declaratory sentence. *# course/ 3any will
say that there are +* declaratory or conde3natory sentences today/ there#ore we can
i?nore that part o# the Canon. owever Canon 22:1 provides a #urther interpretation o#
4<
the words/ B#or any Gust causeB/ which i3plies Canon '(2/ Aaccordin? to the ecclesiastical
nor3sA/
A&ro3 active assistance Cat divine o##icesD/ which entails so3e
participation in cele$ratin? the divine o##ices CservicesD/ not only an e9co33unicate
vitandus is to $e $arred/ $ut also E6E5. e9co33unicated person whose
e9co33unication was in#licted $y a declaratory or conde3natory sentence/ *5 W*SE
EEC*,,U+"CAT"*+ "S *TE5W"SE +*T*5"*US.A/ CCanon 22:1D Canon 1;<;
#urther provides that/ A+o proo# is required #or ... notorious #acts.A "# it is notorious that a
3an has re3oved hi3sel# #ro3 the co33union with the Church $y co33ittin? so3e
cri3e to which the censure o# e9co33unication is attached latae sententiae/ then he
,UST -E EEPE))E! #ro3 !ivine *##ices i# he atte3pts to ta@e an active part. *ne
can instantly see that/ unli@e the occult and 3inor e9co33unicate Ci.e. si3pliciter
toleratiD/ the notorious e9co33unicate is an i33ediate dan?er to the &aith. CSee nu3$er
: a$oveD e has already e9co33unicated hi3sel# -. "S *W+ 0U!8E,E+T and the
Church de3ands that he $e e9pelled #ro3 er services i# he atte3pts to ta@e part in any
way. *$viously i# such a one 3ust $e e9pelled/ he cannot $e allowed to say ,ass or
ad3inister any o# the Sacra3ents/ e9cept private -aptis3 and a$solution in dan?er o#
death/ Cprovided the precautions are ta@en in $oth cases.D -ecause Canon 22:1 requires
not only the cler?y/ $ut also the #aith#ul to e9pel heretics #ro3 !ivine *##ices/ we cannot
tolerate such a one #or the cele$ration o# ,ass. To do so would $e to participate
indirectly in his cri3e and in the sin o# sacrile?e $ecause/ BAn e9co33unicated person
3ay not )"C"T). consecrate the Sacra3ents...A/ CCanon 22'1.D Since Canon 22'1
para?raph 2 is *+). an e9ception to the ?eneral law o# the #irst para?raph o# Canon
22'1/ it is +*T an e9ception to Canon 22:1/ which retains its #ull #orce and vi?or.
AThe Catholic EncyclopediaA also helps us deter3ine the di##erence
$etween pu$lic and occult e9co33unicates/ A"t is pu$lic throu?h notoriety o# #act when
the o##ence that has incurred it is @nown to the 3aGority o# the locality/ as in the case o#
those who have done pu$lic violence to clerics/ or o# the purchasers o# pu$lic property.
*n the contrary/ e9co33unication is occult when the o##ence entailin? it is @nown to no
one or al3ost no one.A Cpa?e ((2D AThe Catholic EncyclopediaA #urther notes/ that an
e9co33unication which is pu$lic $inds in the e9ternal and internal #oru3/ whereas the
occult e9co33unicate is only $ound in the internal #oru3. Accordin? to the 111; Code
these rules are retained. "# a 3an is e9co33unicated in the e9ternal #oru3/ he ,UST
o$serve the censure and A)) e##ects. Canonists ?enerally a?ree/ however/ that such an
o##ender cannot $e &*5CE! to o$serve this e9co33unication until a declaration o# #act
Cdeclaratory sentenceD has $een issued. CWe will e9a3ine this e9ception at ?reater len?th
in AThe >uali#ication o# ElectorsA soon to $e released.D
Who Can +ow "ssue a !eclaratory Sentence?
We 3ust i33ediately de#ine the di##erence $etween a declaratory and a
conde3natory sentence/ althou?h either one $ars an e9co33unicate #ro3 the
ad3inistration o# the Sacra3ents with the #ollowin? e9ception.
A"n the conde3natory sentence the court itsel# in#licts the penalty o# the law/ and
#or that reason these penalties are called #erendae sententiae Cpenalties to $e in#licted $y
4:
the court.DA/ CWoywod pa?e 41.D Since we have +* court or superior to in#lict
conde3natory sentences/ we have i?nored the3 in our discussions.
A"n the declaratory sentence/ the law itsel# has already in#licted the penalty
on the $rea@in? o# the law/ and the court in which the o##ender is arrai?ned 3erely
declares that it has #ound the person ?uilty/ and that there#ore he has incurred a certain
penalty o# the law. These penalties are called latae sententiae Csentence already
pronounced.DA/ CWoywod pa?e 41.D The declaratory sentence is si3ply thatF a declaration
o# what has already happened once the law was $ro@en. The person e9co33unicated
hi3sel# $y $rea@in? the law and the declaratory sentence 3erely 3a@es that #act 3ore
pu$lic and o##icial. "n his Canon )aw thesis% AThe "pso &acto E##ected !is3issal o#
5eli?iousA/ 5ev. -enedict &aller/ *.S.-./ 0..C.)./ reports/ A*n 0uly 22/ 114< ... the
Ponti#ical Co33ission #or the Authentic "nterpretation o# the Code...B Cre3oved all dou$t
concernin? the necessity o# a declaration o# #act in ipso #acto sentence.D AThis response
states that the declaration o# #ast is not necessary in order that a reli?ious 3ay $e
considered as ipso #acto le?iti3ately dis3issed... Ceven $e#ore the declaration o# #act
ta@es place.DA Cpa?es 1'2 and 1(1D The renderin? o# this decision would see3 to have
application to our case/ since the dis3issal o# the reli?ious Cunder Canon (<(D discussed
and decided upon $y the Code in this case involved the dis3issal #or pu$lic apostasy and
two lesser o##enses involvin? Cpu$licD scandal.
"n addition to the court the )ocal *rdinary and Pope can $oth in#lict
penalties $y conde3natory and declaratory sentence. A"t is/ as a rule/ le#t to the discretion
o# the superior to declare a penalty latae sententiaeF $ut he ,UST issue a declaratory
sentence/ i# an interested party de3ands it/ or i# the pu$lic wel#are requires it.A/ CCanon
2224.D *$viously/ the case o# 3ost notorious e9co33unicates would require the superior
to issue the declaratory sentence/ $ecause the pu$lic wel#are de3ands it. "n addition
Canon 2224 ?ives the &aith#ul a do3inative power i# we have an interest in the case at
hand. "# we de3and the sentence/ and we are an interested party/ the superior is o$li?ed
to issue the declaratory sentence. When Pius E"" nu3$ers the laity as part o# the
hierarchy Cpa?e 422D/ he appears to e9tend our do3inative power/ Aespecially in countries
where contacts with the hierarchy are di##icult or practically i3possi$le.A Such is our case
today. "# we didnAt @now that in a #ew short 3onths these cases could $e re#erred to the
Pope/ we 3i?ht $e te3pted to wor@ out the line o# reasonin? which Gusti#ies the laity Cin
this circu3stance to issue declaratory sentences.D This could $e done $y declarin? that a
certain person has violated the law and incurred ipso #acto e9co33unication and such
action 3ust $e censured #or the protection o# the &aith#ul #ro3 the wol# in their 3idst.
ere Canons 114< and 114: dealin? with cri3inal cri3es co3e into play.
Canon 114< states/ BCri3inal actions or accusations are reserved to the prosecutor alone/
to the e9clusion o# all others.A .et we #ind that Canon 114: 3iti?ates this Canon as
#ollows/ B+evertheless/ any o# the #aith#ul 3ay at all ti3es denounce the o##ense o#
another #oe the purpose o# de3andin? satis#action... or out o# Ieal #or Gustice to repair
so3e scandal or evil. Even an o$li?ation to denounce an o##ender e9ists/ whenever one is
o$li?ed to do so either $y law or $y special le?iti3ate precepts/ or $y the natural law in
view o# the dan?er to #aith or reli?ion or other i33inent pu$lic evil.A Canon 114; #urther
$inds a denouncer when it states/ AThe person who denounces an o##ence 3ust render
assistance to the prosecutor to prove the o##ence.A "n discussin? these Canons Woywod
notes that this assistance o# the laity is a@in to a AcitiIenAs arrestA in civil law. Already in
4'
<: a$ove we have proven that $y o$Gectin? even to a si3pliciter tolerati the laity can
there$y re3ove his Gurisdiction and render his vote invalid in the case o# ecclesiastical
elections. Clearly the laity possess enou?h power to at )EAST declare #aithless Catholics
suspect o# heresy Cwhich suspicion/ i# not re3oved/ incurs the censure o# Canon 241<
a#ter si9 3onths.D The #aith#ul are CE5TA"+). o$li?ated to denounce such heretics
under Canon 142: as we state repeatedly in the $oo@. .et $ecause the law is su##icient
#or the purpose o# $arrin? certain o$Gectiona$le individuals #ro3 the election/ and
deprivin? the rest o# Gurisdiction/ we need proceed no #urther in these 3atters. *nce the
pope is elected/ however/ we 3ust #urnish a written state3ent denouncin? the various
individuals and listin? their cri3es/ especially heresy Cas well as proo# that such is indeed
a cri3eD alon? with place and ti3e o# co33ission. All this accordin? to Canon 114'.
We wish to conclude $y sayin? that in the cases o# notorious
e9co33unicates/ Cand there are 3any a3on? the TraditionalistsD/ we should presu3e the
declaratory sentence would $e issued/ i# the hierarchy e9isted to issue it. "n addition/ TE
6E5. +*T*5"ET. *& TE"5 C5",E "S SU&&"C"E+T T* 5E>U"5E US T*
EEPE) SUC &5*, PA5T"C"PAT"*+ AT !"6"+E *&&"CES/ Ci.e. ,ass/
-enediction/ 6espers/ etc.D. &or these two reasons we are #or$idden to approach a
notorious e9co33unicate #or the Sacra3ents under Canon 22'1/ para?raph 2. We 3ay
only approach hi3 under para?raph 4 o# Canon 22'1 #or a$solution i# the conditions
outlined a$ove are all #ul#illed
eretics and Canon 22'1 para?raph 2
*n pa?es ;1 and ;2/ we prove that Canon ;41/ a ?eneral law/ repeals the
provision o# Canon 22(1/ para?raph 2/ an e9ception to the law. Please reread those pa?es.
The hi?her law #or$ids a heretic to receive or ad3inister the Sacra3ents in A+. case. St.
Tho3as #urther rein#orces the law in this case in his Su33a C"""/ >(2 AThe ,inister o#
the oly EucharistAD%
A" answer that/ As was said a$ove Caa :/ ;D/ heretical/ schis3atical/
e9co33unicate/ or even sin#ul priests/ althou?h they have the power to consecrate the
Eucharist/ yet they do not 3a@e proper use o# itF on the contrary they sin $y usin? it. -ut
whoever co33unicates with another who is in sins/ $eco3es a sharer in his sin. ence
we read in 0ohnAs Second Canonical Epistle C11D that Ae that saith unto hi3/ 8od speed
you/ co33unicateth with his wic@ed wor@s.A Consequently it is not law#ul to receive
Co33union #ro3 the3/ or to assist at their 3ass.A CArticle 1D +othin? could $e 3ore
si3ple. St. Tho3as #urther states/ AStill there is a di##erence a3on? the a$ove/ $ecause
heretics/ schis3atics and e9co33unicates have $een #or$idden/ $y the ChurchAs sentence/
to per#or3 the Eucharistic rite. And there#ore whoever hears their 3ass or receives the
sacra3ents #ro3 the3/ co33its sin.A e ?oes on to state that all other sinners need not $e
avoided until the Church sentences the3.
The i33ediate o$Gection to this position is the reGection o# the Sacra3ents/
which 3any clai3 we 3ust o$tain at A+. and A)) cost/ $ecause Awe need the ?racesA.
owever St Tho3as states/ A-y re#usin? to hear the 3asses o# such priests/ or to receive
Co33union #ro3 the3/ we are not shunnin? 8odAs sacra3entsF on the contrary/ $y so
doin? we are ?ivin? the3 honor% $ut what we shun in the sin o# unworthy 3inisters.A/
Creply to o$Gection 1.D &urther3ore St. Tho3as states in re#erence to heretical/ schis3atic
4;
and e9co33unicated priests/ Asuch persons as are separated #ro3 the Church $y heresy/
schis3/ or e9co33unication/ can indeed consecrate the Eucharist/...F $ut they act
wron?ly/ and sin $y doin? soF and in consequence they do not receive the #ruit o# the
sacri#ice/ which is a spiritual sacri#ice.A/ CArticle ;.D And #urther/ A$ut $ecause he is
severed #ro3 the unity o# the Church/ "S prayers A6E +* E&&"CAC..A/ Creply to
o$Gection 4 o# article ;.D is ,ass/ to us/ is worthless. Thus the distinction 3ust $e 3ade
$etween the 6A)"!"T. o# the Eucharistic consecration and licitity o# such actions.
When St. Tho3as re#ers to Aunworthy 3inistersA elsewhere in his Su33a/ he re#ers only
to S"+&U) ,E+ whose sins are to $e rec@oned in 3inor thin?sF and only sin#ul 3en
whose activities have not $eco3e pu$lic so as to create scandal . This a?rees per#ectly
with the laws ?overnin? the election o# worthy candidates #or o##ice/ which state that
pu$lic scandal 3a@es one unworthy to hold an ecclesiastical position. CSee pa?e 1( o# the
$oo@D
A-aptis3 alone is allowed to $e con#erred $y heretics and schis3atics/
$ecause they can law#ully $aptiIe in case o# necessityF $ut in +* CASE can they
law#ully consecrate the Eucharist/ or con#er the other sacra3ents.A/ Creply to o$Gection 2
o# article ;D. This is o$viously the !ivine law $ehind Canon ;41. Since Canon ;41 is o#
!ivine law/ we cannot appeal . to so3e 3erely ecclesiastical e9ception $y anyo# repeain?
it. We @now that noe only heretics and schis3atics $ut also non=Catholics 3ay -aptiIe
in case o# necessity/ so lon? as they use the proper 3atter and #or3 and have at least the
intention o# doin? what the Church does/ as the Catechis3 re3inds us. "t is interestin? to
note that St. Tho3as does not include apostates in his evaluation. This is $ecause he
dou$ts they have the proper intention in re?ard to the Sacra3ents/ as we have already
de3onstrated. Csee pa?e <1( o# the $oo@D
*ne last note should $e 3ade $e#ore 3ovin? alon?. ,any clai3 that
AnecessityA allows us to approach even those ordained outside the Church/ such as the
)e#e$vre/ Thuc=line and C,5" ApriestsA. CThere is dou$t a$out the validity o# so3e o# the
C,5" priests and we have also shown ?rave dou$t a$out )e#e$vre on pa?e <1'/ when we
call into question )inehartAs intention in receivin? Episcopal Consecration. There#ore we
3ust avoid these ApriestsA $ecause *+). a Pope can issue a de#initive decision which
would dispel our dou$t. We cannot proceed on the possi$ility that they 3i?ht $e
ordained.D *n pa?es 1(2 and 1'4 we prove that priests not called $y the Church are
considered as lay3en/ B#or all canonical e##ects.A/ as 5o3e has decided in such a case
$e#ore the Apostasy. We are not allowed to approach lay3en #or the Sacra3ents e9cept
-aptis3 in case o# necessity. St. Tho3as tells us why these 3en/ ordained outside the
Church/ are #or$idden to #unction/ A-ut such as are ordained while separated #ro3 the
Church/ have neither the power ri?htly/ nor do they use it ri?htly.A
St. Tho3as ?oes on to show that the unity o# the Church is shown throu?h
the oly Eucharist/ AThe unity o# the 3ystical $ody is the #ruit o# the true $ody received.
-ut those who receive or 3inister unworthily/ are deprived o# the #ruit/ as was said a$ove
CA;/ > (2/ A<D. And there#ore/ those who $elon? to the unity o# the &aith are not to
receive the sacra3ent #ro3 their dispensin?.A/ CArticle 1/ 5eply 2.D We cannot participate
in the unity o# the true Church $y attendin? Athe ,asses o# another Church/ Cthe
Traditionalist Church.D -y attendin? their ,asses and receivin? their Sacra3ents/ we
show unity with their Church and our pu$lic de#ection #ro3 the T5UE Church.
4(
Consequently we incur the penalties o# Canon 241< #or such de#ection. Cpa?es '1 = ;2 o#
the $oo@D
,oralists on Participation with +on=Catholics
!o3inic Pru33er in his/ Aand$oo@ o# ,oral Theolo?yA states% APassive
reli?ious co=operation with heretics C$ut not e9co33unicated persons who are to $e
avoidedD is law#ul/ as a ?eneral rule. There#ore non=Catholics 3ay $e present at Catholic
services/ ...A/ Cpa?e 12.D We can per3it heretics who are in ?ood &aith Ci.e. $aptiIed non=
CatholicsD/ to participate in our services/ $ut we cannot participate in theirs. AActive and
#or3al reli?ious co=operation is always #or$idden. Such co=operation is si3ply a denial o#
Catholic #aith and a reco?nition o# an unorthodo9 #or3 o# worship. Thus/ #or e9a3ple/ a
Catholic cannot $e a ?odparent at an heretical -aptis3.A
eri$ert 0one in his A,oral Theolo?yA states/ AActive participation in non=
Catholic services is entirely #or$idden. CC. 12:(D The natural law #or$ids participation in
services that are heretical. "# the service is one that heretics have in co33on withA us/
even thou?h no scandal co3es #ro3 such participation/ it is at least #or$idden $y Church
law.A/ Cpa?e ;<.D "# there is scandal/ !ivine law #or$ids it.
*n the su$Gect o# civil co=operation/ we should note what Pru33er says/
ACivil co=operation $etween Catholics and non=Catholics is not now #or$idden $y the law
o# the Church/ $ut very o#ten it has to $e discoura?ed owin? to the dan?ers involved. "t is
A #requently the source o# dou$ts a?ainst #aith/ indi##erentis3/ and so3eti3es co3plete
de#ection #ro3 the #aith.A/ Cpa?e 12.D 0one states/ AAssociation with non=Catholics in civil
a##airs is allowed as lon? as this does not constitute a dan?er to oneAs #aith.A What could
$e a clearer de#inition o# the !ivine )aw in this 3atter? "# where there is dan?er to the
&aith even civil co33unication is #or$idden with heretics/ how 3uch 3ore reprehensi$le
is co33unication with heretics in those thin?s so closely connected to our oly &aithF
the Sacra3ents?
Conclusions
1. Canon 22'1 does not provide Gurisdiction $ut only ?ives per3ission to
use #aculties or Gurisdiction A)5EA!. P*SSESSE! in certain cases.
2. Canon 22'1/ Cpara?raphs 2 and 4D 3ust $e interpreted strictly.
4. Para?raph 2 lays down #ive conditions/ under which an e9co33unicate
3ay ad3inister the Sacra3ents%
i. A Gust reason on the part o# the &aith#ul in requestin? the3F
ii. CEspeciallyD i# there is no other 3inister availa$leF
iii. "# the e9co33unicate is not a vitandus/ or has not $een a##licted
$y a declaratory or conde3natory sentenceF
iv. and the &aith#ul AS7 the e9co33unicate to so #unctionF
v. Provided that none o# the #aith#ul have o$Gected to his
3inistrations. Such o$Gections re3ove his Gurisdiction $y renderin? his cri3e notorious.
<. !an?er to the #aith/ requires us to avoid a person/ whether #or the
Sacra3ental rites or even Civil co33unication.
