election update

8/10/2019 Election Update

1/80

Election UpdateThis serves as a sequel to Will the Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth

Century?

Table of Contents

Update 1...............................................................................................................................2An Papa ereticus !eponi Potest...................................................................................2"n#alli$ility% A &urther !e#inition?..................................................................................'

Update 2...............................................................................................................................(E)ECT"*+ ASSE,-) S)ATE! #or ,*+!A / 0U) 1'/ 1 / ( a3/ at 4 1-5*A!WA / -E)6UE/ 7A+SAS/ U+"TE! STATES.............................................(

E5ET"CA) C*+&US"*+.........................................................................................1CA+*+ )AW/ !"SC"P)"+E/ A+! T E 5ES*)UT"*+ *& !*U-TS *& )AW "+T E C U5C T*!A ..............................................................................................1A W*5! T* *U5 C5"T"CS.......................................................................................1(T E !"&&"CU)T"ES *& C*+T5*6E5S revisited................................................1

Update 4.............................................................................................................................1!"SC"P)"+E/ *-E!"E+CE A+! T E W")) *& 8*!...........................................2

E5ET"CA) C*+&US"*+ Part ""% Pro9i3a &idei.....................................................2:"S T E E)ECT"*+ *& A P*PE SC "S,AT"C?......................................................2;T E WESTE5+ SC "S,...........................................................................................2The Western Schis3.....................................................................................................4T E ,*ST ,"SU+!E5ST**! CA+*+................................................................41

Update


2/80

!eclaration ,ade 0uly 1:/ 1 Prior to the Papal Election........................................;4!avid -awden as " 7now i3.....................................................................................;UA)"&"E! to vote. The lawitsel# 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 onlytheir own will in this 3atter i nore the perilous ti3es in which we live/ and there$y te3pt8od $y allowin the ene3y ti3e to su$vert and eli3inate those Catholics who yetre3ain. We @now that 8od did not allow 8ideon to do $attle until his ar3y had $eenreduced su##iciently/ that 8od 3i ht $e seen to $e all the 3ore lori#ied $y his victoryover the 3any $y so #ew. So it see3s to $e with us. Those who pre#er delay pre#er theirwill to 8od s. Those who would choose quantity o# voters and the a ree3ent o# allvoters over the "+TE85"T o# voters invite unholy co3pro3ise and uarantee the sa3edisaster that $e#ell those who elected 5oncalli% the disquali#ication o# the electors #orheresy 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 $yPope )eo/ a$ove/ $ut Pal3ieri clari#ied this ponti## s state3ent when he wrote% The

2


25/80

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 notsuppose 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. !e 5o3ano Ponti#ice / pa e 4:(D This is $ut arein#orce3ent o# Pope )eo/ and a restate3ent o# St. Tho3as Aquinas teachin and thato# other saints and theolo ians. See Part """/ pa e 2';D

ow !A5E any Catholic pretend a reater @nowled e and Gud e3ent insuch 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 hence 8od s willD/ will $e a$le to posit this election. Unitycannot help $ut #ollow this act/ yet it cannot possi$ly precede it. Those who insist on3aintainin the opposite despite 8od s 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 hisown will. &or nothin can $e so perilous and pernicious as to ta@e as our uide our ownspirit/ directin our steps $y our own li hts. oly A$andon3ent / pa e 1 D

"t 3ust $e re3e3$ered that only )ot escaped the destruction o# Sodo3and 8o3orrahF that only ei ht entered the ar@ o# +oahF that only two o# the "sraelites whole#t E ypt entered the pro3ised landF and #inally/ that only *ur )ady and St. 0ohn wholater 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 $e #ound atCalvary. The Apostles were #ar re3oved #ro3 the si ht/ hidin in the upper roo3 #or #earo# the 0ews. So also 3ay the valid hierarchy re3ain in hidin who Gusti#ia$ly #ear #ortheir lives. We$ster s !ictionary de#ines re3nant as Ba s3all #ra 3ent/ a scant trace.B "no$edience to the will o# 8od/ only three or #ive/ or twelve 3ay asse3$le the3selves toelect a Pope/ $ut this re3nant will asse3$le under per#ect o$edience to that Will and withco3plete trust in i3 who pro3ised never to leave us orphans. &or wherever two orthree are athered in is na3e/ there shall e also a$ide. As Psal3 11 proclai3s% Theythat 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' = 4;4 on the su$Gect o# Conde3ned Propositions. +ote well/ that the penalty o# Canon 241; is incurred ipso #acto #or teachin anyconde3ned doctrine to which a censure has $een attached. owever/ i# the doctrine isconde3ned as heretical/ then the penalty o# Canon 241< is incurred #or the heresy. Canon241; is an e9tension o# the Church s ri ht to teach and de#end Truth/ no 3atter how

revealed. Also the holdin o# so3e doctrine not conde3ned as heretical/ 3ay $y itsapplication/ lead to heresy or $e considered heresy as St. Tho3as teaches. pa e : /

para raph 1D

2:


26/80

"n preparin these articles we have #ound that we un#ortunately o3itted toive 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:/ ':;='(2. !N ;


27/80

considered in#alli$le. The question to which the a$ove list answers is/ Will you pleaselist #or 3e all the in#alli$le pronounce3ents 3ade $y di##erent Popes since the ti3e o#Christ and the Apostles? " 3ean those 3ade on their sole authority and +*T -C*U+C")S. Those decrees o# a Council su$sequently approved $y the Pope are alsoin#alli$le.