41
:. We cannot allow vitandus/ those under declaratory or conde3natory
sentence or whose e9co33unication is notorious to ad3inister the Sacra3ents $ecause
such a one 3ust $e e9pelled.
'. *ur do3inative power allows us to presu3e that notorious
e9co33unicates are equivalent to those under sentence/ $ecause the superior 3ust/ Aissue
a declaratory sentence/ i# an interested party de3ands it/ or i# the pu$lic wel#are requires
it.A/ Canon 2224. The laity has an o$li?ation/ under Canon 114: to denounce such as
heretics in order to avoid dan?er to the #aith.
;. Canon 22'1 para?raph 2 does not apply to heretics/ who are #or$idden
$y !ivine law #ro3 ad3inisterin? the Sacra3ents/ and the sa3e !ivine law #or$ids us to
receive the Sacra3ents #ro3 their hands.
(. The ,asses o# heretics/ schis3atics and e9co33unicates are worthless%
A$ut $ecause he is severed #ro3 the unity o# the Church/ "S prayers A6E +*
E&&"CAC..A/ Creply to o$Gection 4 o# article ; o# St. Tho3asA Su33a.D
1. The oly Eucharist is the #ruit o# the Unity o# the Church/ which has as
its root the Papacy.
!avid -awden Teresa Stan#ill -enns
E!"T*5% !avid -awden
STA&& W5"TE5% Teresa Stan#ill -enns
Update <
,ay 41/ 1112/ which included also a special update.
"8+*5A+CE A+! E5ES.
*ne 3i?ht wonder why we $rin? this question up a?ain/ a#ter havin?
already covered it. *ur covera?e was o# necessity short and si3ple. *n pa?e ;2/ we
prove that i?norance o# law or #act does not e9cuse #ro3 the necessity o# Pro#ession o#
&aith/ A$Guration o#. eresy and 0uridical A$solution/ ?iven the e9ternal violation o# the
law. The Pro#ession and A$Guration are possi$le as pointed out on pa?es 4'( to 4'1.
owever/ as we point out throu?hout the $oo@/ no one possesses the Gurisdiction to
a$solve us in the e9ternal #oru3. Since we 3ust proceed to posit a Papal Election without
the a$solution in the e9ternal #oru3/ we 3ust then provide a 3ethod where$y we can
prove our 3e3$ership in the Church. Also Canon 1(; note < renders as incapa$le o#
votin? all those who have #or3ally le#t the Church/ even i# they have returned and $een
a$solved/ and under Canon 2222 we 3ust assu3e one has #or3ally le#t U+T") TE
C*+T5A5. "S P5*6E+. All canonists hold that inculpa$le i?norance o# #act e9cuses
#ro3 the penalties o# Canon 241< and the irre?ularities incurred $y heresy/ so lon? as
such i?norance can $e proven in the e9ternal #oru3. C"# it cannot $e so proven the person
censured/ i# he @nows with a 3oral certainty that he was i?norant/ is #ree #ro3 the
censure in the internal #oru3.D
Was the )aity "?norant?
<2
*n pa?e ;2 we prove that the cler?y are called to a hi?her level o# sanctity and
@nowled?e. The laity cannot $e held to the sa3e level o# @nowled?e as the cler?y. The
laity 3ust @now the ordinary require3ents #or salvation/ not Canon )aw. CThe laity is
required to @now that part o# Canon )aw which applies to the3 ordinarily/ especially i# it
is a restate3ent o# !ivine )aw/ such as the law requirin? Sacra3ental Con#ession $e#ore
oly Co33union #or A)) 3ortal sinners.D The laity are to $e instructed $y the cler?y%
accordin? to their levels o# understandin?/ as St. Pius E teaches in his encyclical on
Catechetical instruction. -ecause the old law/ and Ci3plicitly the 111; CodeD e9e3pts
certain classes #ro3 a $road @nowled?e o# the Canons/ these people #or3 presu3ptions
$ased on the instruction they have received. The o$li?ation o# the laity to learn their &aith
in 3ore detail has now $eco3e apparent/ $ecause it can $e de3onstrated that we cannot
rely on the cler?y to teach us the truth. 5e3e3$er/ the laity has a strict ri?ht to the
T5UT #ro3 the cler?y/ whether this cler?y possesses canonical 3ission or not. The
cler?y is $ound under pain o# ?rave sin to either present the true &aith/ whole and entire/
or to re3ain silent. C"# they have canonical 3ission and Gurisdiction over the laity/ they
are required to learn the &aith and present it/ once learnedHD The laity usually wor@s on
assu3ptionsF assu3ptions which are $ased on do?3a and the practice o# the Church.
These presu3ptions are not always well understood/ so it is easy to chec@ one Got or tittle
and chan?e the presu3ption #ro3 a $eauti#ul do?3a into an u?ly heresy. We shall
analyIe these presu3ptions and the action which naturally #ollowed%
1. The Church will never #ail.
Action% 3aintain connection with those/ who possess the church $uildin?s
and call the3selves Catholics. "t was not lon? a#ter the introduction o# the +ovus *rdo
that it $eca3e apparent that the churches with the na3e Catholic on the3 were nothin?
3ore than dens o# heretics/ so another interpretation o# this doctrine 3ust necessarily $e
true.
2. All priests have the ri?ht to ad3inister the Sacra3ents indiscri3inately.
Action% see@ out those priests usin? the old 5ites o# the Sacra3ents. This
presu3ption was cultivated $y la9 cler?y/ who #ailed to e9plain the Guridical nature o# the
Church and the necessity o# Gurisdiction in connection with the Sacra3ents. This Guridical
nature o# the Church was not de#ended until late 11(:/ and not #ully until AW")) TE
CAT*)"C CU5C SU56"6E TE TWE+T"ET CE+TU5.?A was printed.
4. Clerics have superior @nowled?e.
Action% &ollow the opinion o# a cleric/ who is apparently holdin? the
&aith/ while reGectin? the opinion o# lay3en +or3ally this would hold. owever/ the
cler?y/ did +*T @now their &aith. "n one case " was 3ore @nowled?ea$le and
de3onstra$ly so than a priest/ who a year a#ter our 3eetin? was pro3oted to the
Episcopate in the Thuc line. This priest would not help 3e with 3y se3inary studies nor
provide 3e with a list o# te9t$oo@s " should study. Such a priest/ Cand this @ind o# priest is
co33on a3on? the TraditionalistsD/ is #ailin? his duty o# continued study in a serious and
pro$a$ly3ortally sin#ul 3anner. "# it is 3ortal sin #or 3e/ a lay3en who hopes to present
hi3sel# #or ad3ission to the se3inary/ to #ail to study/ how 3uch 3ore so a cleric?
<. The ierarchy will never #ail.
Action% While reGectin? the #alse Popes/ clin? to a Asuccessor o# the
apostlesA. A?ain a 3isunderstandin? o# the ter3 A$ishopA coos into play. &irst $ishops
<1
possess no Gurisdiction #ro3 the reception o# Episcopal Consecration. "n #act they only
$eco3e Successors o# the Apostles in the #ull sense i# they are consecrated in accordance
with Ecclesiastical )aw/ which now requires a Papal ,andate.
:. 5eli?ious are holy.
Action% connect with a ?roup o# AholyA reli?ious. Since they appear holy/
they 3ust $e Catholic/ as heresy is usually visited with an onrush o# the other sine and
lac@ o# holiness. This assu3ption is $ased on e9ternals only. These 3en/ li@e the
0ansenists/ are pure as an?els and proud as devils/ as the Catholic !ictionary descri$es
the3. 0ansenis3 was the epito3e o# e9ternal reli?ion/ so it is not surprisin? to see its u?ly
head rise a3on? the Traditionalists/ who have attached to e9ternal reli?ion $ecause it is
all they have le#t. "t is 3y opinion that one cannot pro?ress throu?h internal reli?ion/ or
the three steps o# holiness/ e9cept in #ull co33union with the Catholic Church T*
P5*PE5). P5*85ESS *U5 S*U)S 5E>U"5E -*T "+TE5+A) A+!
EETE5+A) 5E)"8"*+ "+ TE"5 P5*PE5 P)ACES.
Presu3ption ,ust .ield to Truth
Cpa?e 2' K'D ,any have #ollowed this route out o# the wron? application
o# do?3a and the #alsehood o# non=do?3atic presu3ptions. So3e have denied do?3a in
their pursuit o# AtruthA. ,any o# these have done so in ?ood #aith/ $ut when con#ronted $y
the do?3a yet clin? to their error/ or C**SE to re3ain in error and there#ore $eco3e
#or3al heretics. *thers have unwittin?ly #allen #ro3 one heresy into another/ while
see@in? to wor@ out the truth o# the current situation. CThe authors o# AW")) TE
CAT*)"C CU5C SU56"6E TE TWE+T"ET CE+TU5.?A include the3selves
in this cate?oryD What then was required o# us?
*ne is required to act when a dou$t presents itsel#. That is/ one 3ust wor@
to resolve that dou$t/ re?ardless o# the di##iculty and e9pense this e##ort will entail. "# it
requires $uyin? a se3inary li$rary and studyin? it/ then do so. CThis is how AW")) TE
CAT*)"C CU5C SU56"6E TE TWE+T"ET CE+TU5.?A was writtenHD "# it
requires consultin? others 3ore learned/ whether cler?y or lay/ then $y all 3eans consult.
We @now that it is a 3atter o# &aith that we W")) $e ?iven the ?races necessary to save
our souls. We 3ust cooperate with and as@ #or these ?races. 8od does not conde3n
anyone to hell without ?ivin? the3 an opportunity to $e with i3 in eaven. 8od does
Aconde3nA us to years o# prayer and study o# our &aith/ and such is actually a require3ent
o# the natural lawF a require3ent which has +*T $een e9plained to us $y the cler?y over
the past=122 years. Csee part "/ section 1/ especially pa?e 1'D )et us outline the
require3ents%
1. Prayer. Especially prayer to the oly 8host. owever/ this is not
su##icient as prayer without wor@s is dead. Cora et la$oraD
2. Study. ere we start with the si3ple catechis3 and wor@ our way up to
a 3ore thorou?h @nowled?e o# the do?3as o# our oly &aith. ,any 3isunderstand
3editation as conte3plation o# so3e even in the li#e o# *ur )ord or *ur )ady. This is
only one aspect o# this practice. ,editation is conte3plation o# truth throu?h prayer.
-ecause o# the seriousness o# the current Church crisis/ our 3editation 3ust $e on
!octrine. We 3ust use our 3editation/ ti3e to conte3plate the various doctrines o# the
&aith/ especially those which have $een o$scured and con#used $y the ene3y. &or
<2
instance the hierarchical constitution o# the church and the necessity o# the Papacy will
3a@e #ruit#ul su$Gects #or 3editation. A?ain we are $ac@ to/ A@now/ love and serve 8od.A
We 3ust @now E6E5.T"+8 we can a$out is/ not Gust the various para$les/ $ut all
the doctrine upon which e #ounded is oly ChurchH ow can one @now a person i# he
re#uses to @now one part o# is 3ind? The 3ore we @now 8od/ the 3ore we @now the
!octrine e tau?ht us. *nly with a true @nowled?e o# 8od can we pro?ress to lovin?
8od. A#ter we have $e?un to truly love 8od/ we $e?in to serve i3. *nly a#ter
per#ectin? the three virtues o# @nowin?/ lovin? and servin? 8od/ can we reap the reward
pro3ised in the catechis3/ Aand $e happy with i3 in the ne9t world.A
)ay *$li?ations and "?norance
The laity are required to save their souls. owever/ 3any will protest that
what we propose here is i3possi$le #or the3. They could a3ass the nu3erous resources/
$ut to no avail. What then 3ust they do? When one cannot #ul#ill an o$li?ation
personally/ one is o$li?ed to see@ another to assist hi3 in #ul#illin? his o$li?ation. "# you
cannot do the study/ then you 3ust #ind so3eone to help youF so3eone to instruct you
in %the &aith. "n AThe Priesthood o# the )aityA we descri$ed the do3inative power o# the
laity. This power is ?iven to us/ the laity/ #or the sole purpose o# savin? our souls. We
have an unrestricted ri?ht to the truths o# the &aith. We have a ri?ht to de3and these
truths/ not only #ro3 our pastors/ $ut #ro3 the other cler?y and even #ro3 the 3ore
educated laity. The whole $asis o# Catholic Action was to educate 3e3$ers o# the laity/
so they in turn could render the ulti3ate act o# charity to their $rothers $y teachin? their
#ellow Catholics and non=Catholics the truths o# our oly &aith. .ou have a ri?ht to the
truth and to $e instructed in the truth. .ou have a ri?ht to de3and that we do this.
-ecause o# the con#usion o# this ti3e/ you have a ri?ht to de3and the proo# $e presented
to you in a 3anner you can understand. Un#ortunately/ when we ca3e to a question/ we
ran to the nearest priest and too@ his word #or A8ospelA truth. "n the $e?innin? this is
understanda$le/ $ut today when 12 di##erent priests will ?ive 12 di##erent answers on
3atters o# &aith/ we 3ust de3and that they prove their point. " our own case/ we #ound
several priests in disa?ree3ent/ so we were una$le to o$tain the necessary 3oral
certainty. There#ore/ we reGected the opinion o# priests #or the solid opinion o#
Theolo?ians and Canonists/ who have $een lon? approved $y the Church. .ou 3ust
de3and that A+.*+EAS reasonin?/ whether he $e lay3an/ priest or $ishop/ $e #ro3
these sources. This is where the cler?y is suppossed to ?o #or the answers/ and is the only
sure source o# truth. "n such i3portant 3atters you 3ust de3and sure sources.
C)E5"CS A+! PU-)"C !E&ECT"*+
Since we have 3ade it 3ore pro$a$le that the laity are innocent o# the
cri3e o# heresy and pu$lic de#ection/ Calthou?h they indeed co33itted the e9ternal
violationD/ one 3i?ht presu3e that such presu3ption would #all on the cler?y. "n
presentin? our evidence we proved that the cler?y are held to a hi?her level o#
@nowled?e. That very thin? which lessen the pro$a$ility o# a lay3an co33ittin? a cri3e
increases the pro$a$ility o# the cler?y co33ittin? the sa3e cri3e.
<4
-ishops and !e#ection
&or the -ishops there is no e9cuse. CWe here consider only those who are
3e3$ers o# the Ecclesia !ocens $y their licit appoint3ent and consecration as -ishop.
Those who are illicitly desi?nated and consecrated -ishop do not receive the ?race
connected with the Ecclesia !ocens or Teachin? Church.D What are -ishops? What are
the quali#ications necessary to $eco3e a -ishop?
1. AThere are two types o# inquisitors = ordinary and dele?ated. Every
$ishop/ as we have already seen/ is the ordinary inquisitor or Gud?e in 3atters o# heresy in
his own diocese.A/ CS. -. S3ith/ AEle3ents o# Ecclesiastical )aw% Ecclesiastical TrialsA/
pa?e 44:.D Canon 241< per3its -ishops/ who are )ocal *rdinaries/ to a$solve #ro3 the
censures #or heresy #or those cases $rou?ht $e#ore the3. ow .can one $e a Gud?e o#
heresy/ i# he does not @now what heresy. consists o#? There#ore/ a -ishop who is a )ocal
*rdinary is presu3ed $y law to @now what constitutes heresy.
2. All -ishops/ even Titular -ishops/ are required to have a licentiate in
either Canon )aw or Theolo?y. CPa?e <<(/ Canon 441D They are required to $e the
teachers o# the &aith/ hence the na3e Teachin? Church. ow can one teach a su$Gect he
does not @now? Canon )aw presu3es that -ishops @now the doctrines o# the &aith.
=
4. All -ishops/ even Titular -ishops/ are to $e o# sound doctrine. Ci$id.D
Such a quali#ication is only reasona$le. All Catholics 3ust $e o# sound doctrine/ so how
3uch 3ore so the cler?y and especially the Teachin? ChurchH There#ore/ the Church
presu3es that -ishops are o# sound doctrine.
The o$vious presu3ption o# the Church is that er -ishops @now the &aith.
There#ore/ the presu3ption o# the law in #avor o# their ?uilt as re?ards heresy is a$solute.
The possi$ility o# an i?norant -ishop is so re3ote as to $e Guridically i3possi$le/
althou?h un#ortunately it is #actually possi$le. "n any case/ i# a -ishop could prove
i?norance/ his la9ity as =re?ards the &aith would $e su##icient to render u3 Guridically
?uilty o# heresy $y the sin o# o3ission. This $ecause he is required under !ivine law to
7+*W the &aith/ and any #ailure o# such an o##icial o# the Church is necessarily a ?rave
sin and worthy o# sever censure.
"n spea@in? o# the -ishops o# his day/ the Pharisees/ Christ indicates his
displeasure with the3 thus/ A-ut this 3ultitude/ that @noweth not the law/ are accurseth.A
C0ohn ;%<1D And later on/ A-ecause o# the Pharisees they did not con#ess i3/ that they
3i?ht not $e cast out o# the syna?o?ue. = #or they loved the ?lory o# 3en 3ore than the
?lory o# 8odA C0ohn 12%<2=<4D -ecause o# hu3an respect the Pharisees lost their place
and so have the -ishops in our day. 5ather than stand up #or 8odAs ?lory #or such purpose
they have $een consecrated they have #allen #or hu3an respect.
To prove a -ishopAs i?norance/ one would have to prove that he was not a
-ishop. &or instance/ i# a heretic were pro3oted to the Episcopate/ his pro3otion would
$e Guridically invalid. owever/ one can scarcely envision a case o# invalid pro3otion
which does not also include previous #or3al heresy/ renderin? proo# o# i?norance
i3possi$le.
C*+C)US"*+% -ishops/ who appear to $e heretics are &*5,A)
heretics/ and there#ore/ under Canons 2222 and 241</ are presu3ed to $e #ully censured.
<<
"?norance in their case does not e9cuse/ $ecause the cause o# the i?norance is su##icient in
the case o# -ishops to $e censured #or the cri3e o# heresy *& "TSE)&.
Priests and !e#ection
Priests are not held as responsi$le as the -ishops/ since they are part o# the
Ecclesia !icens or Church Tau?ht/ as are the laity. owever/ as clerics they are held to a
hi?her standard that the laity. Cere we consider only licit priests/ as we have already
pointed out that illicit priests are not Guridically priests/ althou?h they 3ay possess the
power o# *rders. pa?es 1'2=4D Also priests and deacons can $eco3e part o# the Ecclesia
!ocens $y dele?ation. This would occur which they are ?ranted #aculties to preach or
e9ercise the pastorate/ which includes this duty o# preachin? and teachin?. There#ore they
required to @now the &aithF 3ay$e in a lesser e9actitude than the -ishops/ $ut in a
su##icient 3anner to teach the &aith#ul as dele?ates o# the -ishops. They 3i?ht $e
e9cused #ro3 a A3inor heresyA/ i# such could e9ist/ $ecause a 3inor dou$t o# &aith 3i?ht
$e $eyond their required @nowled?e. owever/ a 3aGor heresy should $e o$vious to
the3/ as they are required to @now the necessary 3eans o# salvation and ecclesiastical
nor3s. Also they are required to study continually and sin ?ravely i# they #ail in this
o$li?ation. "t is only reasona$le to presu3e that a#ter #ive to ten years in the priesthood/
every priest should have reached the quali#ication o# -ishops $ecause o# their continual
study. They cannot clai3 i?norance/ $ecause they S*U)! @now. "# they perchance
donAt @now/ they they are required to loo@ it up. Additionally/ unli@e the laity/ they
entered this period in ti3e @nowin? the sources and havin? ?reater access to the3.
There#ore once they #irst @new that so3ethin? was not ri?ht/ they should have hit the
$oo@s and discovered the truth within a year or two at 3ost.
They could not ad3inister the Sacra3ents or per#or3 other ecclesiastical acts
until they had reached a certainty on the condition o# the Church. *nly then could they
3inister to the &aith#ul/ accordin? to the ecclesiastical nor3s. )astly/ they have received
the Sacra3ental ?race o# the priesthood to #it the3 o# their duties.
C*+C)US"*+% Priests Cand deaconsD cannot clai3 i?norance/ as they have
access to the truth and are required to learn it. "t is possi$le in an individual case #or an
i?norant priest to e9ist/ $ut he 3ost conclusive proo# o# i?norance and i3possi$ility 3ust
$e held.
,inor Cler?y and !e#ection
When we spea@ o# cler?y the i33ediate presu3ption is that we spea@ o# priests
e9clusively. owever/ this is not the case. -y the ter3 cler?y is considered A)) whose
who have $een enrolled into the ran@s o# the cler?y $y tonsure licitly received #ro3 their
*rdinary or his dele?ate. "n #act/ even reli?ious are included in the cler?y in so3e
canonical respects. There#ore all clerics and reli?ious are held to a hi?her level o#
@nowled?e and sanctity. We 3ust consider two classes o# 3inor clericsF those who
re3ained in the state and those who=have a$andoned the state and returned to the ran@s o#
the laity. All licit su$=deacons will $e considered as re3ainin? in the clerical state/ and
actually are held to al3ost as hi?h a level as the deacons a$ove the3/ since they have
<:
received 3aGor *rders. All other 3inor clerics are per3itted to leave the clerical state/
and i# they put o## the clerical ?ar$ #or one 3onth/ are assu3ed to have returned to the lay
state. 5eli?ious who have not ta@en #inal vows can also return to the lay state anyti3e
durin? their novitiate and at the e9piration o# their te3porary vows. CPostulants are not
considered clerics/ canonically.D Their departure 3ust $e licit or presu3ed $y the law in
order to return the3 #ully to the lay state.
)ay ,inor Clerics% These are those who were nu3$ered canonically a3on? the
cler?y or reli?ious at one ti3e $ut have since departed le?iti3ately. They are held to
hi?her @nowled?e inso#ar as they have received specialiIed trainin? not ordinarily
?ranted to the laity. Se3inarians would $e held 3ost accounta$le/ and their
accounta$ility increases as they co3plete additional years in the se3inary. 5eli?ious 3ay
$e hardly accounta$le at all/ $ecause they 3ay not have received theolo?ical trainin?. We
would presu3e a ?reater a$ility to #ind the truth a3on? these/ $ut apply the rules #or
lay3en ?enerally to their cases. Q
5eli?ious and ,inor Clerics% Those who have not de#ected #ro3 the reli?ious or
clerical state/ Cand this would include illicit priests who were licitly enrolled in the
cler?yD/ are held to a hi?her level $ecause they appear in the eyes o# the #aith#ul as
reli?ious and clerics/ and are there#ore required to ?ive the laity a ?ood e9a3ple. The $est
e9a3ple would $e to hold the &aith whole and entire and not de#ile it with either error or
heresy. Their lia$ility will $e less than priests/ $ut ?reater than the laity and this 3ust $e
considered in their cases.
C*+C)US"*+% The cler?y are held to a ?reater accounta$ility in direct
proportion to their position in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. -ishops have +* e9cuse #or
i?norance/ #or their i?norance is a cri3e in itsel#. Priests are nearly as accounta$le as
-ishops/ especially i# they have $een pastors. !eacons are nearly as accounta$le as
priests/ and su$deacons nearly as accounta$le as deacons. Active reli?ious and 3inor
clerics are 3ore accounta$le/ whereas those who have le#t the clerical state le?iti3ately
are sli?htly 3ore accounta$le than lay3en.
&*5,"+8 A +*+=CAT*)"C SECT
-asically any reli?ious or?aniIation not part o# the Catholic Church and
su$Gect to er is a non=Catholic sect. This includes not only the Protestant sects/ $ut also
any or?aniIation which calls itsel# Catholic $ut is or?aniIed outside o# the Church. ,ost
non=Catholic sects hold so3e heretical $elieR as the $asis o# their departure #ro3 the
Church/ althou?h Canon 241< does not require this. &or3in? a 3erely schis3atic sect is
su##icient to incur the censure o# Canon 241<. "n W")) TE CAT*)"C CU5C
SU56"6E TE TWE+T"ET CE+TU5. we have discussed the penalties #or adherin?
to a non=Catholic sect. Cpa?es (1 and ;2D !oes startin? such a sect su$Gect one to #urther
censure? We can #ind no speci#ic censure #or this horrendous cri3e/ $ut the Church has
#ollowed a pattern in these cases. She has always declared the people/ who start non=
Catholic sects/ as 6itandus. )uther and enry 6""" are two nota$le e9a3ples. "n #act/
even )eonard &eeney o# the &eeneyites was visited with this 3ost e9tre3e censure. The
reason #or such action is o$vious/ #or the ?ood o# the Church de3ands that She pu$licly
<'
conde3n those who start up non=Catholic sects/ as non=Catholic sects necessarily lead
people to ell.
Can the &ounder o# a +on=Catholic Sect -e "?norant?
This 3ay $e theoretically possi$le/ and even pro$a$le in the case o#
$aptiIed non=Catholics/ who $rea@ #ro3 one non=Catholic sect to #or3 another. owever/
this can scarcely $e possi$le in the case o# Catholics. As we have already de3onstrated/
i?norance is scarcely possi$le #or priests and i3possi$le #or -ishops. The 3ain #ounders
o# non=Catholic sects historically have $een priests and -ishops/ althou?h enry 6"""
was a lay3an/ and not considered i?norant. What a$out todays sects?
There are a #ew $asic points to re3e3$er%
1. Any #ounder o# a #alse reli?ion is the 3ost dan?erous o# ene3ies. is
inconstancy in the &aith is such that he could only $y read3itted to thy Church #or
con#ine3ent in a 3onastery or pendin? e9ecution a#ter repentance. e could never vote
in a Papal Election/ $ecause to ad3it hi3 to vote is to consider it possi$ly that he could
$y elected/ which is contrary to ACu3 e9 Apostolatus *##icioA.
2. Every Traditional priest who has erected a chapel has #ounded a non=
Catholic sect/ $ecause each holds so3e heresy/ Cat least i3plicitlyD in his operation.
4. Every priest who has Goined a non=Catholic sect and 3inistered to its
3e3$ers is considered to have cooperated #or3ally in the heresy o# the #ounder/ and
should $y considered equally as ?uilty as the #ounder.
!"6"+E "+TE5!"CT?
So3e authors have o$served that 8od has apparently interdicted the world
#or its sins. The si3ilarity o# our ti3es to the e##ects o# an interdict are stri@in?. Since
so3e who propose we are under !ivine "nterdict see3 to i?nore 3ost o# the e##ects o#
such an interdict/ we shall outline the3 $rie#ly%
AAn interdict is s censure $y which the #aith#ul are not denied co33union with the
Church/ $ut are deprived o# certain spiritual ?oods Cor ri?htsD enu3erated in the
succeedin? Canons.A/ CCanon 22'(.D Unli@e e9co33unication and suspension/ which are
only in#licted on individuals Cand then only those who have violated the lawD/ interdiction
can $e in#licted on places or ?roups. and a##ect $oth the innocent and the ?uilty.
E##ects o# )ocal "nterdict
*$viously the assu3ption is that the whole Earth is the AlocalityA
interdicted under !ivine "nterdict%
1. no divine o##ices 3ay $e held/ e9cept on the &easts o# Christ3as/
Easter/ Pentecost/ Corpus Christi and the Assu3ption. when a local interdict is
suspended. CCanon 22;2D
2. The dyin? 3ay $e attended to/ and certain other private actions/ such as
one private ,ass without sole3nity/ are per3itted in one church only in each locality.
C-ein? a censure these concessions 3ust $e interpreted strictly.D
<;
This situation 3irrors our own/ with the e9ception that we have +* divine
o##ices/ no ,asses/ etc. *# course the e9ceptions a$ove apply/ only i# the cler?y are not
personally interdicted.
E##ects o# Co33unity "nterdict
ere we are spea@in? o# a co33unity/ such as a parish or reli?ious house.
Under !ivine "nterdict/ the assu3ption is that the co33unity is the Universal Church.
Under Co33unity "nterdict the co33unity cannot e9ercise any spiritual ri?hts. CCanon
22;4D
E##ects o# Personal "nterdict
Under the !ivine "nterdict theory/ all persons are interdicted #or the
participation in the reGection o# 8od. The penalties #or personal interdict so 3irror those
#or e9co33unication that they need not $e considered separately. owever/ we wish to
note that personally interdicted people cannot cele$rate divine o##ices or assist at the3/
and are #or$idden to ad3inister/ con#ect or receive the sacra3ents and sacra3entals
accordin? to Canons 22(2 and 22(1. CCanon 22;:D
Are We "nterdicted?
As we @now #ro3 our study o# censures/ no one is censured/ unless the
law speci#ically censures hi3 #or so3e cri3e. There#ore to support the reasonin? #or
!ivine "nterdict/ we 3ust necessarily cite the law we violated and were interdicted #or.
The law is AE9secra$ilisA/ which is restated in the 6atican Council and #inally Canon
2442/ AEach and every one o# whatsoever state/ de?ree or condition=whether @in?/ $ishop
or Cardinal=who appeals #ro3 the laws/ decrees or 3andates o# the rei?nin?
Cconte3poraryD 5o3an Ponti## to an Ecu3enical Council/ is suspected o# heresy/ and
incurs ipso #acto e9co33unication reserved in a special 3anner to the Apostolic see.
Universities/ chapters or other le?al $odies/ $y whatsoever na3e they $e @nown/ incur an
interdict reserved in a special 3anner to the Apostolic see.A There is so3e question on the
translation o# the words/ A5ei?nin? 5o3an Ponti##A/ which so3e translate/ AConte3porary
5o3an Ponti##.A This discrepancy invo@es Canon (/ note </ which requires us to ?o $ac@
to the old law. AThey stray #ro3 the strai?ht path o# truth who a##ir3 that it is per3itted to
appeal #ro3 the Gud?e3ents o# the 5o3an Ponti##s to an ecu3enical Council/ as to an
authority hi?her than the 5o3an Ponti##.A/ CThe 6atican Council/ chapter 4/ !N 1(41.D
AThe e9ecra$le and hitherto unheard o# a$use has ?rown up in our day/ that certain
persons/ i3$ued with the spirit o# re$ellion/ and +*T #ro3 a desire to secure a $etter
Gud?e3ent/ $ut to ESCAPE the punish3ent o# so3e o##ense which they have co33itted/
presu3e to appeal to a #uture council #ro3 the 5o3an Ponti##/ the vicar o# 0esus Christ.
to who3 in the person o# $lessed PETE5 was said% A&eed 3y sheepA C0ohn 21%1;D/ and/
AWhatever thou shalt $ind on earth/ shall $e $ound in eavenA C,att 1(%11D.... Wishin?
there#ore to e9pel this pesti#erous poison #ar #ro3 the Church o# Christ and to care #or the
salvation o# the #loc@ entrusted to us/ and to re3ove every cause o# o##ense #ro3 the #old
<(
o# our Saviour .... we conde3n all such appeals and disprove o# the3 as erroneous and
detesta$le. CPius ""/ -ull AE9secra$ilisA/ !N ;1;.D
The appeal in question is the appeal $y the Universal Church throu?h the
-ishops to 6atican "" a?ainst the decrees o# the 5o3an Ponti##s #ro3 Peter to Pius E"".
The appeal occurred/ and we are 3e3$ers o# the interdicted co33unity/ althou?h in
3ost cases we are innocent/ as we have shown a$ove. owever/ this does not e9e3pt
#ro3 the o$servance o# the censure/ until 8od is appeased $y is 6icar/ the Pope/ and the
Pope in ChristAs ,ost oly +a3e a$solves us #ro3 this censure. The censure o# interdict
allows the innocent to i?nore the interdict/ so lon? as they are not otherwise censured.
There#ore we are per3itted to posit a Papal Election/ althou?h those ?uilty o# this
detesta$le appeal are strictly #or$idden to participate/ whether they $e lay3en or clerics.
The Cler?y
*ne last note% We have already proven that it is hardly possi$le #or the
cler?y to $e i?norant/ Guridically spea@in?. There#ore we 3ust presu3e that they are
&*5,A) heretics and have incurred all o# the censures #or heresy. As such/ until they
are a$solved/ we are #or$idden to induce the3 to violate their censure. A$ove all we 3ay
+E6E5 induce a heretic to say ,ass/ as this requires the reception o# a Sacra3ent. This
is speci#ically #or$idden $y Canon ;41 and Christ/ i3sel#/ who told us not to cast pearls
$e#ore swine.
C*+C)US"*+% Until the Pope can re?ulate a##airs and a$solve #ro3 the various
censures or otherwise release us/ we have no access to the Sacra3ents with the sole
e9ception o# a$solution in dan?er o# death. CCanon ((2/ 22'1O4D There#ore to de3and
the3 is to i3plicitly deny the teachin? o# Christ/ who stated/ AWhatsoever you $ind on
earth...A The Pope/ to who3 this. power is ?in has $ound us/ there#ore only the Pope can
invo@e the last part o# that state3ent/ .and whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed also in
heaven.A
E##ect on Election Procedure
*n pa?es <<1 to <:4 we outline the election procedure. Althou?h it is true
that a -ishop who is valid and licit e9ists/ it is hi?hly pro$a$le that such a one cannot
prove this $eyond any dou$t to us. "n any case we 3ust ta@e the sa#e course under Canon
21. There#ore we a3end pa?es <<1 to <:4/ as #ollows%
1. +* ,asses will $e cele$rated $e#ore or durin? the Conclave.
2. nor will Con#essions $e heard Ce9cept in dan?er o# deathD/ $ecause the
#aculties o# any priest or -ishop are in so3e dou$t owin? to de#ection and silence in the
Code on this su$Gect. CWe as@ the Pope to a$solve so3e priest #ro3 his censure and ?rant
hi3 Gurisdiction #or our Con#essions. Until then we 3ust 3a@e the Per#ect Act o#
Contrition and 3ay avail ourselves o# Alay con#essionA/ i# we so desire/ as St. Tho3as
outlines.D
4. The A6eni CreatorA openin? the Conclave will $e recited rather than
sun?.
"S !A6"! -AW!E+ A +*+=CAT*)"C?
<1
,any have co3plained a$out 3y state3ents on pa?e 4:</ where " ad3it
that under the 3ost strict interpretation o# the law " a3 a $aptiIed non=Catholic. This
o$Gection and answer were intended to ?et peopleAs attention and point out the seriousness
o# the situation as well as the necessity o# the Papacy. owever/ it has wor@ed an evil
since 3any 3erely say " a3 craIy and re#use to study the point. So please allow 3e to
clari#y the situation.
TrueF under the strict interpretation " would $e considered a $aptiIed non=
Catholic/ Gust as priests ordained a#ter 0anuary 1/ 11:1 are only pro$a$ly called to the
priesthood and there#ore suspended until a Papal decision can $e rendered/ Cpa?e 1'2D.
This is the reason #or includin? the o$Gection and answer in the #irst place. owever/ the
situation o# priests and lay3en is di##erent/ as we are studyin? in this issue. Priests are
suspended #or the ?ood o# the Church in dou$t#ul cases/ and Canon 21 o$li?es
o$servance o# the suspension. )ay3en are e9co33unicated #or non=Catholic $aptis3 #or
their own ?ood/ when they have pu$licly adhered to the non=Catholic sect/ the non=
Catholicity o# the 3inister was @nown and there was no necessity to proceed with the
-aptis3.
Personally " $elieve the Pope will not hold the strict interpretation in either
case 3entioned a$ove. " $elieve all priests ordained $etween 11:( and ,arch 11'4/ when
the heretical AencyclicalA APace3 in TerrisA was issued/ will $e ?iven the $ene#it o# the
dou$t and reinstated/ provided there is no other censure involved and they su$3it
the3selves to the Pope. " $elieve even #urther latitude will $e advanced to the laity.
owever/ since " a3 +*T the Pope/ " havenAt the Gurisdiction to 3a@e an
AUT*5"TAT"6E state3ent o# this @indF 3ay only venture an opinion $ased on Canon
)aw and the Ecclesiastical +or3s. As such 3y opinion is not $indin? nor nor3ative.
)et us loo@ at 3y case in 3ore detail. avin? $een $aptiIed a$out a year a#ter
5oncalliAs election/ the invalidity o# this act was totally un@nown and there was no reason
Cin the United States especiallyD to suspect his AelectionA. There#ore we can outline the
#ollowin?%
1. !e #acto " was -aptiIed $y a 3aterial schis3atic/ whose cri3e
was un@nown as the cri3e o# 5oncalli/ invalidatin? his election was un@nown to
Catholics. althou?h the Cardinals should have $een aware o# it and are +*T e9cused.
2. ,y parents and ?randparents intended to have 3e $aptiIed into
the Catholic Church.
4. The Catholic 5ite was e3ployed/ and to all outward appearances
" was $aptiIed in a Catholic Church $y the newly appointed pastor.
TE5E&*5E% under Canon 221 in this case Gurisdiction was supplied and " was
$aptiIed a. Catholic.
What "# " A3 Wron??
*ne o# 3y reasons #or pro3otin? a Papal Election is to have 3y situation
re?ulariIed and an authoritative decision on the a$ove reasonin? issued/ as is 3y ri?ht.
Either the Pope will approve 3y reasonin? or ?rant 3e the required a$solution under
Canon 241<. There#ore/ " cannot use 3y reasonin? to allow 3e to receive the Sacra3ents
:2
under the sa3e principle that states innocent heretics are not allowed to receive the
Sacra3ents.
E9traordinary 5eception o# Converts
*n pa?e 4'( and in the #ollowin? para?raphs we descri$e the 3ethod we
$elieve the spirit o# Canon )aw and Ecclesiastical +or3s would require. Allow us to
outline it%
*n the part o# the Convert%
1. )earn the &aith. This " have done/ as the $oo@ and 3y. other
writin?s should prove $eyond dou$t.
2. A$Guration o# eresy. The $oo@ su##ices here/ as a de#ense o#
Catholic !octrine and conde3nation o# the heresies " once innocently supported. CThis "
have continued to do in AElection UpdateA.D
4. Pro#ession o# &aith. Since " co3piled that section o# the $oo@/
this should su##ice to e9onerate 3e/ since the $oo@ is a PU-)"C act/ as required $y
Canon )aw. C*# course this is not the ordinary 3ethod prescri$ed.D
*n the part o# the Church%
1. The )ocal *rdinary or his dele?ate receives the a$Guration and
Pro#ession/ and 3a@es certain the one censured has issued pu$lic retraction and repaired
all scandal caused $y his actions/ providin? these actions were notorious.
2. Then he ad3inisters the a$solution. C*# course he cannot
a$solve i# the person still holds to so3e heresy/ even i# in ?ood #aithD.
E9traordinary #or3%
As #or Con#ession and A$solution #ro3 censures/ the Church has
always sanctioned an e9traordinary #or3 in case o# necessity%
1. Canon ((2 and 22:2 allow any priest Cunder certain restrictions
on the part o# the &aith#ulD/ to validly a$solve anyone in dan?er o# death. We presu3e
such a$solution su##ices #or E9tre3e Unction and oly 6iaticu3/ althou?h i# the person
recovers he 3ust see@ Guridical a$solution under penalty o# return o# censure/ i# a censure
was a$solved/ Cpa?es 2<2=2<2D.