Con#usion a ain?

"t should $e o$vious that this list and the one we printed in W")) T ECAT *)"C C U5C SU56"6E T E TWE+T"ET CE+TU5 ? covers so3e o# thesa3e round. ave we atte3pted to deni rate in#alli$le pronounce3ents? -y no 3eans.&irst the list we now have/ is ta@en #ro3 That Catholic Church 1 :


28/80

Since this o$Gection has $een advanced $y one who e9ercises Gurisdictionhe does not have and hence is a schis3aticD we need not consider it at all. This schis3co3es #ro3 his usurpation o# Papal Authority $y e9ercisin Gurisdiction/ which *+)the Pope can rant. &urther3ore we should note/ that his theory 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@ thatthere has $een +* pope since 1 :(/ and that the 3aterialO#or3al ar u3ent can only $esaid to hold true #or enuinely occult heretics who con#or3 to the nor3s laid down $yPius "" and St. 5o$ert -ellar3ine. Since in de#iance o# these nor3s the heresy o# thelast #our popes 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 see Update 1Deven 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 orthe le iti3acy o# the occupant o# the oly See are indeed schis3atics we turned to yet

another Canon )aw co33entary. "n his dissertation The Co33unication o# Catholicswith Schis3atics / 5ev. " natius 0. SIal/ A.-. 0.C.). writes% there is no schis3 involved ...i# one re#uses o$edience inas3uch as one suspects the person o# the Pope/ or the validityo# his election/ or i# one resists hi3 as the civil head o# state. pa e 2D "n support o# thisstate3ent/ SIal cites the concurrin opinion o# si9 di##erent canonists 5ei##enetuel/Sch3alI rue$er/ &erraris/ 6echiotti/ and 6er3eersch and Cruesen. pa es 2=4D As we@now/ si9 is the nu3$er requisite to o$tain certainty in any iven 3atter under Canon2 and the laws overnin certitude itsel#. "t also a rees with the assess3ent o# the 8reatWestern Schis3 $y 5ev. -ertrand Conway/ who in his The >uestion -o9 / who writes%

The 8reat Schis3 was/ there#ore/ not a schis3 in the ordinary sense o# the ter3/ $ecausethere never was any question o# the unity o# the #aith/ nor o# the supre3acy o# the Pope...As &ather 8eor e S3ith says% They were not schis3atics/ $ecause they ac@nowled edthe Papal authority/ did their $est to discover who was its true livin incu3$ent/ and were

prepared to su$3it at once when the discovery was 3ade. Pa es 11 =12 DA$ove we have proven that the act o# a papal election cannot $e

schis3atic/ since it is o$edience to !ivine )aw and the will o# Christ and as such in per#ect con#or3ity to the ecclesiastical discipline/ servant o# *ur )ord and is Church. "nhis -ull E9secra$ilis / 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 questionedthe authority or %he necessity o# the papacy/ and have done all in our power to uncoverthe Truth and do whatever is necessary to end the crisis in the Church.

We have nothin to worry a$out concernin Pius "" s law or any censuresa##ectin schis3atics. Usin the laws o# the Church/ the very will o# 8odD/ to li ht ourway/ we can $e sure o# our sa#e Gourney and its ulti3ate destination. +ot so those whoPharisaically try to trap us/ as they also endeavored to trap *ur )ord. &or it is T E whosee@ #reedo3 #ro3 the strictures o# the law and the necessity o# #ollowin any will otherthan their own. As the Pharisees #ound the3selves cast into the outer dar@ness #or

2(


29/80

denyin the 3ission o# *ur )ord/ so will these 3odern day Pharisees discover the3selvesoutside the Church when a true Pope rei ns a ain.

Teresa Stan#ill -enns

Editor s +ote

As we o to press last Sundays )ow SundayD instruction in 8o##ine sE9planation o# the Epistles and 8ospels we #ind an i3portant re#erence to the 3atter

discussed in the a$ove article.Are we already saved/ i# we $elon to the true Church?+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 Canon )aw=editorD/ #or otherwise the words o# Christ 3ay $e veri#ied in us% And " say to you that3any ... shall $e cast out into the e9terior dar@ness. ,att viii/ 11.D

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/ 5E8A5! A+! *+*5 A))E5 5E8U)AT"*+S A+! C*,,A+!S. That is we 3ust o$ey Canon )aw/ as it is

the e9pression o# 8od s si ni#ied will. "t is appropriate that the lesson o# 5ev. )eonard8o##ine touches on the su$Gect we also discuss this wee@.