2. ,edieval Canonists and Theolo?ians held that lay3en could
hear Con#ession $ut not ?rant a$solution to those in dan?er o# death/ $ecause the
Con#ession #ul#ills the penitentAs part/ showin? his ?ood #aith/ even thou?h the a$solution
was unavaila$le. They held this as 3ore certain than the Per#ect Act o# Contrition/ which
also su##iced in necessity. They also held that a lay3an could A-S*)6E #ro3 censures
in dan?er o# death/ althou?h the a$solution did not #it one #or reception o# the
Sacra3ents/ as only Guridical a$solution su##ices in this case.
" have Pro#essed 3y &aith and spent 3y entire li#e learnin? and de#endin?
our holy &aith a?ainst A)) heretics/ $oth conciliar and traditionalist. This to 3y own
detri3ent and at ?reat loss o# A#riendsA/ and even 3onetary losses. Also 3y na3e has $een
slandered and is $ein? slandered $y these heretics/ and " consider this will surely
continue. There#ore it is 3y opinion that " have done all in 3y power to $eco3e a
CatholicH " rest 3y case.
Can ,aterial Schis3atics 6ote?
:1
The precedents o# Pisa and Constance where *+). 3aterial schis3atics
were availa$le prove that 3aterial schis3atics 3ay vote/ so lon? as they have re3oved
the3selves #ro3 o$edience to an anti=Pope. We proved C<2: to <2(D that A)) three
clai3ants to the Apostolic See were invalid under the principle APapa du$ius/ papa nullusA.
There#ore A)) Catholics would have $een considered 3aterial schis3atics #or #ollowin?
anti=Popes/ althou?h there is no question o# the3 $ein? #or3al schis3atics since they
Iealously held to the necessity o# the Papacy and necessity oS o$edience to the true Pope/
Calthou?h they accidentally #ound the3selves #ollowin? anti=Popes.D "n our case the
innocent 3aterial heretics/ who #ollowed 6atican "" #or awhile/ then Traditionalis3/ will
elect the ne9t Pope/ since none are 3ore quali#ied.
Also Constance vindicated the acts o# 3aterial Schis3atics $y not
reversin? the3/ even acts o# schis3atic anti=PopesH This would not $e e9tended to
3aterial heretics/ as ACu3 e9A #or$ids any such appeal and closes this door #ir3ly. C+ote
ACu3 e9A #ollowed Constance/ and there#ore was possi$ly a stren?thenin? and chan?e o#
the law in e9istence at the ti3e o# Constance.D There is a $i? di##erence $etween 3aterial
schis3 and 3aterial heresy/ as pure schis3 can $e had without a reGection o# the &aith or
o# ecclesiastical discipline. "n #act/ the Popes have e9tended Gurisdiction #or Con#ession to
the ?ood #aith 3e3$ers o# the *rthodo9/ $ut not *ld Catholics/ so that they need not
3a@e a ?eneral con#ession upon their entrance into the true Church/ althou?h the
a$Guration and a$solution are required. CSuch privile?e 3ay +*T in any way $e e9tended
to the Traditionalists/ who are not in ?ood #aith nor close to $ein? Catholic. Even i# the
ne9t Pope would e9tend it to ?ood #aith 3e3$ers/ they could only use it while they were
in ?ood #aith/ and not one 3o3ent a#ter they reco?niIed the true Church.D Also this
privile?e does not e9tend to us/ so we would not receive a$solution validly #ro3 an
*rthodo9 priest. We certainly @now he lac@s the requisite Gurisdiction as well as $ein? a
non=Catholic/ and co33unication with hi3 is #or$idden us under !ivine )aw.
Can a ,aterial Schis3atic $e Elected?
,artin 6/ li@e the rest o# his electors was a 3aterial schis3atic. -ecause
o# his $ad li#e $e#ore election/ he would also have $een under latae sententiae censure #or
#ailure to receive Episcopal consecration a#ter $ein? appointed as an *rdinary. owever/
he was validly elected Pope/ apparently settin? aside any censure. There#ore a 3aterial
schis3atic and an e9co33unicate CA+ $e elected/ provided they have receded #ro3
their o$stinance.
Can a +on=Catholic -e Elected Pope?
Althou?h to our @nowled?e this has never happened/ it 3ay theoretically
$e possi$le #or a catechu3en to $e elected Pope. owever/ he could not accept until a#ter
his -aptis3/ as a non=-aptiIed person cannot receive ecclesiastical Gurisdiction. St.
A3$rose was a catechu3en when elected -ishopF there#ore it is at least theoretically
possi$le/ althou?h we consider it not pro$a$le.
as A +on=Catholic Ever -een Elected Pope?
:2
"t is certain that A)) were 3aterial schis3atics who lived durin? the
Western Schis3/ which lasted #ro3 April 1/ 14;( to +ove3$er 11/ 1<1;. There#oreF we
conclude in the strict view that A)) who were $aptiIed are strictly spea@in? $aptiIed
non=Catholics. +o less than #our Popes were $aptiIed durin? the Western Schis3 and no
3ention o# a$solution is 3ade in any o# their cases% +icolas 6/ Cali9tus """/ Pius "" and
Si9tus "6. We conclude that 3aterial schis3atics 3ay $e law#ully elected without prior
a$solution/ provided that there is no question o# their lac@ o# culpa$ility.
PAPA-")E
"n e9plainin? 3y own state3ents 3ade in counterin? o$Gections/ we have
reviewed the quali#ications o# electors. +ow we will proceed with a review o# the
quali#ications #or Pope. "n W")) TE CAT*)"C CU5C SU56"6E TE
TWE+T"ET CE+TU5.? we reviewed the ideal quali#ication. Cpa?es <<' and <<;D
owever/ we 3ay not have 3ade it clear who could $e elected Pope. There#ore we shall
do this now.
The Papacy is 3uch li@e the Sacra3ent o# oly *rders. *nce received validly it
cannot $e re3oved $y any hu3an authority/ althou?h the Pope/ unli@e others in oly
*rders/ 3ay resi?n and $y resi?nation loses the o##ice o# Papacy. *nly 8od can
otherwise re3ove a PopeF this he does $y endin? the PopeAs li#e. Since the Papacy is
so3ewhat li@e the Sacra3ent o# oly *rders/ we can analyIe it in the sa3e 3anner.
owever/ since all the Sacra3ents have si3ilar require3ents/ we shall use the Sacra3ent
o# -aptis3 in this analo?y/ $ecause o# the si3plicity and ready @nowled?e o# the
require3ents #or this Sacra3ent%
-aptis3
,ATTE5% Water/ -aptis3al #or Sole3n -aptis3/ ordinary water in case
o# necessity
&*5,% " $aptiIe thee in the na3e o# the &ather and o# the Son and o# the
oly 8host.
"+TE+T"*+% To re3it ori?inal sin. The intention is required in the
3inister/ and in the case o# those with the use o# reason/ the recipient as well. The
intention to do what the Church does is su##icient.
,"+"STE5/ ordinary% Pastor or a priest or deacon dele?ated $y hi3. The
ordinary 3inister 3ust con#er -aptis3 sole3nly
E9traordinary 3inister% Anyone/ Catholic or non=Catholic/ provided they
use the Catholic 5ite and have the proper intention. &or licitity the Church has laid down
certain laws which are not i3portant to our discussion here. The e9traordinary 3inister
3ay not $aptiIe sole3nly/ althou?h the Church does advise deacons and priests $aptiIin?
in case o# dan?er o# death to $aptiIe and. proceed with the rest o# the cere3onies in the
5itual.
Papacy
:4
,ATTE5% A $aptiIed 3ale/ 1< years o# a?e/ capa$le o# hu3an acts/ who
is neither insane/ heretical or an apostate.
&*5,% Election. -y co33on tradition #ro3 the election o# the second
Pope to this day/ election has o$tained the #orce o# law. The previous Popes 3ay re?ulate
the #or3 o# election/ and the current law requires a two thirds plus one 3aGority to elect.
"+TE+T"*+% To elect a Pope.
,"+"STE5/ ordinary% The Cardinals/ e9cept those who are deposed.
A?ain/ the previous Popes 3ay re?ulate the ordinary electors/ and other electors 3ay $e
desi?nated $y a #uture Pope.
E9traordinary Electors% althou?h various authors di##er on who has this
ri?ht a#ter the Cardinals/ all are in a?ree3ent that the Church is the court o# last resort.
Since we have de3onstrated that all previous elective colle?es have disquali#ied
the3selves/ and today have no 3e3$ers/ the Church 3ust elect. CWe shall de3onstrate
later that $y way o# privile?e/ Canon )aw ?ives the laity the direct ri?ht to vote.D
We 3ust e9a3ine the essential parts to deter3ine what re3edy/ i# any
e9ists in case o# a dou$t#ul election o# a Pope. As with the Sacra3ents/ a dou$t#ul Pope is
no Pope/ Gust as a dou$t#ul priest is no priest. CThe presu3ption o# law in 3arria?e is/
however/ in #avor o# validity/ unli@e the other si9 Sacra3ents.D
,ATTE5% "n this case/ i# -aptis3 is a$sent the election is invalid. Also
heresy invalidates the electionF even suspicion o# heresy is su##icient. owever/ i# one has
not $een declared a heretic and has re3oved any cause #or suspicion/ he is capa$le o#
election. "n several cases previous Popes have i3posed ecclesiastical law restrictions on
who could $e elected $ut all such restrictions were re3oved $y the election o# one who
was restricted. There#ore/ the ecclesiastical law cannot restrict who is elected. *nly
+atural and !ivine law can render one incapa$le o# election. The +atural law #or$ids the
insane and those incapa$le o# hu3an acts to vote or $e elected. !ivine law #or$ids
apostates/ heretics and those under suspicion o# heresy/ Cas Paul "6 decreed in ACu3
e9...AD/ to vote as well.
&*5,% *ne would i33ediately conclude that a dou$t#ul or invalid
election auto3atically disquali#ies. owever/ the accla3ation o# the &aith#ul is
considered a second and valid election/ supplyin? #or de#ect o# #or3. This is a return to
the people and cler?y elections o# the #irst 3illenniu3 o# the Church. So acceptance o#
the Church o# a 3an as Pope supplies in case o# an election which is #or so3e reason
invalid. owever/ this acceptance cannot supply i# the 3an is not papa$ile to $e?in withF
that is/ not capa$le hi3sel# o# $ein? elected/ as was the case with 5oncalli. The pro$le3
was not in the #or3/ $ut in the 3atter. 5oncalli was an anti=Pope/ $ecause heretics/ who
are not 3e3$ers o# the Church/ cannot $eco3e head o# the Church.
"+TE+T"*+ is presu3ed to e9ist/ $ecause o# the outward 3ani#estation
$y proceedin? to an election.
,"+"STE5% !e#ect in the ordinary 3inisters could $e supplied $y
accla3ation/ since accla3ation is a second election with its own 3atter/ #or3 and
intention. owever/ the Cardinals/ when they disquali#ied the3selves in 11:(/ were
incapa$le o# electin? at all in 11'4 or any ti3e $e#ore or a#ter. Even accla3ation could
not cure this de#ect. The Cardinals were o$li?ed to call an i3per#ect council to cure the
de#ectsF a council o# the -ishops o# the Church to depose anti=pope 5oncalli and proceed
to an election. Those Cardinals who were -ishops would also $e per3itted to participate.
:<
"n our case/ we 3ust assure ourselves that no unquali#ied voter participates. A voter
whose disquali#ication is occult would not invalidate the election and the su$sequent
accla3ation o# the 3e3$ers o# the Church outside the conclave would supply #or any
de#ect. owever/ those pu$licly under suspicion o# heresy/ or whose cri3e is notorious
3ust $e $arred without e9ception.
E)ECT*5A) >UA)"&"CAT"*+
ACC*5!"+8 T* TE )AWS 8*6E5+"+8
CA+*+"CA) E)ECT"*+
The 3onu3ental tas@ o# quali#yin? electors is pro$a$ly one o# the 3ost
di##icult pro$le3s we have ever tac@led. *ne thin? has $eco3e quite clear in our
investi?ations o# this su$Gect/ however. The inane pleas o# those wishin? to reach a lar?er
nu3$er o# #aith#ul $e#ore convenin? to elect can $e seen to $e even #urther wea@ened
than $e#ore. Those Catholics 3ost li@ely to quali#y will reco?niIe the truths o# the #aith
we have presented/ and will not need to $e persuaded #ro3 attendin? illicit 3asses or
supportin? schis3atic and illicit $ishops and priests. We need only point to Canon 21 and
prove that% B)aws enacted #or the. purpose o# ?uardin? a?ainst a co33on dan?er $ind/
even thou?h in a particular case there is no dan?er.B 5ev. Cico?nani in his ACanon )awA
?ives an e9a3ple o# co33on dan?er/ Bwhen the law presu3es that in certain
circu3stances ... #or all individuals Cthe dan?erD o# sin or o# #raud/ the dan?er o#
deception or o# perversion Ce9istsD.A Cpa?e '2'D *n pa?e 422 o# the $oo@ we prove that
even the vacancy o# episcopal sees or canonical sees is adGud?ed to $e dan?erous i#
e9tended $eyond the three 3onth ti3e li3it esta$lished $y law/ and this is the reason #or
the law itsel#. ow 3uch ?reater the dan?er o# the vacancy o# the oly See?H When we
can see that only heresy/ schis3 and perversion has resulted #ro3 an e9tended vacancy o#
the See we have a$solutely +* 5"8T to invo@e epi@eia. Even the li$eral canonists
-ouscaren and Ellis ad3it that the 8E+E5A) and A-"TUA) interpretation o# a law
contrary to its clear ter3s is not epi@eia/ $ut an evident a$use.B The C)EA5 TE5,S o#
the laws ?overnin? canonical and papal election require #ul#ill3ent o# the ti3e li3it to
sa#e?uard the sa#ety and ri?hts o# the Church. Epi@eia is a $y=word with TraditionalistsF
in their case E6E5. law 3ust $e stretched to allow the3 li$erty/ as thou?h they are
so3e privile?ed class to $e considered a$ove E6E5. law. Clearly this is the ha$itual
a$use re#erred to $y the canonists cited a$ove. "n o$edience to 8odAs si?ni#ied will those
who truly love i3 will $e? no leniency nor pro##er e9cuses. The ?ood sheep will @now
and respond to their shepherdAs voice.
As proven earlier/ nearly A)) the cler?y will $e una$le to participate in
the election/ owin? to notorious heresy or ?eneral personal interdict. Will their ina$ility
to participate invalidate the election/ since the law speci#ies a return to election $y people
A+! cler?y? We answer in the ne?ative #or the #ollowin? reasons% 1D the hi?her law
CPaul "6As ACu3 e9...AD/ which we have proven to $e the old law underlyin? Canon 1';/
e9cludes A+. heretic/ lay or cleric #ro3 participatin? as a voterF 2D under the principles
e3$odied in the canons #or$iddin? co33unicatio in sacris and the le?iti3ate e9ercise o#
ri?hts $y tolerati e9co33unicatesF 4D $y virtue o# the #act that Pius E"" has clearly stated
::
that in the a$sence o# cler?y. the laity are to ASSU,E all those #unctions not contrary to
Church law which these cler?y would nor3ally per#or3F <D o# the opinions in the $oo@
supportin? lay=clerico election/ only St. 5o$ert -ellar3ine re#ers directly to cler?y Cthe
$ishopsD/ and this is 3ost lo?ical since under the devolution principle they would $e the
#irst $ody capa$le o# election. 5ev. u3phrey re#ers to clerical participation only
indirectly/ and the other #our theolo?ians re#er only to the universal Church. Even i#
clerics do not actively elect PeterAs successors/ they 3ay very well a##ir3 the election/
which a3ounts to at least a +E8AT"6E participation. There#ore/ in the W"!E sense the
cler?y will participate. Those a3on? the cler?y coura?eous and hu3$le enou?h to ad3it
their ina$ility to actively elect will dou$tless #ind their reward in heaven.
When we spea@/ then/ o# quali#yin? electors/ we spea@ pri3arily o#
quali#yin? the laity. The #ollowin? Canons can $e #ound in the Code under the headin?/
A>uali#ied 6otersA.
!isquali#ication Cancelled -y A Privile?e
Canon 1': deals with privile?es/ statin? that no one 3ay $e ad3itted to
the electoral colle?e who is not a 3e3$er o# that colle?e to $e?in with A... e9cept in virtue
o# privile?es le?iti3ately acquired...A ,oc@ de#ines a privile?e as Aprivate law that
con#ers on so3e person Cor personsD a special #avor contrary to or outside the law.B C"$id/
pa?e 1';D "n his co33entary on Canon )aw/ Woywod disputes the words Aprivate lawA in
this de#inition/ since AlawA presupposes a society or co33unity. .et we shall see that this
ter3 has application in our particular case.
*n this sa3e pa?e/ ,oc@ re3ar@s that such concessions can result in ...
the CESSAT"*+ *& !"S>UA)"&"CAT"*+S enacted $y the Code o# Canon )aw/ or $y
the constitutions o# the various $odies in the Church.A *n pa?e 1'( ,oc@ in#or3s us that
even lay persons can o$tain the privile?e o# participatin? in an ecclesiastical election...A/
and notes that/ AThe re3oval o# the disa$ility is direct when the disquali#ied person
hi3sel# receives the privile?e o# sharin? in the election...A "n our section o# the $oo@
entitled APriesthood o# the )aityA Cpa?es 42( and 412D/ we assert #ro3 Canon )aw and
Church teachin?s that the laity has certain 5"8TS which cannot $e ta@e #ro3 the3.
We$sterAs Colle?iate !ictionary de#ines privile?e as% A1. A ri?ht or i33unity ?ranted as a
particular advanta?e or #avorF a personal ri?ht.A Such a privile?e has $een de3onstrated
$y us on pa?es 422=421 o# the $oo@ to have $een ?ranted $y +icolas "" in his constitution
A"n +o3ineA/ Calthou?h we do not re#er to this concession as a privile?e in the $oo@D.
When +icolas "" li3ited the election o# a pope to cardinals in this constitution/ he
nevertheless stated that a return to the #or3er 3ode o# election C$y people and cler?yD
estee3ed and esta$lished $y Pope )eo the 8reat would $e law#ul and even salutary.
"n co33entin? on this concession 3ade $y +icolas ""/ 5ev. Anscar Parsons/ in
his wor@ ACanonical ElectionsA states that said concession see3s never to have $een
revo@ed.A Cpa?e <1D *nly laws and privile?es can $e revo@ed/ and hence Parsons is
spea@in? the lan?ua?e o# the Code where it treats o# these here. That such a privile?e
indeed continues to e9ist is attested to $y Canon ;2/ which states% B... privile?es are not
5E6*7E! $y a contrary law/ uncles the law e9plicitly states their revocation.A This
concurs with Canon ;2 which tells us that. B... a privile?e is to $e considered perpetual
unless the contrary is CE5TA"+.A Parsons ad3its that this does not see3 to $e the case/
:'
and certainly this is re#lected in the #act that si9 theolo?ians consider lay election a
possi$ility. all o# the3 havin? written lon? a#ter +icholasA law was proclai3ed. This
privile?e accorded the laity/ then/ is a 6A)"! privile?e which CA+ $e e9ercised/ #or
,oc@ writes/ BA privile?e ?rantin? votin? ri?hts contrary to the universal law o# the Code
o# Canon )aw can $e ?iven ... only $y the oly See.B Cpa?e 1''D ere ,oc@ re#ers to
Canon 2:' which treats o# custo3/ Csince Canon '4 concernin? privile?es states that a
custo3 can acquire the status o# a privile?e.D Canon 2:/ as co33ented on $y 5ev.