the Editor

T E 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 aspecial issue to $e released within the ne9t 3onth. Accordin to &r. Conway/ theCatholics livin durin the Western Schis3 were not schis3atics. owever/ technicallyspea@in they would $e considered 3aterial schis3atics #or #ollowin an anti=Pope/ asA)) three clai3ants were invalid. This we prove in the $oo@. pa es < :=< (D Thereason &r. Conway 3a@es his state3ent is si3pleF these people were not schis3atics/ #orall the reasons he enu3erates. They were 3aterial schis3atics/ $ecause o# the3achinations o# politicians see@in to usurp the Papal See/ not $ecause o# any cri3e ontheir own part. "n #act/ the 3e3$ers o# the Church were innocent pawns in these3achinations. &urther3ore they were totally innocent/ $ecause each clai3ant to the Seewas +*T a heretic and there#ore not $arred #ro3 $ein elected Pope. -ecause o# thedoctrine 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 $ecause it was 3orereasona$le to assu3e that one o# these was valid/ than that all three were invalid. "n #acthistorians are unani3ous in declarin that one o# the three lines was valid/ althou h theydisa 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 sedevacante does not invalidate the doctrine o# perpetual successors.

2


30/80

So3e have erroneously concluded #ro3 our opinion/ which contradicts theunani3ous "ST*5"CA) opinion/ that we $elieve the See o# Peter 3ay re3ain vacantinde#initely. *n the contrary we $elieve #ro3 the precedent o# the Western Schis3 that< 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 thisdisa ree3ent we $elieve the Church allows us to speculate on the 3atter.

,any sede occupantists and the 3aterialO#or3al crowd hold that/ li@e theCatholics durin the Western Schis3/ we 3ust attach ourselves to the pope . They tell us0ohn Paul "" is the only valid clai3ant/ $ecause the other clai3ants are so o$viouslyinvalid. *# course/ there is the Siri crowd/ who accepts hi3 as a hidden pope/ Siri isru3ored to have appointed a successor. e was also a heretic/ and since he died withouthavin 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 precedentthey 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/ who had dropped all three clai3ants/ provin they were notPope $y the principle papa du$ius/ papa nullus D/ elected ,artin 6/ 3aterial heretics/

who had erroneously $een deceived as Christ prophesied the elect will $e deceived $utwho are now returned to the ChurchD/ will elect the ne9t Pope. +ote that in the previouscase these people had reGected A)) three clai3ants $y deposition/ or in one casevoluntary resi nation o# the clai3ant. "n our case/ we 3ust reGect all the current clai3antsto the Papal SeeF not only those wearin white dresses/ $ut also those who clai3 to $ePope $y their actions/ the Traditionalist priests and $ishops.D "n addition we 3ust reGecteach 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 $oldly. *nlythen can we hope to quali#y to elect a Pope/ or e9pect the oly 8host to end thisintolera$le interre nu3.

!avid -awden

The Western Schis3"n Election Update nu3$er 4/ we proposed that all three lines in the Western Schis3were invalid. See "s The Election o# a Pope Schis3atic/ towards the endD owever/since oin to press in 1 / new 3aterial has $een discovered. This 3aterial in no wayinvalidates the election/ $ut rather provides #urther proo# o# the validity o# the Election o#Pope ,ichael.Pope -enedict "6 says% to-day it is evident that Urban VI, and his successors werelegitimate Pontiffs. Ur$an 6" was the #irst elected at the ti3e o# the Western Schis3/ asecond clai3ant elected $y the sa3e Cardinals si9 3onths later and a third line started atthe Council o# Pisa/ which none hold to $e le iti3ate. < years a#ter the election o#Ur$an 6"/ his successor/ the true Pope/ 8re ory ""/ resi ned in #avor o# a new election

4
http://www.vaticaninexile.com/ElectionUpdate/ElectionofaPopeSchismatic.htmlhttp://www.vaticaninexile.com/ElectionUpdate/ElectionofaPopeSchismatic.html


31/80

at the Council o# Constance. This decision o# Pope -enedict "6 was not availa$le to usat the ti3e/ $ut was discovered later.What this proves is the contention that the #irst election is always considered valid/ withone notable exception . The election o# a non3e3$er o# the Catholic Church/ such as aheretic or an apostate is invalid/ $ecause it is i3possi$le #or a heretic to $eco3e Pope.

Saint Antonine o# &lorence as reported in Studies in Church istory/ volu3e 2/ pa e:4 D% Although it is necessary to believe that there is but one supreme head of theChurch, nevertheless, if it happens that two Popes are created at the same time, it is notnecessary for the people to believe that this one or that one is the legitimate Pontiff theymust believe that he alone is the true Pope who has been regularly elected, and they arenot bound to discern who that one is as to that point, they may be guided by the conductand opinion of their particular pastor. owever/ note well/ he requires the3 to $esu$Gect to the Pope. Since he wrote at the ti3e o# the Western Schis3/ he did notconsider the possi$ility o# an heretical clai3ant. owever/ in our ti3es/ certain clai3antscan $e set aside #or heresy/ since it is i3possi$le #or so3eone to $e head o# the Church hehas le#t $y heresy.

T E ,*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 the3with per3ission to see@ A+ priest #or the Sacra3ents. "n this issue we shall reviewCanon 22'1/ para raph 2 and its applica$ility or lac@ thereo#. Althou h the application o#Canon 22'1/ para raph 2 is quite accepta$le to Traditionalists/ we will #ind thatCanonists consider its use as odiousH

"n our study we shall quote #ro3 the Catholic Encyclopedia / volu3e 6/ pa es '( to '(4 in the article on E9co33unication which ives the old law $ehindCanon 22'1.

Canon 22'1 and 0urisdiction

"n W")) T E CAT *)"C C U5C SU56"6E T E TWE+T"ETCE+TU5 ? pa 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 e9co33unicationdoes not re3ove Gurisdiction. "n his dissertation/ E9co33unication / 5ev. &rancisEdward yland 0C) states/ -esides the power o# orders/ there is required #or validad3inistration o# the Sacra3ent o# Penance/ the power o# Gurisdiction. The vitandi andthe 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 suche9co33unicates is invalid/ pa e ( . There#ore we 3ust conclude that Canon 22(1 doesnot ive Gurisdiction/ as we have already done. 5ev. yland oes on to state that indan 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/ which Canon he states is #or their

$ene#it.D Canons ((2 and 22:2 supply the Gurisdiction/ and Canon 22(1 ives per3issionto 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


32/80

owever/ the old law apparently was stricter/ #or The Catholic Encyclopedia / pa e '(2 states/ Bthe e9co33unicated are #or$idden to receive or ad3inister the3 theSacra3entsD. The sacra3ents are o# course/ validly ad3inistered $y e9co33unicated

persons/ e9cept those penance and 3atri3onyD #or whose ad3inistration Gurisdiction isnecessaryF $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 $e considered invalid/ or at least those o# notorious vitandi / as earlier in the article adistinction was 3ade. "n the old law/ all those under pu$lic sentence were considered

vitandi / unli@e the current law which li3its this de#inition #urther.

Strict "nterpretation

)aws which esta$lish an e9ception #ro3 the law/ 3ust $e interpreted inthe strict sense. / Canon 1 .D Woywod co33ents/ These classes o# laws under Canon1 D 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 lawand to discoura e e9ceptions.B/ pa e 1


33/80

havin e##ect $y o$Gectin to the3 on the score o# e9co33unication and provin thee9istence o# the censure. pa e 1


34/80

dan er o# perversion #or the Catholic party and the o##sprin such 3arria e is #or$iddenalso $y the divine law. Canon 1 '1 provides the precautions which 3ust $e ta@en to $esure there is no dan er o# perversion. Canon 1 '2 provides that the Catholic party 3uststrive #or the conversion o# the non=Catholics party. Canon 1 ;1 e9tends the provisionso# Canons 1 ' =1 '< to 3arria es with un$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. ,*5A)CE5TA"+T that the pro3ises will $e @ept is required $y the Code $e#ore adispensation #ro3 the i3pedi3ent o# 3i9ed reli ion is ranted. Woywod/ pa e ; 2/e3phasis in the ori inal.D Without 3oral certainty the dispensation cannot $e ranted/and Ter aar holds it invalid i# iven without the requisite 3oral certainty. Canon 1 'speci#ically 3entions perversion as the #actor which !ivine )aw considers as invalidatinthe 3arria e. *$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 orawait a Catholic party would save our souls. *ur inconvenience is nothin co3pared tosavin our i33ortal soul.

Canon ((2% We re#er you to pa e 2


35/80

the words/ B#or any Gust causeB/ which i3plies Canon '(2/ accordin to the ecclesiasticalnor3s /

&ro3 active assistance at divine o##icesD/ which entails so3e participation in cele$ratin the divine o##ices servicesD/ not only an e9co33unicatevitandus is to $e $arred/ $ut also E6E5 e9co33unicated person whose

e9co33unication was in#licted $y a declaratory or conde3natory sentence/ *5 W *SEE C*,,U+"CAT"*+ "S *T E5W"SE +*T*5"*US. / Canon 22: D Canon 1;


36/80

the court.D / Woywod pa e 41.D Since we have +* court or superior to in#lictconde3natory sentences/ we have i nored the3 in our discussions.

"n the declaratory sentence/ the law itsel# has already in#licted the penaltyon the $rea@in o# the law/ and the court in which the o##ender is arrai ned 3erelydeclares 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 sentence already pronounced.D / Woywod pa e 41.D The declaratory sentence is si3ply thatF a declarationo# what has already happened once the law was $ro@en. The person e9co33unicatedhi3sel# $y $rea@in the law and the declaratory sentence 3erely 3a@es that #act 3ore

pu$lic and o##icial. "n his Canon )aw thesis% The "pso &acto E##ected !is3issal o#5eli ious / 5ev. -enedict &aller/ *.S.-./ 0..C.)./ reports/ *n 0uly 2 / 1 4< ... thePonti#ical Co33ission #or the Authentic "nterpretation o# the Code...B re3oved all dou$tconcernin the necessity o# a declaration o# #act in ipso #acto sentence.D This responsestates that the declaration o# #ast is not necessary in order that a reli ious 3ay $econsidered as ipso #acto le iti3ately dis3issed... even $e#ore the declaration o# #actta@es place.D pa es 1' and 1(1D The renderin o# this decision would see3 to have

application to our case/ since the dis3issal o# the reli ious under Canon (


37/80

U"5E US T*E PE) SUC &5*, PA5T"C"PAT"*+ AT !"6"+E *&&"CES/ i.e. ,ass/

-enediction/ 6espers/ etc.D. &or these two reasons we are #or$idden to approach anotorious e9co33unicate #or the Sacra3ents under Canon 22'1/ para raph 2. We 3ayonly approach hi3 under para raph 4 o# Canon 22'1 #or a$solution i# the conditionsoutlined 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 """/ >(2 The ,inister o#the oly Eucharist D%