Cico?nani/ states that all custo3s contrary to the ?eneral law 3ust $e approved $y the
oly See in order to continue in e9istence. Woywod cites Canon '14 Cconcernin?
reli?iousD in this case/ which a$ro?ates all privile?es #or3erly ?ranted e9cept those
contained in the Code/ or ?ranted directly $y the oly See CSee WoywodAs co33entary
on Canon ':D. This is also ela$orated on in Canon 2;. ,oc@ notes that privile?es are
?ranted $y custo3 as well as $y a co3petent authority/ since Canon '4 states% APossession
o# a privile?e #or 122 years or #ro3 ti3e i33e3orial Gusti#ies the P5ESU,PT"*+ that a
privile?e has $een ?ranted.A We @now #ro3 the Catholic Encyclopedia/ C6ol E"". Pope/
headin? viD/ that lay participation in papal election $e?an a$out 2:1 and continued #or
several hundred years until +icolas ""As constitution. Clearly this privile?e evolved &5*,
TE CUST*, then/ and +icolas "" 3erely wished to ac@nowled?e this #act in honor o#
Pope )eo the 8reat/ principal author o# this law. Canon (; requires privile?es to $e
interpreted strictly/ so it would see3 that $oth cler?y A+! laity would $e required to
vote. -ut Canon ;( as e9plored $y Cico?nani re#ers us to Canon 22'4/ which deprives
e9co33unicates o# A)) ri?hts and privile?es in the Church. This. is to $e understood o#
those e9co33unicates who are notorious or post sententia3/ since 5ev. yland Cin his
co33entary on Canon 22'1/ para?raph 2D and 5ev. ,oc@ Con quali#yin? electorsD
?enerally a?ree that si3pliciter tolerati 3ay validly and licitly posit ecclesiastical acts i#
not o$Gected to $y the #aith#ul. This is why the laity 3ay vote and yet the cler?y 3ay not.
The cri3es o# the laity a3ounted only to 3aterial heresy and there#ore these cri3es were
not i3puta$le. -ut clerics were $ound to @now $oth the laws A+! their penalties as we
have shown/ and #or this reason they have lost their privile?e to vote.
Canon '1 ?ives even #urther i3petus to act as an elector/ #or it reads%
B+o$ody is o$li?ed to 3a@e use o# a privile?e ... unless the o$li?ation to e9ercise it
co3es #ro3 so3e other source.B "n other words/ a 3ere ecclesiastical law could not #orce
one to use so3ethin? 3eant to $e a $oon and not a $urden. "n co33entin? on this Canon/
Woywod writes% B"# the o$li?ation arises #ro3 Aso3e other sourceA/ we 3ust in#er that
source to $e either the natural or !ivine positive law/ #or it would $e a stran?e @ind o#
privile?e that $ound one to o$serve an ecclesiastical law #ro3 which one would $e
otherwise e9cused.B "n the $oo@ and in private correspondence we have written that
Catholics are not *-)"8ATE! to vote% that they 3ay renounce their ri?ht to vote. This
is $ecause we were not considerin? our a$ility to vote under the aspect o# a privile?e $ut
rather under the canons ?overnin? canonical elections. This canon applies to us $ecause it
is $ased on the very principles laid down in the $oo@% !ivine law $inds over
ecclesiastical law. -ut this canon applies it to A)) quali#ied voters/ and ?ives the nature
o# a co33and. Would those who #ail to vote $e ?uilty o# 3ortal sin #or re#usin? to de#end
the #aith and show the3selves united to the true Church? This we will deter3ine $elow.
"s 5enunciation o# a 6ote Sin#ul? A )oo@ at Canon ;2
:;
There are #our para?raphs to this Canon.
1. The #irst para?raph tells us that privile?es 3ay $e ter3inated $y
their renunciation to a co3petent superior. "t is clear #ro3 this #irst para?raph that
renunciation cannot $e 3ade in our case/ since we @now no co3petent superiors. Since a
pope ?ranted the privile?e in the #irst place/ it is only lo?ical that he is the only one who
could accept such a renunciation.
2. "n para?raph 2 we #ind that a voter CA+ renounce his vote/ $ut
this part o# the canon is certainly contradicted $y Canon '1. #or 5ev. Cico?nani writes% ...
a private ?rantee is *-)"8E! to use a privile?e which was 3ade #or the $ene#it o# a
?roup .. "# a 3oral $ond arises #ro3 so3e other source/ na3ely #ro3 a law o# the Church/
whose o$li?ation can $e #ul#illed $y usin? a privile?e/ #or the reason that we are held to
#ul#ill the law and can do so only $y usin? our privile?e ... An o$li?ation to use a
privile?e 3ay also arise #ro3 charity/ and #ro3 the co33on ?ood.A CACanon )awA/ pa?e
(2:D
4. This para?raph corresponds to the one a$ove. Cico?nani applies
this privile?e to colle?iate and non=colle?iate 3oral $odies ali@e/ and even to cardinals
Cpa?e (12D. e writes% BP5"6ATE PE5S*+S connected with said co33unity cannot
licitly or validly renounce the privile?e/ since they have no ri?ht to do so. &or a privile?e
that has $een ?ranted pu$liclyB/ Cand +icolas ""As decree was pu$licD/ Bconcerns the pu$lic
?ood/ and can $e renounced only $y the entire co33unity/ always/ however/ with the
consent o# the ruler.A C"$id.D The privile?e ?ranted to us $y +icolas "" was li3ited over the
years $y other le?islators in such a way that it could only $e e9ercised 1D "# all others to
who3 the ri?ht o# election devolved #ailed to electF 2D in SEE5 +ECESS"T./ in order
to preserve the #aith and protect the #aith#ul. "n e##ect. then/ the only ti3e we A5E
allowed to e9ercise this ri?ht is when we ere o$li?ated to do so $y the !ivine and hi?her
law. CCanon '1D Then/ $ecause o# the ?ravity o# the 3atter et hand end the s3ell nu3$er
o# those willin? to heed the !ivine co33end/ we cannot shir@ our responsi$ility.
<. &inally we learn in para?raph #our that i# the privile?e in
question was ?iven in the #or3 o# a law/ Cand ours certainly wasD/ not even the entire
co33unity can renounce it. ... i# such renunciation would $e preGudicial to the Church or
to other persons.B CCico?nani/ pa?e (11D Cico?nani ?oes on to cite a new rule enacted $y
the Code o# Canon )aw which #or$ids any renunciation o# e privile?e which would result
in inGury to the Church. Cpa?e (14D
"t is clear #ro3 the a$ove that we are *-)"8ATE! to use our privile?e in
the interests o# the #aith#ul/ the wel#are o# the Church/ end the !ivine will/ Cthat Peter
have perpetual successors.D Certainly none can disa?ree that direct diso$edience to 8od
in this case is en i3plicit/ denial oS the principles on which the Church was $uilt/ the
Constitution o# the Church esta$lished $y Christ/ end our duty to de#end the #aithF in e
word/ heresy. As such it is e 3ortal sin. "n parts " end "" o# the $oo@ we learned that
heresy can $e de3onstrated $y words *5 actions. Cpa?es '1 end 1:D "t only 3a@es sense
that A)) those who love the Church end can co3e to er aid without ?rave
inconvenience ere co33ended to do so under pain o# 3ortal sin. This is the teachin? o#
3orel theolo?ians ?enerally. "n e9tre3e spiritual necessity Cdan?er the #aith will $e lostD/
we ere $ound to assist our nei?h$or even et the ris@ o# our own li#e. -ecause=the
o$li?ation is ?rave/ the o3ission o# such an act is ?ravely sin#ul/ as well. C8rave sin
:(
requires ?rave 3atter/D We did not receive this pearl o# ?reat price #ro3 the hands o#
Christ/ that so3e pearl $athed to an even hi?her lustre in the $lood o# countless 3artyrs/
to treat it today in an indi##erent way. We are either with Christ or we stand a?ainst i3.
e has pro3ised to vo3it the lu@ewar3 #ro3 is 3outh/ and any who endorse the truths
presented in the $oo@ yet #ail to act on the3 can only $e cate?oriIed as lu@ewar3. A))
true Catholics are o$li?ed to vote under pain o# 3ortal sin. We will now continue our
e9a3ination o# the laws ?overnin? canonical elections $elow.
)ay "nvolve3ent in Elections Canon 1''
We have already e9plained this Canon to so3e e9tent in discussin? Canon
;2. Canon 1'' reads% B"# lay3en 3eddle in any way with the ecclesiastical election/ or
inter#ere with its canonical #reedo3/ the election is ipso #acto invalid.B Already we have
quoted ,oc@ as 3aintainin? that a privile?e re3oves a disquali#ication. We have
outlined the circu3stances a$ove which allow the laity to use this privile?e. Canon ;;
states that a privile?e ceases i# its use $eco3es illicit. *ur use o# the ri?ht to elect AS
$eco3e illicit/ e9cept #or the situation in which we #ind ourselves today. Canon ;2 states
that/ a privile?e is to $e considered perpetual unless the contrary is certain. Canon ;' tells
us that privile?es are not lost $y non=use. 5ev. Parsons o$viously considers the privile?e
to still o$tain/ and +icholas "" hi3sel# allowed #or it in the #ace o# his own contrary
le?islationF so surely we are not AcertainA that it has ceased. "n #act/ theolo?ians writin?
lon? a#ter +icholas ""As law cha3pioned our 5"8T to use it/ $ut only #or the case at
hand/ i.e./ in sheer necessity. We have evidence/ #urther3ore/ in Canons '1 and ;2 that
our privile?e has now $een trans#or3ed into an o$li?ation. *ur privile?e yet endures
despite the prohi$itions o# Canon 1''. -ut once a Pope is elected we #ully e9pect the law
C3andatin? the election o# a Pope $y Cardinals onlyD to $e renewed.
What Constitutes !isquali#ication? Canon 1';
Under Canon 1(; we #ind listed the actual disquali#ication o# voters as
#ollows%
1. Persons incapa$le o# a hu3an act.
2. Persons under the a?e o# pu$erty.
4. Persons su##erin? #ro3 censure or in#a3y o# law/ i# such censure
or in#a3y has previously $een in#licted $y a declaratory or conde3natory sentence.
<. Persons who have Goined an heretical or schis3atical sect/ or
pu$licly adhered to such. This re#ers to Catholics who have #allen #ro3 the #aith/ as a
si3ilar phrase in Canon :<2 was e9plained $y the Co33ittee #or the Authentic
"nterpretation o# the Code.
:. Persons deprived o# the active vote/ either throu?h le?iti3ate
sentence o# the ecclesiastical Gud?e/ or $y the co33on or particular law.
"# any o# the a#oresaid persons is ad3itted to the election/ his vote is invalid/ $ut
the election is valid unless it is certain that the elected would not have had the required
nu3$er o# votes without the ille?al voteF and the election is invalid i# a person
e9co33unicated $y a conde3natory or declaratory sentence has @nowin?ly $een
:1
ad3itted to vote.A CEnd o# Canon 1(;D Usin? the various Canon )aw dissertations/ we
will co33ent on each o# these disquali#ications individually.
5ev. ,oc@ ?oes into this disquali#ication in ?reat detail. is conclusions
run as #ollows%
There are two types o# a$nor3al people considered in this canonF the
3entally wea@ and the 3entally un$alanced. The 3entally wea@ are those who are $orn
retarded or $rain da3a?ed/ or who $eco3e so as a result o# illness or inGury at a later
date. ,oc@ deter3ines that all these in this ?roup whose ". >.As are a$ove :2 and who are
capa$le o# #ocusin? su##iciently on the act o# election Cand ?rasp the ?rave responsi$ility
inherent in such an actD/ could $e considered quali#ied to vote. When there is dou$t as to
quali#ication/ the voterAs ri?hts are to $e upheld. The electoral $ody has the authority to
put the 3atter to a vote/ $ut 3oral certainty 3ust $e arrived at $y the chapter $e#ore a
vote #or e9pulsion 3ay $e cast. Pius E""As Constitution on papal election/ A6acantis
Apostolic SedisA/ also allows #or the deter3ination o# such 3atters $y a 3aGority vote.
Co33entin? on this Constitution/ Woywod writes% B... all 3aGor questions C3ust $e le#tD
to the 8eneral Con?re?ation to $e decided $y 3aGority vote.B
,oc@ de#ines the 3entally un$alanced as those psychopaths/ psychotics/
and so3e psychoneurotics who live in a world o# #antasy or unreality/ and states that %his
?roup cannot $e ad3itted to vote. owever/ he would ad3it $oth psychopaths who can
$e de3onstrated as enGoyin? a lucid period/ as well as those psychoneurotics not
su##erin? #ro3 hysteria or so3e disruptive type o# neurosis. .et it 3ust $e o$served that
those once considered= insane are P5ESU,E! to re3ain so until the contrary is proven.
Today one would need to include in this ?roup lon? ter3 hard core alcoholics and dru?
users/ even i# they are ArecoveredA/ since these individuals are so3eti3es @nown to su##er
#ro3 Chronic -rain Syndro3e and other disorders related to their condition. This is
especially true o# those who have used 3ind=alterin? dru?s C)S!/ PCP/ peyote Ashroo3sA/
etc.D #or any len?th o# ti3e. ,oc@ also treats the case o# de3onic possession and
concludes/ naturally/ that such un#ortunates are incapa$le o# votin?.
2. "ndividuals 3ust have co3pleted their 1<th year and 3ust additionally
$e proven perspicacious in 3atters o# character Gud?e3ent and @nowled?ea$le enou?h in
the #aith that a sound decision can $e 3ade. The ?eneral trend in society today is to
prolon? childhood well into adolescence/ and Catholics have o#ten $een ?uilty o#
o$servin? this practice. "n our opinion/ no one under the a?e o# 21 should $e ad3itted
without a prior e9a3ination $y the electors o# so3e sort/ or docu3entation to this e##ect/
to ensure proper 3aturity and responsi$ility to elect. -ecause personal ri?hts predo3inate
in such a case/ these voters should $e ad3itted unless they can $e proven to $e ?rossly
i33ature/ or have deviated #ro3 the &aith. We reported on pa?e <21 that one Pope was
$etween 1' and 1S at his election and two 3ore under 42. &urther3ore Canon :::
provides that no=one 3ay $e ad3itted to the novitiate until co3pletin? his 1:th year/
indicatin? that one who has co3pleted his 1<th year 3ay $e ad3itted to the postulancy.
Canon :;4 provides that no=one 3ay ta@e #inal vows until co3pletin? his 21st year/
indicatin? that su##icient 3aturity #or a li#e lon? co33it3ent to reli?ion cannot yet $e
3ade/ althou?h Canon 12(; allows 3en over 1' and wo3en over 1< to 3arry. Canon
1;: #urther provides that a 3an $e 21 $e#ore enterin? ,aGor *rders. &inally/ Canon 2242
provides that a person who has not reached the a?e o# pu$erty cannot incur a latae
'2
sententiae censure. All o# these parallel Canons provide #urther proo# o# the ri?ht to vote
a#ter a?e 1</ $ut de3ands the require3ent o# proo# o# capa$ility in the Aunder=a?eA voter.
4. While we certainly have in#a3y o# #act today/ we do not have in#a3y o#
law. Even i# in#a3y o# law could $e attested to/ it still would not apply to us/ $ecause the
law requires a declaratory or conde3natory sentence $y the proper superior #or its
validity. Since such declarations and conde3nations are i3possi$le today/ in#a3y o#
law will $e considered only as an additional lia$ility increasin? ?uilt/ $ut this is the only
e##ect it can $e said to have. This is in @eepin? with Canon 222( which reads% B... A
person who repeatedly o##ends even a?ainst di##erent @inds o# laws also increases his
lia$ility.B
<. Concernin? this disquali#ication/ 5ev. ,oc@ writes% BThis
disquali#ication has the nature o# an irre?ularity that arises #ro3 so3e delictual 3isdeed
Cirre?ularity e9 delictoD rather than the nature o# a punish3ent.A/ Cpa?e 121.D "rre?ularities
are constituted/ not as punish3ents/ $ut #or the ?ood o# the Church. They cannot $e
re3oved $y a$solution #ro3 censure/ #or this Canon C1'; <<D applies to A)) who have
co33itted the cri3e and have su$sequently $een reinstated #ollowin? their a$Guration.
,oc@ proceeds to de#ine the ter3 heretic/ and his de#inition a?rees with our own. Csee
pa?es '4 and '< o# the $oo@.D The @ey word here is *-ST"+ATE). CpertinaciterD/ #or
those in ?ood #aith will recede #ro3 contu3acy when evidence o# their error is presented
to the3. This @ey word leads us out o# what would see3 to $e the disquali#ication o# even
lay persons.
We @now that Canon )aw cannot contradict doctrine. There#ore/ we 3ust
ta@e a closer loo@ at those Canons ?overnin? irre?ularities to deter3ine who a3on? us is
lia$le/ and to what de?ree. Canon 1(: reads% AThe #ollowin? are irre?ular #ro3 cri3eF 1D
Apostates #ro3 the #aith/ heretics and schis3atics/.A Canon 1(' #ollows with% AThese
o##enses do not cause irre?ularity unless they are 3ortal sins/ co33itted a#ter -aptis3
and unless they are e9ternal/ whether pu$lic or occult.A We will here e9a3ine the three
require3ents o# Canon 1('.
aD ,*5TA) S"+. Canon 2222 o$viously co3es into play here and ?uilt is
presu3ed until the contrary is proven. -ecause the possi$ility o# contrary proo# is
i33ediately ad3itted/ a declaration o# innocence $y an ecclesiastical court would
re3ove such an irre?ularity at once.
$D &*))*W"+8 -APT"S,. A person who is not $aptiIed cannot
$eco3e irre?ular/ $ecause such an individual was never Catholic to $e?in with. *nly
Catholics are a$le to e9ercise ri?hts or privile?es accorded to their state. Those who have
departed #ro3 the #aith Clisted in Canon 1(:D are no lon?er considered ,E,-E5S o# the
Church even thou?h $aptiIed. This is de3onstrated in Canon :<2/ where we read% 1.
Ad3ission to the novitiate is "+6A)"! in the case o# CiD persons who have lapsed #ro3
the Catholic #aith into a non=Catholics sect.A "n his co33entary on this Canon/ Woywod
cites a decree #ro3 the Co33ittee #or the Authentic "nterpretation o# the Code. CAAS E/
<(2D/ which declares that this ter3 applies only to those who have de#ected #ro3 the
#aith/ not converts #ro3 non=Catholic reli?ions who had never -EE+ 3e3$ers o# the
Church. Accordin? to A$$o and annan/ enroll3ent as a 3e3$er o# a non=Catholic sect/
attendance at its 3eetin?s or pu$lic de#ence o# its tenets constitutes adherence to such a
sect. CAThe Sacred CanonsA/ pa?e ::(.D This/ then/ would apply to A)) Traditionalists/ as
well as other hereticsF althou?h it would see3 that those children o# Traditionalists
'1
validly $aptiIed and raised as non=Catholics/ Cin the Society o# Pius E #or e9a3pleD/
would not $e held disquali#ied. C+ote well/ that they 3ust re3ove the3selves #ro3. this
sect and 3a@e the Pro#ession o# &aith and a$Guration o# heresy to $e considered
quali#ied.D
cD EETE5+A)/ whether pu$lic or occult. An internal dou$t or denial
@nown only to the individual could not incur an irre?ularity unless e9ternaliIed in so3e
3anner. Priests are under o$li?ations which prohi$it the3 to e9ercise their orders in
A+. way i# they have incurred censure #or heresy/ apostasy or schis3. Althou?h they
3ay not co3e under the e9co33unication #or apostasy/ heresy or schis3/ they 3ay
none=the=less $e irre?ular #or e9ternaliIin? their apostasy/ heresy or schis3 occultly. The
e9ternaliIation o# a cri3e punished $y irre?ularity $e#ore only *+E person is su##icient
to render one irre?ular/ $ar hi3 #ro3 e9ercise o# *rders possessed or reception o# #urther
*rders. This irre?ularity #urther $ars the3 #ro3 votin? in ecclesiastical elections. Since
the laity do not e9ercise any @ind o# o##ice or *rders/ only a PU-)"C act will $ar the3
#ro3 actin? as electors.