" answer that/ As was said a$ove aa :/ ;D/ heretical/ schis3atical/e9co33unicate/ or even sin#ul priests/ althou h they have the power to consecrate theEucharist/ yet they do not 3a@e proper use o# itF on the contrary they sin $y usin it. -utwhoever co33unicates with another who is in sins/ $eco3es a sharer in his sin. encewe read in 0ohn s Second Canonical Epistle 11D that e that saith unto hi3/ 8od speedyou/ co33unicateth with his wic@ed wor@s. Consequently it is not law#ul to receiveCo33union #ro3 the3/ or to assist at their 3ass. Article D +othin could $e 3oresi3ple. St. Tho3as #urther states/ Still there is a di##erence a3on the a$ove/ $ecauseheretics/ schis3atics and e9co33unicates have $een #or$idden/ $y the Church s sentence/to per#or3 the Eucharistic rite. And there#ore whoever hears their 3ass or receives thesacra3ents #ro3 the3/ co33its sin. e oes on to state that all other sinners need not $eavoided 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 we need the races .

owever St Tho3as states/ -y re#usin to hear the 3asses o# such priests/ or to receiveCo33union #ro3 the3/ we are not shunnin 8od s sacra3entsF on the contrary/ $y sodoin we are ivin the3 honor% $ut what we shun in the sin o# unworthy 3inisters. /

reply to o$Gection 1.D &urther3ore St. Tho3as states in re#erence to heretical/ schis3atic

4;


38/80

and e9co33unicated priests/ such persons as are separated #ro3 the Church $y heresy/schis3/ or e9co33unication/ can indeed consecrate the Eucharist/...F $ut they actwron ly/ and sin $y doin soF and in consequence they do not receive the #ruit o# thesacri#ice/ which is a spiritual sacri#ice. / Article ;.D And #urther/ $ut $ecause he issevered #ro3 the unity o# the Church/ "S prayers A6E +* E&&"CAC . / reply 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 unworthy 3inisters elsewhere in his Su33a/ he re#ers onlyto S"+&U) ,E+ whose sins are to $e rec@oned in 3inor thin sF and only sin#ul 3enwhose activities have not $eco3e pu$lic so as to create scandal . This a rees per#ectlywith 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. See pa e ( o# the $oo@D

-aptis3 alone is allowed to $e con#erred $y heretics and schis3atics/ $ecause they can law#ully $aptiIe in case o# necessityF $ut in +* CASE can theylaw#ully consecrate the Eucharist/ or con#er the other sacra3ents. / reply to o$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# repeainit. We @now that noe only heretics and schis3atics $ut also non=Catholics 3ay -aptiIein case o# necessity/ so lon as they use the proper 3atter and #or3 and have at least theintention o# doin what the Church does/ as the Catechis3 re3inds us. "t is interestin tonote that St. Tho3as does not include apostates in his evaluation. This is $ecause hedou$ts they have the proper intention in re ard to the Sacra3ents/ as we have alreadyde3onstrated. see pa e


39/80


40/80

:. We cannot allow vitandus/ those under declaratory or conde3natorysentence or whose e9co33unication is notorious to ad3inister the Sacra3ents $ecausesuch a one 3ust $e e9pelled.

'. *ur do3inative power allows us to presu3e that notoriouse9co33unicates are equivalent to those under sentence/ $ecause the superior 3ust/ issue

a declaratory sentence/ i# an interested party de3ands it/ or i# the pu$lic wel#are requiresit. / Canon 2224. The laity has an o$li ation/ under Canon 1 4: to denounce such asheretics 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 toreceive the Sacra3ents #ro3 their hands.

(. The ,asses o# heretics/ schis3atics and e9co33unicates are worthless%$ut $ecause he is severed #ro3 the unity o# the Church/ "S prayers A6E +*

E&&"CAC . / reply to o$Gection 4 o# article ; o# St. Tho3as Su33a.D. The oly Eucharist is the #ruit o# the Unity o# the Church/ which has as

its root the Papacy.