)etters a and c a$ove $oth have to do with what constitutes 3ortal sin and what
constitutes &*5,A) heresy. "n his A!elict o# eresyA/ 5ev. Eric ,ac7enIie writes% Bit is
clear that they co33it no sin o# heresyB/ Ci# they do not o$stinately hold to their $elie#/
and i33ediately recede when con#ronted.D They co33it only a 3aterial sin/ $ut not a
#or3al sin which involves personal ?uilt and punish3ent.A Cpa?e 2<D Wovwod notes in his
co33entary on Canon 211; that in order #or a cri3e to $e pu$lic it 3ust $e pu$licly
@nown that the act co33itted is a cri3inal act and 3orally i3puta$le. We wish to
o$serve/ however/ that this is true only concernin? the #iner points o# do?3a and could
never apply to the Pope who CA++*T teach heresy/ nor the 3aGority o# $ishops and
theolo?ians/ since their utterances are also in#alli$le. This is in @eepin? with the teachin?
o# the Catechis3/ that in order #or a sin to $e 3ortal it A?ust 1D $e a serious sinF 2D $e
@nown to $e a serious sin% 4D $e co33itted deli$eratelyF despite one and two. The
Catholic Encyclopedia C6ol 6""/ headin? " under heresyD declares/ B... inculpa$le
i?norance o# the true creed/ erroneous Gud?e3ent/ i3per#ect apprehension and
co3prehension o# do?3as...A/ all contri$ute to 3aterial or o$Gective heresy. -ut B... as
lon? as one re3ains willin? to su$3it to the ChurchAs decision/ he re3ains a Catholic
Christian at heart/ and his wron? $elie#s are only transitory errors and #leetin? opinions.A
We #eel con#ident that we have proven the laity are the victi3s o# the cler?y and the
ti3es/ since they were even i?norant o# the o$li?ation wei?hin? upon the3 to launch an
in depth STU!. o# their #aith. Truly they $elieved that adherence to A#aith#ulA priests/ the
sacra3ents and perseverance in prayer was all that was required o# the3. *nly certain lay
leaders a3on? the3 who pro3ul?ated heresy Cdespite repeated atte3pts to advise the3
o# the true teachin?s o# the Church in so3e 3atterD would quali#y the3 as pertinaciter
and co3e under the disquali#ications enu3erated in this Canon.
To the $est o# our @nowled?e/ A)) priests are disquali#ied to vote in view
o# the #ollowin?%
1. E9co33unication 3a@es it i3possi$le to e9ercise privile?es.
CCanon 22'4K1D
2. "n addition/ priests incur irre?ularity which in itsel# $are the3
#ro3 votin?.
'2
4. Priests also )*SE TE"5 *&&"CE under Canon 1((K<% they
are !EP*SE! ipso #acto. Pius E""As Constitution speci#ically e9cludes those who are
deposed #ro3 votin? in papal elections. "t has $een o$Gected that such a deposition 3ust
$e !EC)A5E! $y a superior or an ecclesiastical court. -ecause Paul "6As ACu3 e9A is the
parent law Cold lawD o# Canon 1((K</ under Canon '<< we return to ACu3 e9...A to
discover i# a declaration is needed. Paul "6 states% A... CtheyD shall $e deprived
auto3atically A+! W"T*UT +EE! *& A+. &U5TE5 !EC)A5AT"*+/ o# all
di?nity/ position/ honor/ title/ authority/ o##ice and power/ W"T*UT A+.
EECEPT"*+...A "t is o$vious that no declaration is needed. All that is necessary to incur
deposition is #or a cleric to PU-)"C). lapse #ro3 the #aith/ as. 1((<< states. )ay people
cannot Cor do not ordinarilyD hold an o##ice/ and there#ore re3ain una##ected $y this
Canon.
<. This para?raph o# Canon 1'; concerns those who have $een
e9co33unicated #or delicts other than those contained in para?raph #our a$ove. Any
e9co33unication ipso #acto which $are lay people #ro3 e9ercisin? their spiritual ri?hts
Cin the case o# divorced Catholics who re3arry/ those who have procured or assisted at an
a$ortion/ those who are under interdict #or supportin? 6atican ""/ etc...D will also $ar the3
#ro3 votin?. CA co3plete list o# these censures is $ein? 3ade availa$le in AElection
UpdateA nu3$er <.D "?norance/ i# it can $e certainly proven/ will e9cuse one #ro3
disquali#ication as an elector/ as we have already stated. "?norance o# censures can 3ore
easily $e proven in the case o# the laity than the cler?y. Priests are presu3ed to @now
what constitutes a censure as part o# their preparation #or the hearin? o# Con#essions.
8**! &A"T A+! CA+*+ 22<2
ere we e9a3ine even #urther the qualities necessary in a delict in order
#or a censure to $e incurred/ This will co3plete our e9a3ination o# 3aterial heresy and
3ortal sin.
Canon 22<2K1 states% A*nly o##enses which are e9ternal/ ?rave/
consu33ated/ or co3plete/ and co3$ined with o$stinacy/ are punished with censures.A
As we have already e9plained/ the laity were not ?enerally e9pected to @now Canon )aw/
at least those Canons a?ainst which they o##ended 3ost o#ten. Priests and -ishops were
?enerally e9pected to @now the #iner points o# law in these 3atters. not the laity. ad
priests 7+*W+ the3selves and e9plained the law to their Catholic #ollowers/ certainly
they would have led the sheep to ?reen pastures. Traditionalists would have #ollowed
these priests al3ost anywhere. $ut they were led in the wron? direction. Since they never
received these 3ost necessary warnin?s #ro3 their pastors/ they could not have incurred
these censures. 5ev. Woywod writes in his co33entary on Canon 211:% BThe penal
sanction attached to the law or precept TA7ES TE P)ACE *& TE WA5+"+8...B
This applies only to clerics who are presu3ed to @now the ins and outs o# the Canons. As
we o$served in a previous AUpdateA/ A5ev. Swo$oda/ in his A"?norance in the "3puta$ility
o# !elictsA tells us% "t can scarcely $e 3aintained that lay3en are o$li?ed to @now the
penalties o# the law the Church does not wish to penaliIe the #irst ti3e o##enders o# her
cri3inal or penal law a particular CcanonicalD warnin? will #requently $eco3e necessary.
When an a$use $eco3es prevalent/ it $eco3es the duty o# pastors and especially o#
$ishops to instruct the #aith#ul and warn the3 concernin? the ecclesiastical penalties.A CTo
'4
support this state3ent/ 5ev. Swo$oda cites an instruction #ro3 the oly *##ice issued
&e$ruary 1/ 1(;1/ and retained in 8asparriAs ASources o# Canon )awA.D CPa?es 241=2<2D
&irst the $ishops were o$li?ed to warn the #aith#ulF when they #ailed the priests/ and
#inally the #loc@/ had to $e warned $y us and others to #end #or itsel#. +othin? in Canon
22<2K1 really has application to the laity. TrueF we are to $e held ?uilty o# violation
under Canon 2222 initially. -ut we have e9plained the ChurchAs allowance #or i?norance
$y the thorou?h assess3ent a$ove in 5ev. Swo$odaAs wor@/ and we can see that the
contrary is proven $y 3a@in? @nown the ChurchAs teachin? on the laityAs i?norance in
such a##airs. Since the contrary has $een proved/ no censure was incurred/ as lon? as they
are not Aco3$ined with o$stinacy.A Earlier we saw that 5ev. ,ac7enIie equates o$stinacy
with pertinacity. Since o$stinate 3eans stu$$orn/ we assu3e that A+. reluctance
e9hi$ited $y an o##ender to cease and o$stinacy #ro3 the evil deed can $e construed as
o$stinacy. This coincides with K2 o# this canon $elow.
Canon 22<2K2 reads% BA person is considered contu3acious/ who/
notwithstandin? the ad3onitions spo@en o# in Canon 2244/ does not desist #ro3 the
o##ense/ or re#uses to do penance #or the o##ense and 3a@e due reparation #or the da3a?es
and scandal caused there$y. To incur a censure latae sententiae the trans?ression o# a law
or precept to which a penalty latae sententiae is attached/ su##ices/ unless the o##ender is
e9cused #ro3 the penalty $y a le?iti3ate cause. +o priest or $ishop warned the laity/ so
contu3acy Cwhich is synony3ous with pertinacity and o$stinacyD was ?enerally lac@in?
on the part o# the lay people. We have already proven that a Ale?iti3ate causeA Ci?noranceD
e9isted to e9cuse 3ost o# these.
-ut there is one class o# people we CA++*T e9cuse and these are priests and lay
people who we ourselves have warned Co#ten 3ore than onceD% or who have $een warned
$y others @nown to usF or those/ who a#ter e9a3inin? the $oo@/ either reGect it outri?ht or
pretend they can heed certain parts o# it and i?nore others. When we spea@ o# warnin?
people here/ we re#er 3ainly to warnin? the3 a?ainst heresy/ sacrile?e/ co33unicatio in
sacris/ i.e. so3ethin? ?ravely sin#ul. ,ost o# those we have warned have $een in the
pu$lic eye in so3e way or another. ,any o# the3 we have warred repeatedly on several
di##erent heads. We @now who they are/ TE. @new who they are/ and $ecause they
have continued to spread heresy /and create scandal despite our warnin?s/ they certainly
have incurred censure. These are people who have the 3eans and a$ility necessary to
consult the various resource 3aterials and ne?lect to do so/ or pretend that they have
discovered so3e %o$scure point o#/ law to Gusti#y the3selves in the course o# consultin?
these re#erence wor@s. Even i# they presented 5EAS*+E! ar?u3ents in their de#ense/
as the law requires the3 to do/ one could at least have hope o# their $ein? won over
eventually. -ut 3ost rely on their personal credi$ility and secular press tacticsF or ver$al
anticsF or dra3atic one line AsweepsA to save the3selves. Ci.e. A+ecessity @nows no lawA/
which is true. when read ."+ C*+TEET/ $ut untrue as reported $y 3any Traditionalists.
See pa?es <( and <1 o# the $oo@.D Clearly they are not in 8**! &A"T/ $ut in de#iance
o# Church teachin? concernin? contu3acy in whatever cri3e they have co33itted.
The #inal para?raph o# this Canon states% BA person is considered to have
desisted #ro3 his o$stinacy when he has truly repented o# his o##ense/ and has at the sa3e
ti3e 3ade proper satis#action #or the da3a?eAs and scandal caused/ or has at least.
earnestly/ pro3ised to do so. The Gud?e3ent on the sincerity o# the repentance/ or the
'<
su##iciency o# the satis#action/ or the sincerity o# the pro3ise rests=with the one #ro3
who3 a$solution #ro3 the censure is requested.B
The individuals we re#er to a$ove have persisted in their errors 1D!espite
clear and co3pellin? evidence to the contraryF 2D &or lon? T periods o# ti3e% 4D Usually
in 3ore than one 3atterF <D Prior to the pu$lication o# the $oo@. ,ost o# these people edit
newsletters o# so3e description/ or are otherwise in the pu$lic eye. Since their
pu$lications are issued sporadically at $est/ it is not li@ely 3any o# the3 would have the
chance to su##iciently repent and repair the scandal/ they have spread in ti3e to posit an
election. ad they responded initially to #raternal correction/ they would have no worries
in the 3atter reparation could have $een acco3plished $y now. We cannot Gud?e
repentance true which has $een unduly delayed/ and which is hastily ?iven only to ena$le
one to vote. We are not sayin? that it is +*T true necessarilyF only that we have no ri?ht
to 0U!8E/ since we cannot presu3e to a$solve anyone #ro3 censure.
A8ood #aithA is not that va?ue assu3ption that All Catholics intend to
con#or3 to so3e unidenti#ied Catholic Anor3A i# they act pious e9ternally/ adopt a ApriestA/
attend the Sacra3ents/ and say daily 5osary. The A#aithA has to do 3ainly with do?3a/ not
#or3alis3F !*8,A and its a$solute acceptance and practice constitute orthodo9y/ not
e9terlor practices s3ac@in? o# sacrile?e. *-E!"E+CE/ that sa3e instantaneous
o$edience we de3and o# our children or should de3andD/ deter3ines this ?ood #aith.
&ailure to o$ey/ and o$ey i33ediately/ in those 3atters concernin? #aith
and 3orals is #atal to the li#e o# the soul/ #or it ter3inates our 3e3$ership in the Church.
T5UE Catholics willl pled?e unswervin? loyalty even to those precepts/ o# the Church
not pronounced de #ide. &aith#ul in little thin?s/ they will swi#tly run to retract error and
shall not hesitate to $elittle the3selves/ when necessary to repair scandal. We shall @now
the3/ then/ $y their hu3ility/ #or St. -ernard calls o$edience the #irst de?ree o# this
virtue. A8ood #aithA will $roo@ no departure #ro3 truthF $ad #aith will ever show itsel#
hau?hty/ a$ove the law/ i3pervious to correction. "t has $een so #ro3 the $e?innin? o#
ti3e and shall $e so undou$tedly until the end.
Those Who Are "ll
Canon 1'(
This Canon provides #or the ?atherin? o# votes at the place o# election
#ro3 those who cannot $e present $ecause they are ill. We allowed #or this possi$ility/ in
the $oo@/ so we need not cover it #urther. Csee pa?e <:2D
This $rin?s us to the end o# those Canons which cover the disquali#ication o#
voters. -ut $e#ore we $rin? this article to a close/ we would li@e to lay down an adequate
-AC785*U+! #or our #ir3 contention that %the laity are toA $e held lar?ely $la3eless
in 3atters pertainin? to the co33ission o# heresy and schis3/ especially in this country.
To do this we wish to return $rie#ly to the su$Gect o# the 8reat Western Schis3 and then
we will e9a3ine the early days o# the Church in A3erica.
The Western Schis3
"n Election Update nu3$er 4/ we proposed that all three lines in the
Western Schis3 were invalid. CSee "s The Election o# a Pope Schis3atic/ towards the
':
endD owever/ since ?oin? to press in 1112/ new 3aterial has $een discovered. This
3aterial in no way invalidates the election/ $ut rather provides #urther proo# o# the
validity o# the Election o# Pope ,ichael.
Pope -enedict E"6 says% to=day it is evident that Ur$an 6"/ and his
successors were le?iti3ate Ponti##s. Ur$an 6" was the #irst elected at the ti3e o# the
Western Schis3/ a second clai3ant elected $y the sa3e Cardinals si9 3onths later and a
third line started at the Council o# Pisa/ which none hold to $e le?iti3ate. <2 years a#ter
the election o# Ur$an 6"/ his successor/ the true Pope/ 8re?ory E""/ resi?ned in #avor o# a
new election at the Council o# Constance. This decision o# Pope -enedict E"6 was not
availa$le to us at the ti3e/ $ut was discovered later.
What this proves is the contention that the #irst election is always
considered valid/ with one nota$le e9ception. The election o# a non3e3$er o# the
Catholic Church/ such as a heretic or an apostate is invalid/ $ecause it is i3possi$le #or a
heretic to $eco3e Pope.
Saint Antonine o# &lorence Cas reported in Studies in Church istory/
volu3e 2/ pa?e :42D% Althou?h it is necessary to $elieve that there is $ut one supre3e
head o# the Church/ nevertheless/ i# it happens that two Popes are created at the sa3e
ti3e/ it is not necessary #or the people to $elieve that this one or that one is the le?iti3ate
Ponti##F they 3ust $elieve that he alone is the true Pope who has $een re?ularly elected/
and they are not $ound to discern who that one isF as to that point/ they 3ay $e ?uided $y
the conduct and opinion o# their particular pastor. owever/ note well/ he requires the3
to $e su$Gect to the Pope. Since he wrote at the ti3e o# the Western Schis3/ he did not
consider the possi$ility o# an heretical clai3ant. owever/ in our ti3es/ certain clai3ants
can $e set aside #or heresy/ since it is i3possi$le #or so3eone to $e head o# the Church he
has le#t $y heresy.
5i?hts *# The Universal Church To 6ote
We have covered all o# the $asics in connection with the quali#ication o# electors/
either $y class or individually in this special AUpdateA. +ow we co3e to so3e o# the
unanswered questions.
-y devolution the election o# a Pope has #allen to the Universal Church. Who.
then/ is the Universal Church and which 3e3$ers o# her can vote?
-asic )aw
Accordin? to Canon 1'2 three 3onths #ro3 the date the vacancy $eco3es @nown
to the voters they 3ust proceed to an election. *n 0anuary 2:th the possi$ility o# an
election $eca3e o$taina$le. Accordin? to Canon 1/ law which is pu$lished $eco3es
e##ective three 3onths #ro3 the date o# pu$lication. "n our case that date is April 2:th/ so
the election 3ust $e co3pleted $y 0uly 2:th. *n 0uly 2'th our class o# voters would
$eco3e disquali#ied. owever/ our disquali#ication as the last possi$le voters would $e
i3possi$le/ so the election will ta@e place on or $e#ore 0uly 2:th/ 1112/ as Canon 1'2 is
$ound also in heaven.
''
The i33ediate question which co3es to 3ind concerns the disquali#ication o# all
precedin? classes o# voters. The Cardinals are certainly disquali#ied/ Cas are the Canons
o# St. 0ohn )ateran and the -ishopsD/ $ecause they are presu3ed to @now the true #acts
and yet #ailed to act. The cler?y are also disquali#ied as a class/ $ecause the laity waited
#or the3 to act as they nor3ally would. The structure o# the Church is such that the laity
e9pect the ecclesiastical ?oods/ especially the necessary 3eans o# salvation to $e supplied
$y the cler?y. This e9pectation o# the laity places an o$li?ation on the cler?y/ which
constitutes a do3inative power o# the laity over the cler?y. The cler?y who re3ained in
the Church not only @new o# the vacancy/ $ut were 3orally certain o# it and should haveA
@now o# the necessity o# a Papal Election. So3e o# these clerics @new o# the possi$ility
o# a Papal Election over a decade a?o/ $e#ore the sede vacante theory was @nown a3on?
the laity at all. The cler?y had the a$ility to @now these thin?s and were o$li?ed to #ind
the truth #or the3selves and #or the laity. Althou?h $arred #ro3 ecclesiastical #unction/
the cler?y still has a duty in charity to the laity to provide us with the truth/ as they have
#ar easier access to it than we do and are trained to use these tools. Until 0anuary 2:th o#
this year C1112D there was not availa$le an adequate dissertation on the pro$le3s in the
Church/ includin? the sede vacante and a road 3ap to a a$solution. As such/ then/ it was
not possi$le #or the 3aGority o# the laity to @now o# the alar3in? proportions o# the the
pro$le3 and the #act that there is a solution 3uch less a detailed prescription o# how to
proceed. There#ore the laity did not @now o# the necessity o# the election until this year
and could not $e disquali#ied/ as the Canonists hold that i?norance o# the vacancy and the
necessity o# election e9cuse.
C*+C)US"*+ 1% *nly the laity re3ain quali#ied as a class to elect a Pope under
the principle o# devolution and presu3ption o# law. TE5E&*5E anyone who quali#ies
as an elector 3ust quali#y as a lay3an.
>uali#ication *# )ay3en To 6ote
avin? narrowed the voters to the lay3en/ we now @now that we/ the laity/ are
o$li?ed to proceed with a Papal Election. Those 3e3$ers o# the laity present on 0uly 1'th
and quali#ied to vote will $e the electors o# the ne9t Pope. "n addition to the quali#ications
enu3erated a$ove/ we 3ust consider several other quali#ications. To do this we 3ust
review the various proo#s o# our ri?hts as lay3en.