!avid -awden Teresa Stan#ill -ennsE!"T*5% !avid -awdenSTA&& W5"TE5% Teresa Stan#ill -enns

Update UA)"&"CAT"*+ACC*5!"+8 T* T E )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 $eco3e quite clear in ourinvesti ations o# this su$Gect/ however. The inane pleas o# those wishin to reach a lar ernu3$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 #aithwe have presented/ and will not need to $e persuaded #ro3 attendin illicit 3asses orsupportin 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 Canon )aw

ives an e9a3ple o# co33on dan er/ Bwhen the law presu3es that in certaincircu3stances ... #or all individuals the dan erD o# sin or o# #raud/ the dan er o#deception or o# perversion e9istsD. pa e '2'D *n pa e 4 2 o# the $oo@ we prove thateven 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 $y law/ and this is the reason #orthe law itsel#. ow 3uch reater the dan er o# the vacancy o# the oly See?H When wecan see that only heresy/ schis3 and perversion has resulted #ro3 an e9tended vacancy o#the See we have a$solutely +* 5"8 T to invo@e epi@eia. Even the li$eral canonists-ouscaren and Ellis ad3it that the 8E+E5A) and A-"TUA) interpretation o# a lawcontrary 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 tosa#e uard the sa#ety and ri hts o# the Church. Epi@eia is a $y=word with TraditionalistsFin their case E6E5 law 3ust $e stretched to allow the3 li$erty/ as thou h they areso3e privile ed class to $e considered a$ove E6E5 law. Clearly this is the ha$ituala$use re#erred to $y the canonists cited a$ove. "n o$edience to 8od s si ni#ied will thosewho truly love i3 will $e no leniency nor pro##er e9cuses. The ood sheep will @nowand respond to their shepherd s voice.

As proven earlier/ nearly A)) the cler y will $e una$le to participate inthe election/ owin to notorious heresy or eneral personal interdict. Will their ina$ilityto participate invalidate the election/ since the law speci#ies a return to election $y peopleA+! cler y? We answer in the ne ative #or the #ollowin reasons% 1D the hi her law

Paul "6 s Cu3 e9... D/ which we have proven to $e the old law underlyin Canon 1';/e9cludes A+ heretic/ lay or cleric #ro3 participatin as a voterF 2D under the principlese3$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 "" has clearly stated

::


56/80

that in the a$sence o# cler y. the laity are to ASSU,E all those #unctions not contrary toChurch law which these cler y would nor3ally per#or3F uali#ied 6oters .

!isquali#ication Cancelled -y A Privile e

Canon 1': deals with privile es/ statin that no one 3ay $e ad3itted tothe electoral colle e who is not a 3e3$er o# that colle e to $e in with ... e9cept in virtueo# privile es le iti3ately acquired... ,oc@ de#ines a privile e as private law thatcon#ers on so3e person or personsD a special #avor contrary to or outside the law.B "$id/

pa e 1';D "n his co33entary on Canon )aw/ Woywod disputes the words private law inthis de#inition/ since law presupposes a society or co33unity. et we shall see that thister3 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 $ythe constitutions o# the various $odies in the Church. *n pa e 1'( ,oc@ in#or3s us thateven lay persons can o$tain the privile e o# participatin in an ecclesiastical election... /and notes that/ The re3oval o# the disa$ility is direct when the disquali#ied personhi3sel# receives the privile e o# sharin in the election... "n our section o# the $oo@entitled Priesthood o# the )aity pa es 4 ( and 412D/ we assert #ro3 Canon )aw andChurch teachin s that the laity has certain 5"8 TS which cannot $e ta@e #ro3 the3.We$ster s Colle iate !ictionary de#ines privile e as% 1. A ri ht or i33unity ranted as a

particular advanta e or #avorF a personal ri ht. Such a privile e has $een de3onstrated $y us on pa es 4 =4 1 o# the $oo@ to have $een ranted $y +icolas "" in his constitution

"n +o3ine / althou h we do not re#er to this concession as a privile e in the [email protected] +icolas "" li3ited the election o# a pope to cardinals in this constitution/ he

nevertheless stated that a return to the #or3er 3ode o# election $y people and cler yDestee3ed and esta$lished $y Pope )eo the 8reat would $e law#ul and even salutary.

"n co33entin on this concession 3ade $y +icolas ""/ 5ev. Anscar Parsons/ inhis wor@ Canonical Elections states that said concession see3s never to have $eenrevo@ed. pa e


57/80

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 +icholas 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 Codeo# Canon )aw can $e iven ... only $y the oly See.B pa e 1''D ere ,oc@ re#ers to

Canon 2:' which treats o# custo3/ since Canon '4 concernin privile es states that acusto3 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 concerninreli iousD in this case/ which a$ro ates all privile es #or3erly ranted e9cept thosecontained in the Code/ or ranted directly $y the oly See See Woywod s co33entaryon Canon ':D. This is also ela$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% Possessiono# a privile e #or 1 years or #ro3 ti3e i33e3orial Gusti#ies the P5ESU,PT"*+ that a

privile e has $een ranted. We @now #ro3 the Catholic Encyclopedia/ 6ol "". Pope/headin viD/ that lay participation in papal election $e an a$out 2:1 and continued #or

several hundred years until +icolas "" s constitution. Clearly this privile e evolved &5*,T E 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 $einterpreted strictly/ so it would see3 that $oth cler y A+! laity would $e required tovote. -ut Canon ;( as e9plored $y Cico nani re#ers us to Canon 22'4/ which deprivese9co33unicates 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 in hisco33entary on Canon 22'1/ para raph 2D and 5ev. ,oc@ on quali#yin electorsD

enerally a ree that si3pliciter tolerati 3ay validly and licitly posit ecclesiastical acts i#not o$Gected to $y the #aith#ul. This is why the laity 3ay vote and yet the cler y 3ay not.The cri3es o# the laity a3ounted only to 3aterial heresy and there#ore these cri3es werenot i3puta$le. -ut clerics were $ound to @now $oth the laws A+! their penalties as wehave shown/ and #or this reason they have lost their privile e to vote.

Canon ' 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 itco3es #ro3 so3e other source.B "n other words/ a 3ere ecclesiastical law could not #orceone 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 so3e other source / we 3ust in#er thatsource 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 $eotherwise e9cused.B "n the $oo@ and in private correspondence we have written thatCatholics are not *-)"8ATE! to vote% that they 3ay renounce their ri ht to vote. Thisis $ecause we were not considerin our a$ility to vote under the aspect o# a privile e $utrather under the canons overnin canonical elections. This canon applies to us $ecause itis $ased on the very principles laid down in the $oo@% !ivine law $inds overecclesiastical law. -ut this canon applies it to A)) quali#ied voters/ and ives the natureo# a co33and. Would those who #ail to vote $e uilty o# 3ortal sin #or re#usin to de#endthe #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

:;


58/80


59/80

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 oure9a3ination 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/ orinter#ere with its canonical #reedo3/ the election is ipso #acto invalid.B Already we havequoted ,oc@ as 3aintainin that a privile e re3oves a disquali#ication. We haveoutlined 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 ; statesthat/ a privile e is to $e considered perpetual unless the contrary is certain. Canon ;' tellsus that privile es are not lost $y non=use. 5ev. Parsons o$viously considers the privile eto still o$tain/ and +icholas "" hi3sel# allowed #or it in the #ace o# his own contraryle islationF so surely we are not certain that it has ceased. "n #act/ theolo ians writinlon a#ter +icholas "" s law cha3pioned our 5"8 T to use it/ $ut only #or the case athand/ i.e./ in sheer necessity. We have evidence/ #urther3ore/ in Canons ' and ;2 thatour privile e has now $een trans#or3ed into an o$li ation. *ur privile e yet enduresdespite the prohi$itions o# Canon 1''. -ut once a Pope is elected we #ully e9pect the law

3andatin 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.


60/80

ad3itted to vote. End o# Canon 1(;D Usin the various Canon )aw dissertations/ wewill co33ent on each o# these disquali#ications individually.

5ev. ,oc@ oes into this disquali#ication in reat detail. is conclusionsrun 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 $ornretarded or $rain da3a ed/ or who $eco3e so as a result o# illness or inGury at a laterdate. ,oc@ deter3ines that all these in this roup whose ". >. s are a$ove : and who arecapa$le o# #ocusin su##iciently on the act o# election and rasp the rave responsi$ilityinherent in such an actD/ could $e considered quali#ied to vote. When there is dou$t as toquali#ication/ the voter s 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 avote #or e9pulsion 3ay $e cast. Pius "" s Constitution on papal election/ 6acantisApostolic Sedis / also allows #or the deter3ination o# such 3atters $y a 3aGority vote.Co33entin on this Constitution/ Woywod writes% B... all 3aGor questions 3ust $e le#tDto 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 %hisroup 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 notsu##erin #ro3 hysteria or so3e disruptive type o# neurosis. et it 3ust $e o$served thatthose 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 druusers/ even i# they are recovered / since these individuals are so3eti3es @nown to su##er#ro3 Chronic -rain Syndro3e and other disorders related to their condition. This isespecially true o# those who have used 3ind=alterin dru s )S!/ PCP/ peyote shroo3s /etc.D #or any len th o# ti3e. ,oc@ also treats the case o# de3onic possession andconcludes/ naturally/ that such un#ortunates are incapa$le o# votin .

2. "ndividuals 3ust have co3pleted their 1


61/80

sententiae censure. All o# these parallel Canons provide #urther proo# o# the ri ht to votea#ter a e 1


62/80

validly $aptiIed and raised as non=Catholics/ in the Society o# Pius #or e9a3pleD/would not $e held disquali#ied. +ote well/ that they 3ust re3ove the3selves #ro3. thissect and 3a@e the Pro#ession o# &aith and a$Guration o# heresy to $e consideredquali#ied.D

cD E TE5+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 so3e3anner. Priests are under o$li ations which prohi$it the3 to e9ercise their orders inA+ way i# they have incurred censure #or heresy/ apostasy or schis3. Althou h they3ay not co3e under the e9co33unication #or apostasy/ heresy or schis3/ they 3aynone=the=less $e irre ular #or e9ternaliIin their apostasy/ heresy or schis3 occultly. Thee9ternaliIation o# a cri3e punished $y irre ularity $e#ore only *+E person is su##icientto 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. Sincethe 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 !elict o# eresy / 5ev. Eric ,ac7enIie writes% Bit isclear that they co33it no sin o# heresyB/ i# 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. pa e 2