"s Election A 0urisdictional Act?
"n AW")) TE CAT*)"C CU5C SU56"6E TE TWE+T"ET
CE+TU5.?A we presented proo#s o# the laityAs ri?ht to vote $ased on the assu3ption that
election is an act o# Gurisdiction. These proo#s hold true whether election is an e9ercise o#
';
do3inative power or an e9ercise o# ecclesiastical Gurisdiction. owever/ certain 3e3$ers
o# the laity 3ay not $e allowed to e9ercise Gurisdiction. althou?h they certainly possess
their do3inative power uni3paired. We shall e9a3ine this question syllo?istically
1. Election is the #illin? o# a vacant o##ice $y those "+&E5"*5 to the o##ice
holder.
2. -ut Gurisdiction cannot $e e9ercised over a superior.
TE5E&*5E/ election is not a Gurisdictional act.
*##ices are #illed $y the superior throu?h appoint3ent/ and $y in#eriors throu?h
election. +or3ally elections consist o# several people. althou?h i# only one elector
re3ains/ he still elects his superior. "n $oth cases the Gurisdiction connected with the
o##ice does +*T co3e #ro3 the electors $ut #ro3 8od throu?h the o##ice holderAs
superiors. Papal Gurisdiction co3es #ro3 8od to the one the Church desi?nates. Althou?h
we 3ay elect the Pope we cannot e9ercise any power over hi3/ or $ind hi3 in any way
as the Pope has no superior on earth.
C*+C)US"*+ 2% Election is an act o# do3inative power. *ur do3inative power
?ives us an unli3ited ri?ht to !ivine truth which co3es #ro3 the Pope. TE5E&*5E/
we not only can $ut 3ust elect a Pope/ who can ?ive us the words o# salvation.
"s Election a Privile?e
We have already proven that it is our privile?e in these dire circu3stances/ a
privile?e e9tended $y +icolaus "" to us to elect a Pope. Althou?h this privile?e e9tends to
the cler?y and people/ the cler?y have resi?ned their privile?e to the laity $y their actions/
leavin? the laity/ as the only possessors o# this privile?e.
1
This privile?e overrides the
ecclesiastical laws $arrin? lay3en #ro3 electin? and $arrin? wo3en #ro3 any voice in
ecclesiastical a##airs. This privile?e is possessed $y A)) who are quali#ied $y +atural
and !ivine law to vote. This includes all Catholics over the a?e o# 1< with the e9ception
o# #or3al heretics and apostates. Those dou$t#ully $aptiIed are not quali#ied/ nor are
those incapa$le o# a hu3an act or insane.
Can Clerics >uali#y as )ay3en?
Those who are clerics are held to a hi?her standard as proven a$ove. This hi?her
standard provides that AS A C)ASS clerics are disquali#ied. owever. they are yet
3e3$ers o# the Universal Church. Provided they can prove their i?norance in accordance
with their state o# li#e they are per3itted to Goin with the laity and vote/ althou?h they are
deprived o# their ri?hts as clerics/ $ecause o# the cri3es o# the cler?y in ?eneral. This
should include their ri?ht to wear ecclesiastical ?ar$/ which ri?ht has $een a$andoned $y
the 3aGority o# Traditionalist cler?y. CThe Aclerical shirtA is not clerical ?ar$ in accordance
1
!icholas II"s law made obsolete the clergy#people method of election, which Pope $eo the %reat had
promulgated. &o in changing this law, !icholas II, in deference to his predecessors wrote' ()owever it
would certainly be correct and even lawful, if the order of selection carefully weighed in the opinions of
Pope $eo the %reat, was resumed.* &ro3 Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century? pa?es
421=2
'(
with law and custo3 in the United States and other En?lish spea@in? countries.D The
cler?y should wear the clerical shirt W"T*UT C*))A5/ suit coat and $lac@ pants. "#
they have a$andoned clerical ?ar$ co3pletely/ they should not ta@e it up now $ut wait
until the Pope can decide what shall $e done.
Chan?es "n Election Procedure
Since our ri?ht/ as lay3en/ to elect has $een proven to $e a privile?e/ this
necessarily chan?es our election procedure. The procedure outlined in AW")) TE
CAT*)"C CU5C SU56"6E TE TWE+T"ET CE+TU5.?A was $ased on the
presu3ption that the .electors would elect as replace3ents o# the Cardinals and not $ased
on their privile?e to act as electors "+ TE"5 *W+ 5"8T in this e9tre3e case.
There#ore the presu3ption 3ust yield to truth. We shall now outline the chan?es in
election procedure $ased on the privile?e o# the laity to elect/ when all other classes have
#ailed.
A3end3ent o# Election Procedure
To $e?in with/ the electors shall wear lay dress/ since they are actin? as lay3en
e9ercisin? a privile?e ?ranted the3 $y +icolaus "".
2
Even the cler?y/ who 3ay per
chance quali#y/ can only quali#y as lay3en/ since they have already disquali#ied
the3selves as a class. Althou?h Canon )aw directs the3/ ordinarily to wear the proper
ecclesiastical dress/ the cler?y has a$andoned this dress and their a$andon3ent shall $e
carried on into the election/ i# they are quali#ied to vote. "t is 3ost li@ely that no cleric can
quali#yF and even i# he could he is disquali#ied $ecause his class o# electors is $arred #ro3
electin? $y their disquali#ication #or #ailure to elect.
Secondly/ the election procedure 3ust $e a3ended to have all electors sit outside
the Co33union rail as they would have done in people and cler?y elections $e#ore
+icolaus 11. There#ore/ the sanctuary will $e s3all to provide #or an altar to lend the
appearance o# a church/ althou?h we cannot licitly erect a church per se. The tellers shall
sit at a ta$le directly outside the co33union rail and the electors shall sit in pews or stand
as the laity are want to do in churches throu?hout the world.
Thirdly/ o##icers o# the election shall $e selected solely $y date o# -aptis3/ Cor
date o# Pro#ession o# &aith #or validly $aptiIed non=Catholics later received into the
ChurchD. The sacristan shall recite the 6eni Creator and prayer accordin? to the ru$rics
standin? $e#ore the attar outside the co33union rail. *nly 3en shall serve in o##icial
capacity as o##icers o# the election accordin? to the tradition o# the Church and the spirit
o# Canon )aw.
&ourthly/ wo3en shall $e quali#ied to vote/ as the privile?e is e9tended to the
PE*P)E/ that is/ 3en and wo3en without distinction. Canon '( dealin? with the
interpretation o# privile?es states/ privile?es which ?rant an e9e3ption #ro3 the law in
#avor o# private individuals 3ust $e strictly interpreted% in no case should the
interpretation $e so ri?orous that the privile?e con#ers no $ene#it #or so3e $ene#it 3ust
2
See #ootnote a$ove.
'1
accrue #ro3 the privile?e. A ST5"CT interpretation would 3andate the "+C)US"*+ o#
wo3an voters. Wo3en shall have the ri?ht o# vote alon? with 3en/ su$Gect to the sa3e
quali#ications as 3en. *# course wo3en cannot validly receive a vote or $e elected/ as
!ivine law prohi$its this. The wo3en shall have their heads covered and re3ain silent in
the election with the e9ception o# the recitation o# the prayer i33ediately precedin? their
vote and the Goinin? in the prayer $e#ore each $allot accordin? to the ru$rics. Wo3en
possess do3inative power=and privile?e in this election/ and any deni?ration o# this no$le
state o# wo3en shall not $e tolerated.
&i#thly/ our privile?e was ?ranted prior to the esta$lish3ent o# the conclave and
the circu3stances o# per3ittin? wo3en to vote require that the conclave 3ethod $e
a$andoned in #avor o# an open election. The law esta$lishin? the conclave as the *+).
3ethod to $e used #or papal election did not e9ist until the thirteenth century. The
privile?e a?ain/ 3ust $e interpreted ST5"CT).F and Pope )eo the 8reatAs law le?islated
#or an *PE+ election/ so the privile?e allowin? us to vote calls also #or a return to this
3ethod. "t is o$vious that the ecclesiastical law o# conclave $inds only clerics and
possi$ly only Cardinals/ and our privile?e $ein? an e9ception in an e9traordinary case
requires us to a$ide $y the i3plicit presu3ption o# open election e9istin? when the
privile?e was ?ranted.
Catholics includin? children/ Calthou?h not quali#ied to voteD/ are nevertheless
per3itted to $e present at the election as they were in previous elections where people
voted. *# course/ non=Catholics/ heretics/ apostates and notorious e9co33unicates are
$arred #ro3 the place o# election alto?ether.
WE P)ACE T"S E)ECT"*+ "+ TE A+!S *& TE *). 8*ST
The Sta##
Su33ons
+ote the su33ons was sent to #i#ty people world wide/ includin? su$scri$ers to
update and others who showed interest in a Papal Election at any ti3e.
;2
;1
;2
!eclaration ,ade 0uly 1:/ 1112 Prior to the Papal
Election
We/ the representatives o# the one/ holy/ Catholic and Apostolic Church/ here
asse3$led #or er pro3otion declare%
1. The BelectionB o# An?elo 5oncalli to have $een irre?ular/ illicit/ and invalid.
!ue to his notorious and pu$lic acts o# heresy prior to his BelectionB in 11:(/ he rendered
hi3sel# incapa$le o# $eco3in? Pope/ $ecause o# his departure #ro3 the Church and
resi?nation #ro3 all o##ices in the Church.
2. !ue to the invalid BelectionB o# 5oncalli as Pope/ each and every act o# papal
Gurisdiction or power posited $y hi3 is utterly null and void/ as declared $y Pope Paul "6
in his -ull Cu3 E9 Apostolatus.
4. -ecause o# nu3erous 3en invalidly pro3oted to the cardinalate $y 5oncalli/
the election o# 8iovanni -aptiste ,ontini could not possi$ly have $een valid/ accordin?
to the principles o# canon law. The 11'4 BconclaveB was incapa$le o# electin? a pope.
!ue to his notorious and pu$lic acts o# heresy prior to his BelectionB in 11'4/ ,ontini
rendered hi3sel# incapa$le o# $eco3in? pope/ $ecause o# his departure #ro3 the Church
and resi?nation #ro3 all o##ices in the Church.
<. )i@ewise/ Al$ino )uciani and 7arol WoGtyla could not have $een elected pope/
$ecause at the ti3e o# their BelectionsB/ there re3ained no cardinals in the Catholic
Church. !ue to their notorious and pu$lic acts o# heresy at the Second 6atican Council in
11'2 to 11': and at other ti3es/ they rendered the3selves incapa$le o# electin? a pope/
$ecause o# their departure #ro3 the Church and resi?nation #ro3 all o##ices in the Church.
*win? to their notorious and pu$lic acts o# heresy prior to their respective BelectionsB in
11;(/ 0P " and "" rendered the3selves incapa$le o# $eco3in? pope/ $ecause o# their
departure #ro3 the Church and resi?nation #ro3 all o##ices there$y.
TE5E&*5E/ we declare the See o# Peter to $e vacantH This vacancy $e?an
*cto$er 1/ 11:(/ with the death o# Pope Pius E"" and has continued to this day. We
declare each and every apparent action o# the Church #ro3 the date o# election o#
5oncalli/ on *cto$er 2'/ 11:( to the present/ null and void.
We #urther declare%
1. -y the principle o# devolution/ as descri$ed to us $y Cardinal CaGetan and St.
5o$ert -ellar3ine/ we/ the Catholic Church here asse3$led are e3powered to elect a
pope/ $ecause the salvation o# souls and the ?ood o# the Church de3and this action.
2. As the Catholic Church/ we are not e3powered to decide 3atters o# &aith.
4. As the Catholic Church/ we are not e3powered to decide 3atters o# Church
)aw/ e9cept inso#ar as this is directly connected with the election o# the Pope/ and the
letter o# the law is contrary to the #acts.
<. We accept the laws o# the Church as pro3ul?ated $y Pope -enedict E6 in the
Code9 0uris Canonici/ to?ether with any and all a3end3ents $y Popes -enedict E6/ Pius
E"/ and Pius E""/ and $ind ourselves to this law and its proper interpretation. &urther/ we
$ind ourselves to the papal election laws o# Pius E""/ as set out in 11<:F dispensin?
ourselves/ however/ #ro3 those parts o# this law which are contrary to divine law and
hi?her canon law/ or presu3e the #act that cardinals e9ist.
!eclaration i33ediately $e#ore enterin? the Conclave%
;4
&inally/ we declare/ that havin? deter3ined the a$yss3al state o# the Church
today/ we shall proceed i33ediately to a papal electionF that is/ to convene a conclave o#
quali#ied voters. Those o# us votin? #urther declare to vote #or the one who/ $e#ore 8od/
will Gud?e us/ and the one we $elieve 3ost quali#ied to $e elected.
Si?ned
,iss Andriessen CPro#ession o# &aith 3ade in the +etherlands and $rou?ht with
her.D
!avid Allen -awden CPro#ession o# &aith 3ade in 7ansas 0uly (/ 1112D
7ennett !avid Tho3as -awden CPro#ession o# &aith 3ade in 7ansas 0uly (/
1112D
Clara -awden CPro#ession o# &aith 3ade in 7ansas 0uly (/ 1112D
Teresa )ouise Stan#ill -enns CPro#ession o# &aith 3ade in 7ansas 0uly 1</ 1112/
with 5o$ert 7 unt/ !iane , unt and !avid A -awden as witnessesD
!iane ,ar?aret Therese &oltin? unt CPro#ession o# &aith ,ade in ,ichi?an/
0uly 12/ 1112D
5o$ert 7enneth 0oseph unt CPro#ession o# &aith ,ade in ,ichi?an/ 0uly 12/
1112D
!avid -awden as " 7now i3
Enclosed with this testi3onial you will #ind !avidUs li#e history in his own words/
so " shall not re#er to it here e9cept in passin?. 5ather it " 3y intention to provide you/
the voters/ with an o$Gective portrait o# !avid -awden as " have @nown hi3 durin? the
past seven years.
Even $e#ore " 3et !avid and his parents/ !iane unt had i3pressed 3e with her
#requent accounts o# Gust how 3uch the -awden #a3ily had contri$uted ti3e and 3oney=
wise to the St. Pius E Society/ durin? the ter3 o# their co33it3ent to this or?aniIation.
C!iane unt and her #a3ily had ?iven up $oth ho3e and #a3ily to #ollow her aunt and
uncle to St. ,arys where she had $eco3e acquainted with the -awdens.D So the
-awdenUs #a3e preceded the3 in Colorado/ $ut it was not lon? $e#ore " was to 3eet
!avidUs 3other/ Tic@ie/ throu?h !iane. We #irst 3et in the #all o# 11(4/ and " realiIed
i33ediately that " had acquired a V@indred spiritW/ so to spea@. +early every ni?ht durin?
her stay we say up into the wee hours discussin? the un$elieva$le situation in the Society
prior to the $rea@ occasioned $y the -olduc scandal. " was very i3pressed with her
shrewd ?rasp o# a##airs in the Church at that ti3e and her @nowled?e o# Church teachin?
and Church history. We have re3ained #riends throu?hout the years/ and she was
instru3ental in helpin? 3e to develop certain lines o# thou?ht which led to the
conclusions #ound in the $oo@/ especially all the in#or3ation developed #ro3 the wor@
Xoly -lood oly 8railU.
" #irst corresponded with !avid in late 11(4/ when " sou?ht his advice concernin?
whether " should continue to attend the V3assW o# V&r.W !an 0ones. " $e?an to see@ his
opinion re?ularly in reli?ious 3atters when " discovered that he never ?ave a hasty
response/ $ut too@ the ti3e necessary to thorou?hly research the 3atters. *win? to the
sound counsel o# !avid and his 3other/ " was a$le to avoid 3isleadin? countless souls
$elievin? a vicious heresy. Even when they could not e9actly put their #inder on a
pro$le3/ this 3other and son see3ed a$le to sense dan?ers to the #aith. )e#t without a
;<
Catholic ?uide #ollowin? the split with 0onesU ?roup/ " ?ladly relied on !avid and his
3other.
" was particularly i3pressed with the #act that even thou?h !avid had $een
3ali?ned and calu3niated $y the Society/ even thou?h other VCharita$le CatholicsW
continued to $elittle or i?nore hi3/ he never lost si?ht o# his vocation/ which he #irst #elt
the ur?in?s o# at the a?e o# ten. At a ti3e when his peers were 3arryin? and $e?innin?
#a3iliesF when his Ar3ada class3ates were assi?ned to territories and cele$ratin?
V3asses/W !avid re3ained devoted to study/ #raternal correction/ and catechetical
instruction. e continued to recite his $reviary and re3ained o$edient to his parents. e
tried various 3odes o# occupation/ $ut each ti3e he ventured out into the wor@in? world/
8od see3ed to show hi3 that the talents he possessed could only $e used in de#ense o#
the #aith.
"n 11(</ !avid wrote his X0urisdiction !urin? the 8reat Apostasy.W
4
+o one/
especially none o# the priests who appeared to $e so devoted to their #loc@s/ had
concerned the3selves with *-E!"E+CE. !enied a superior/ despite the #act that he had
#aith#ully investi?ated all the possi$ilities #or co3pletin? his se3inary studies/ !avid was
deter3ined to #ollow all the laws o# 8odUs Church/ even i# it 3eant the loss o# the ,ass
and Sacra3ents. is treatise was the only e9a3ination on the su$Gect presented post
6atican "". "t was the only wor@ to re#lect any erudition whatsoever in the #ield o# Canon
)aw at that ti3e. "n 11(<=(: utton 8i$son and ,artin 8wynne had atte3pted to
venture into this #ield as well/ $ut neither o# these 3en were a$le to prove their thesis
conclusively/ despite their literary a$ilities. Althou?h not naturally ?i#ted with such
a$ilities/ !avid was a$le to prove his thesis conclusively $y relayin? solely on the
,a?isteriu3 o# the Church throu?hout the centuries. The #orce and $eauty o# these 3uch
3ali?ned do?3as spo@e louder than the #loweriest o# phrases/ and won hi3 the day.
Sadly/ #ew $othered to con#ir3 his research #or o$vious reasons/ even thou?h he ur?ed
the3 to do so in the piece itsel# and #reely invited #raternal correction in the event o# any
errors had $een 3ade. Althou?h the treatise was 3ailed to 3any priests/ none responded
#avora$ly or $othered to point out any errors. "n the $e?innin? " 3ysel# even #ound it to
$e a Vhard sayin?W/ $ut a#ter 3y harrowin? e9perience with ,artin 8wynne/ " was $etter
prepared to listen to reason/ havin? e9perienced 3adness.
"n the #all o# 11(</ !avid had his own $rush with ,artin 8wynne a#ter " put
,artin in touch with hi3. &or three wee@s !avid was 8wynneUs ?uest in )ondon while/
on the other side o# the world/ 3y #a3ily and " were $ein? su$Gected to 8wynneUs partner
0ohn !aly and Cwi#e o# ,artinD &rederic@a 8wynne. )i@e 3ysel#/ ,artin had paid
!avidUs way to )ondonon/ and insisted !avid #ollow his 0ansenistic re?i3e. Unli@e 3e/
!avid s3elled a rat a#ter only a #ew wee@s and returned to the U.S. That a$ility to Vs3ell
out a ratW had stood hi3 in ?ood stead a?ain. -e#ore he le#t )ondon/ 8wynne had
declared hi3 Vthe $est intellect " the U.S.A.W
&ollowin? 3y return #ro3 Australia in ,arch o# 11(:/ " was an e3otional wrec@.
,y #aith was #lounderin? and 3y li#e was in a sha3$les. !avid and his 3other were
deeply concerned and 3ade a special trip to !enver to Vdepro?ra3 3e.W They were very
patient/ very cheer#ul/ and very supportive. ad they not sensed 3y truly desperate
situation and o##ered to co3e/ " 3i?ht not have 3y #aith today. "t was a#ter their visit that
4
Actually this was written in +ove3$er o# 11(:. " wrote a letter to friends at the end o# 11(4/ which
would have $een received in early 11(<. Teresa does so3eti3es 3iss dates.
;:
" deter3ined to place 3ysel# under !avidUs tutela?e. "t would still ta@e 3e two years to
co3pletely accept Gurisdiction/ $ut durin? those two years " did not receive the
sacra3ents or attend ,ass/ since !avid had warned 3e " could not do so until " had
reached certitude.
&ollowin? !avidUs visit we decided to write an e9pose o# ,artin 8wynneUs ?roup
#or the sa@e o# those still entrapped $y hi3. Even thou?h !avid had advised 3e to
devote ti3e to study $e#ore atte3ptin? to write/ he a?reed we should do this #or the sa@e
o# others. The E9pose was distri$uted only to those directly involved with 8wynne/ $ut
the written report and photocopied research a3ounted to over :2 pa?es. " wrote/ !avid
edited and typed/ and to?ether we co3piled the E9pose in 3uch the sa3e 3anner we
would later write the $oo@.
A#ter this e##ort was co3pleted/ " settled down to a study re?i3e #ull ti3e/
althou?h " had $e?un to study even $e#ore 3y return #ro3 Australia. ,y chosen area o#
interest was the 0udaeo=,asonic conspiracy and eschatolo?y. " studied/ reported to
!avid/ he added in#or3ation/ corrected 3y conclusions/ and reco33ended additional
sources. ,any ti3es the phone lines lit up as so3e wei?hty theolo?ical question was
tossed to and #ro. .et " never saw !avid lose his te3per/ or $eco3e weary o# his role as
tutor. !espite 3y repeated calls and letters and haphaIard 3ethod o# arrivin? at the truth/
!avid stuc@ to his Gurisdiction ?uns and held #ast do?3atically while " #lailed a$out in the
un#a3iliar waters o# Canon law and 3oral and do?3atic theolo?y. To this day " have not
incorporated these truths into 3y very $ein? the sa3e way that !avid hasF " 3ust @eep
re#reshin? 3y 3e3ory over and over a?ain. -ut !avid has internaliIed the3 " such a
way that they see3 to $e a part o# hi3.
!avid held #ir3 on GurisdictionF " $e?an a circuitous return to a na??in? $elie# "
had held since 11(4% we 3ust elect a pope. E3ployin? the very tactics o# 3y teachin?/ "
$e?an to e9pound this idea a#ter #indin? in#or3ation concernin? such a 3ove availa$le
#ro3 other sources. Another acquaintance o# !avidUs would drive this point ho3e to
hi3/ $ut true to #or3/ !avid devoted all his research talents to unearthin? every possi$le
precedent and each and every Canon )aw relevant to the pro$le3 once his 3ind had $een
3ade up. CWhile " proceed $y #urious #its/ stalls and starts/ !avid wor@s do??edly and
purpose#ully once he has identi#ied his intended ?oal.D !urin? this period " wrote the
Papal Election Series with the help o# !avidUs research/ and !avid hi3sel# issued a letter
supportive o# the election e##ort. e also wrote 3any co3ple3entary pieces #or the
series which were never pu$lished/ $ut which are very apropos #or the ti3es.
We $e?an writin? the $oo@ a#ter our 3utual disappointin? e9perience with &r.
Peter 7hoat 6an Tran in Port Arthur/ Te9as. !avid had Gourneyed to Te9as to o$serve
&r. 7hoatUs apostolate there and assist hi3 in its pro3otion should 7hoatUs credentials
prove le?iti3ate. -ecause 7hoat had at least wei?hed the Gurisdiction issue and wor@ed
out a way $y which he see3ed to retain it/ he did not appear to #it into that cate?ory o#
priests who had disre?arded it alto?ether. ,oreover/ he had set up a catechetical e##ort/
which is 3uch needed today. Un#ortunately he vacillated $etween acceptin? 0P"" and
sede vacante/ and e9hi$ited 3any si?ns in the se3inars o# doctrinal insta$ility. When it
#inally ca3e clear to !avid that the apostolate could not $e used to pro3ote the election
and that 7hoat was a heretic/ he cut hi3sel# o## #ro3 hi3 even thou?h it 3ade hi3
physically ill and put in hi3 so3e considera$le dan?er o# losin? his $oo@s and co3puter.
-ecause we had #ailed 3isera$ly to convert 7hoat and his #ollowers to the election idea
;'
despite our #everish doctrinal disputations in #avor o# such a 3ove/ we decided that the
widespread i?norance o# the #aith#ul de3anded #ro3 us a reasoned/ well thou?ht out/
well=researched e9planation o# the crisis in the Church #ro3 11:( to the present/ with the
presentation o# the election process as a solution to that crisis.
"n preparation #or the wor@/ !avid arrived in !enver 0une 11/ 11(1/ already he
had written V)aw/ Un$elie# and eresyW/ and " had written VSleepin? -eauty/ Part H/W and
VThe -e?innin? o# Sorrows.W The wor@ we hoped to acco3plish durin? !avidUs two=
wee@ stay had to do with the or?aniIation and outline #or the $oo@. Also we had so3e
$rain stor3in? to do #or the Traditionalist heresy and Eschatolo?y portions o# the $oo@.
The $rainstor3in? pro$a$ly helped 3e 3ore than anythin?/ since so3e ideas see3 to
co3e alive once they are Vwal@ed throu?hW with so3eone else. The two wee@s went too
quic@ly/ $ut we had 3ade a start. The $oo@ was $orn.
" 3ay have written 3ore o# the $oo@ than !avid/ $ut i# it had not $een #or !avidUs
e9cellent wor@ on law and heresy in Part "/ the $oo@ would have had no #oundation on
which to stand. )i@e a house o# cards it would have collapsed at the #irst si?n o# pressure
#ro3 our critics. Without V0urisdiction !urin? the 8reat ApostasyW in Part ""/ we could
not have hoped to prove the #utility o# Traditionalis3. And the Pro#ession o# &aith in
Part "" was very ti3e consu3in? as well as an accurate su33ary o# those articles o# #aith
3ost o#ten violated today. While " $usied 3ysel# writin? and editin?/ !avid @ept 3e on
schedule $y 3a@in? up pro?ress charts/ @eepin? ta$s on the pa?e count/ chec@in? all
!enIin?er and Canon )aw quotes and arran?in? #or a pu$lisher/ he secured #unds #or
pu$lication/ ran advertise3ents/ and co3piled lists o# prospective readers. When the
co3pleted $oo@ was delivered to the )i$rary/ !avid sent it out/ @ept trac@ o# orders/ and
tallied the pro#its and loses. A#ter the $oo@ ca3e the wor@ #or VUpdateW/ which !avid
typeset and #olded and 3ailed hi3sel#. e also wrote a lar?er share o# Update owin? to
the #act that so 3uch o# what needed to $e covered involved wor@s in Canon )aw/
!avidUs chosen #ield o# study. C*ne reader has co33ented that the 3aterial covered in
Update was #ar 3ore interestin? and in#or3ative than the $oo@ itsel#.D "n addition to all
this !avid and " conducted phone con#erences so3e ti3es 4 or < ti3es a wee@/ si3ply to
3a@e sure that the 3aterial #or the $oo@ and the newsletter was properly correlated and
error #ree. These con#erences dou$led as pep=tal@s #or 3e since without a ?uidin? hand "
tend to stray o## trac@. "n all #airness " 3ust say that without !avidUs assistance we
would not $e here today. " could not have @ept to 3y writin? scheduled/ availed 3ysel#
o# 3oral support anywhere else/ nor ?rounded the $oo@ in the law $y 3ysel#. !avidUs
help 3ade all the di##erence.
"n addition to what "Uve already said here/ " would li@e to add that !avid is
discreet and entirely trustworthy/ attentive to details/ a co3petent litur?ist/ possesses the
adequate ad3inistrative s@ills/ always accepts correction 3ee@ly/ and 3a@es reparation
pro3ptly/ adapts well to new situations/ is #ir3 in his convictions and does not chan?e
sides unless it is clear such a chan?e is a$solutely warranted. Whatever s@ills he 3i?ht
lac@/ !avid has done his $est to acquire. "n spite o# chronic health pro$le3s and sel#=
i3posed poverty/ !avid has done #ar 3ore than 3ost 3en in per#ect health with well=
payin? Go$s to pro3ote the Catholic &aith. is dedications and Ieal is e9ceeded only $y
his stead#astness. -y dint o# sel#=study $e?un at the Vse3inaryW in Econe and on?oin?
today/ !avid has e9ceeded the study require3ents necessary to $e consecrated $ishop/
even thou?h he has no licentiate to prove it. +ow/ as in the past/ he e9cels in Canon )aw/
;;
and do?3atic and 3oral theolo?y. ,any o# his studies in these areas have not yet $een
pu$lished/ althou?h " have the3 in 3y possession. !avid -awden 3ay never had $een
ordained a priest/ in order to avoid displeasin? *ut )ord/ $ut $y virtue o# desire his role
as alter=Christus co33enced lon? a?o.
Teresa ). -enns
This was prepared #or presentation at the Papal Election 0uly 1'/ 1112. "t was
3ade availa$le to all electors in handwritten #or3at/ which is what this was transcri$ed
#ro3. +ote/ since this was prepared #or !avid -awden/ -awden clai3s copyri?ht/
althou?h he does not deny deny -enns ri?ht to reproduce this docu3ent as well. The
sa3e holds true o# the $io?raphy -awden prepared #or -enns.
Why !id Wo3en elp Elect Pope ,ichael "?
-ecause " addressed the wo3en as voters in Will the Catholic Church SurviveY?/
" #eel it is necessary to e9plain why wo3en participated in the papal election despite 3y
state3ents in the $oo@ indicatin? that they C*U)! +*T vote. *n pa?e QQQQ o# the
$oo@/ readers were told that #urther research and reader questions would $e addressed in
a supple3ent to the $oo@ entitled Election Update. -ecause very #ew readers ordered
Update/ i# did not $eco3e ?eneral @nowled?e that so3e research #inds had $een 3ade
concernin? this su$Gect/ which *-)"8ATE! wo3en to vote under pain o# 3ortal sin. "n
our Special "ssue Update 3ailed ,ay 41
st
/ we addressed this 3atters and thorou?hly
e9a3ined the particulars involved. CThis issue o# Update can still $e o$tained #or R2
#ro3 Christ the 7in? )i$rary.D To su33ariIe our proo#s in this issue/ we would #irst li@e
to re#er the reader to pa?es 422=421 o# the $oo@/ where we report the +icholas "" in his
decree li3itin? the electors o# the Pope to Cardinals/ provided that the #or3er 3ethod o#
layOclerico election could $e returned to in the #uture/ and would still $e considered
law#ul. -ecause the supre3e law?iver/ the Pope/ had authoriIed such a departure/ we
cited this #act as proo# that lay3en could vote in a papal election. .et we did not
auto3atically e9tend this privile?e to wo3en/ $ecause #or 122 years the privile?e had
$een invested only in the cardinals. This despite the #act that others su??ested wo3en
should vote/ and we @new that the people o# 5o3e/ 3en and wo3en had ta@en part in
this type o# election in the past. -ecause we always true to #ollow what see3s to $e the
sa#er course/ we do not auto3atically Gu3p to conclusions unless stron? evidence #irst
provides Gusti#ication #or such a 3ove. "n this case we were loathe to cause scandal/ since
3any Catholics un#a3iliar with our doctrinal stand 3i?ht assu3e that i# we allowed
wo3en to vote/ they would $e allowed at the altar and in other positions usually occupied
$y 3ales in the Church. This/ o# course/ is out o# the question. What was not the
practice o# the Church prior to 11:( shall not $e put into practice now. *# course wo3en
as priests is a 3atter o# !ivine law/ and as such could never $e considered as a #uture
possi$ility/ since Christ desi?nated 3en only as eli?i$le candidates #or the priesthood. "t
3ay see3 #oolish to spell this out/ $ut so3eone will surely use it a?ainst the Church and
,ichael " i# we do not.
.et the stron? precedents set $y Pope )eo the 8reat and +icholas "" cause us to
re=e9a3ine the 3atter/ and as a result we discovered that 1D the 3any centuries o#
layOclerico elections esta$lished a custo3 in the ChurchF 2D This custo3 then acquired the
;(
status o# a privile?e with +icholas ""Us decree on cardinalsF 4D -ut such a privile?e could
+*T $e e9ercised $ecause the Church/ le?islated otherwise in appointin? cardinals as the
*5!"+A5. electors. The only way the #aith#ul could elect/ then/ was in a situation
where cardinals no lon?er e9isted and it was i3possi$le #or $ishops to call a ?eneral
council. &or the ?ood o# the Church the Canon ?overnin? privile?es co33and voters to
use their privile?e or incur ?rave sin #or #ailures to do so. +ot even the Canons e9cusin?
Catholics #ro3 certain o##enses on the ?rounds o# #ear are o# any help here/ #or i# #ear has
caused any Catholic to co33it a cri3e which causes conte3pt o# the #aith or pu$lic
inGury to souls/ the #ear will not e9cuse hi3 #ro3 incurrin? the ipso #acto penalty attached
to the said cri3e. When the Church has under?one innu3era$le tor3ents and prostituted
as She has $een $y the 5o3an usurpers/ how can it $e said that this is not conte3pt o# the
#aith and pu$lic inGury to countless souls? This also relates $ac@ to Canon 142: and our
duty to de#end the &aith or $e ?uilty o# heresy. "# the privile?e had $een accorded to
wo3en $y anyone other than the 5o3an Ponti##s/ or i# su##icient nu3$ers o# 3en had
co3e #orward to elect the Pope/ perhaps the issue o# wo3en as voters would not have
$een re=e9a3ined. .et considerin? Canon '(/ this would still have $een an un#air
restriction o# wo3enUs ri?ht to vote. Who are we to question the wisdo3 o# popes who
allowed wo3en to vote in #or3er a?es? And who reduced this custo3 to a privile?e
which 3a@es no 3ention o# e9cludin? the3? Silence i3plies consent/ as the rule o# law
declares. Canon '( reads that VY in no case should the interpretation Co# a privile?eD $e
so ri?orous that the privile?e con#ers no $ene#it/ #or so3e $ene#it 3ust accrue #ro3 the
privile?e.W +ot only can this canon $e seen to apply to wo3en Cas well as Canon '1/
which requires the holders o# a privile?e to use it where !ivine law is concernedD/ $ut it
can also $e applied to relatives o# the pope who were allowed to vote. Could the other
voters have #or$idden the3 to vote and deprived the3 o# their ri?hts when Canon '(
clearly states that this is to $e done in +* case? Could the unrelated voters have
overridden the decrees o# two popes ?rantin? these privile?es? +ot i# they wished to
re3ain o$edience to the Canons. ow could the relatives o# certain 3en $een e9cluded
#ro3 the earlier layOclerico elections held in 5o3e/ 3erely $ecause their son or $rother or
?randson etc./ 3i?ht $e elected pope? Co33on sense tells us this would have $een
ridiculous. The Canons ?overnin? canonical elections 3a@e no 3ention o# e9cludin?
relationsF only those who are not true 3e3$ers o# the votin? $ody $ecause they have
either lost the #aith/ or resi?ned their ri?hts. "# anyone were to question the validity o# the
election Cand they CA++*T do so #ro3 a canonical standpointD/ they would need to
prove that Pope ,ichael would not have received the 3aGority vote without the votes o#
his parents. This they cannot do. All o# us who voted in this election @new that we were
$ound $y the laws o# the Church to vote only #or the 3ost worthy 3ale candidate. The
laws/ then/ 3ade our choice an easy one. *nly Pope ,ichael a3on? the three 3ale
candidates possessed the @nowled?e and dedication to the cause o# oly ,other Church
necessary to $e considered a worthy candidate. We @new what the reproaches o# our
ene3ies would $e/ $ut this could not have chan?ed our choice.
Any truly interested in resolvin? the prolon?ed Sede 6acante and pro#essin? their
#aith would have studied the $oo@/ ordered and studied Update/ su$3itted ti3ely
Pro#essions o# &aith and participated in the election. Those who cast aspersions
concernin? #e3ale voters have de3onstrated their $ad #aith $y not o$servin? the a$ove.
Their o$Gections are dishonest and reveal the3 as ene3ies o# the Church.
;1
"t is i3portant #or #aith#ul Catholics to understand that while the research #or the
$oo@ spanned a ten year period/ the actual writin? process too@ only seven 3onths and
was co3pleted $y three people. ,ichael " and " wrote the $oo@/ avera?in? 1/222 words a
day. We did all our own proo#readin?F chec@ed all our own doctrinal and canonical cites.
" separated the $oo@ into sections/ did the editin?/ set the artwor@ in place and arran?ed
#or the cover art/ co3piled the inde9 and wor@ed closely with out third CpaidD contri$utor/
the typesetter. -ecause " live in !enver and the Pope resides in 7ansas/ all our
co33unication was done throu?h the 3ails and over the phone/ save #or a two wee@
period o# $rainstor3in? to help deter3ine what su$Gects would $e included in the $oo@.
The #uture pope and his parents arran?ed #or the #inancin? with the printers/ pro3oted the
$oo@ and distri$uted it throu?h Christ the 7in? )i$rary. C-ecause o# their su$stantial
contri$utions to the #aith in this re?ard/ when no other Catholics stepped #orward to help/
to deprive the3 o# a vote at the election would have $een especially reprehensi$leD
*win? to li3ited #unds and this $ac@$rea@in? schedule/ we could only present so 3uch
in#or3ation in the $oo@ and cover the su$Gects in a ?eneral way. We e9plain this in
pro3otin? XUpdateW in the $ac@ o# the $oo@. u3anly spea@in?/ " do not @now how
3uch 3ore we could have done durin? this ti3e period without su##erin? #ro3 3ental
and physical e9haustion. ,any wish to #ind #ault and conde3n Z no one o##ered to assist
us or dou$le chec@ our research. Since the election/ nothin? has chan?ed. The Pope and
" still wor@ unassisted. +o wor@ers have ea?erly co3e to la$or in the vast vineyard
whose VharvestW o# $iter ?rapes has rotted on the vine. .et we @now that 8od is with us
and that is pro3ises can never #ail. 5ecent world events lead us to $elieve that way/
ever the punish3ent sent $y #or sin/ loo3s o3inously on the horiIon. "n 3y opinion only
the certain devastation o# such a way will #inally $rin? Traditionalists to repentance Cand
others as wellD/ #or there are no atheists in #o9holes/ as the old sayin? ?oes. When the
s3o@e clear and the nu3erous $odies are $uried/ the true restoration o# the Church will
$e?in. -y then the de3ocracy #oisted on the world $y anti=ChristUs syste3 will have
shown its true colors/ and the world will $e weary o# war. .et the Church will stand
a3idst the destruction/ as 8od has pro3ised us. "t does not really 3atter/ then/ who
elected the pope Cas lon? as it was canonical and valid/ which we have provedD/ or how
he was elected. "t 3atters only that he who withholdeth/ holds once a?ain.
1112 $y Teresa -enns transcri$ed #ro3 the handwritten ori?inal o# Teresa -enns $y Pope
,ichael
Copyri?ht notice. "/ !avid -awden/ certi#y that " hold copyri?ht to all #or these
3aterials/ either as author/ editor o# Election Update or as received as a ?i#t a#ter 3y
election as Pope ,ichael to $e used at 3y discretion $y Teresa -enns. " ac@nowled?e/
however/ that -enns retains her ri?hts to said docu3ents with pu$lication ri?hts.
(2

You might also like