63/80

4. Priests also )*SE T E"5 *&&"CE under Canon 1((K


64/80

support this state3ent/ 5ev. Swo$oda cites an instruction #ro3 the oly *##ice issued&e$ruary 1/ 1(;1/ and retained in 8asparri s Sources o# Canon )aw .D Pa es 24 =2< D&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 Canon22


65/80

su##iciency o# the satis#action/ or the sincerity o# the pro3ise rests=with the one #ro3who3 a$solution #ro3 the censure is requested.B

The individuals we re#er to a$ove have persisted in their errors 1D!espiteclear and co3pellin evidence to the contraryF 2D &or lon periods o# ti3e% 4D Usuallyin 3ore than one 3atterF


66/80

endD owever/ since oin to press in 1 / new 3aterial has $een discovered. This3aterial in no way invalidates the election/ $ut rather provides #urther proo# o# thevalidity o# the Election o# Pope ,ichael.

Pope -enedict "6 says% to=day it is evident that Ur$an 6"/ and hissuccessors were le iti3ate Ponti##s. Ur$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 athird line started at the Council o# Pisa/ which none hold to $e le iti3ate. < years a#terthe election o# Ur$an 6"/ his successor/ the true Pope/ 8re ory ""/ resi ned in #avor o# anew election at the Council o# Constance. This decision o# Pope -enedict "6 was notavaila$le to us at the ti3e/ $ut was discovered later.

What this proves is the contention that the #irst election is alwaysconsidered valid/ with one nota$le e9ception. The election o# a non3e3$er o# theCatholic Church/ such as a heretic or an apostate is invalid/ $ecause it is i3possi$le #or aheretic to $eco3e Pope.

Saint Antonine o# &lorence as reported in Studies in Church istory/volu3e 2/ pa e :4 D% 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 sa3eti3e/ it is not necessary #or the people to $elieve that this one or that one is the le iti3atePonti##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 $ythe conduct and opinion o# their particular pastor. owever/ note well/ he requires the3to $e su$Gect to the Pope. Since he wrote at the ti3e o# the Western Schis3/ he did notconsider the possi$ility o# an heretical clai3ant. owever/ in our ti3es/ certain clai3antscan $e set aside #or heresy/ since it is i3possi$le #or so3eone to $e head o# the Church hehas le#t $y heresy.

5i hts *# The Universal Church To 6oteWe have covered all o# the $asics in connection with the quali#ication o# electors/

either $y class or individually in this special Update . +ow we co3e to so3e o# theunanswered 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 )awAccordin 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# anelection $eca3e o$taina$le. Accordin to Canon / law which is pu$lished $eco3ese##ective three 3onths #ro3 the date o# pu$lication. "n our case that date is April 2:th/ sothe 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 $ei3possi$le/ so the election will ta@e place on or $e#ore 0uly 2:th/ 1 / as Canon 1'2 is

$ound also in heaven.

''


67/80

The i33ediate question which co3es to 3ind concerns the disquali#ication o# all precedin classes o# voters. The Cardinals are certainly disquali#ied/ as are the Canonso# St. 0ohn )ateran and the -ishopsD/ $ecause they are presu3ed to @now the true #actsand 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/ whichconstitutes a do3inative power o# the laity over the cler y. The cler y who re3ained inthe Church not only @new o# the vacancy/ $ut were 3orally certain o# it and should have@now o# the necessity o# a Papal Election. So3e o# these clerics @new o# the possi$ilityo# a Papal Election over a decade a o/ $e#ore the sede vacante theory was @nown a3onthe laity at all. The cler y had the a$ility to @now these thin s and were o$li ed to #indthe truth #or the3selves and #or the laity. Althou h $arred #ro3 ecclesiastical #unction/the cler y still has a duty in charity to the laity to provide us with the truth/ as they have#ar easier access to it than we do and are trained to use these tools. Until 0anuary 2:th o#this year 1 D there was not availa$le an adequate dissertation on the pro$le3s in the

Church/ includin the sede vacante and a road 3ap to a a$solution. As such/ then/ it wasnot possi$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 yearand could not $e disquali#ied/ as the Canonists hold that i norance o# the vacancy and thenecessity o# election e9cuse.

C*+C)US"*+ 1% *nly the laity re3ain quali#ied as a class to elect a Pope underthe principle o# devolution and presu3ption o# law. T E5E&*5E anyone who quali#iesas an elector 3ust quali#y as a lay3an.

>uali#ication *# )ay3en To 6oteavin 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'thand quali#ied to vote will $e the electors o# the ne9t Pope. "n addition to the quali#icationsenu3erated a$ove/ we 3ust consider several other quali#ications. To do this we 3ustreview the various proo#s o# our ri hts as lay3en.

"s Election A 0urisdictional Act?"n W")) T E CAT *)"C C U5C SU56"6E T E TWE+T"ETCE+TU5 ? we presented proo#s o# the laity s 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#

';


68/80


69/80

with law and custo3 in the United States and other En lish spea@in countries.D Thecler 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 waituntil the Pope can decide what shall $e done.

Chan es "n Election ProcedureSince 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 W")) T ECAT *)"C C U5C SU56"6E T E TWE+T"ET CE+TU5 ? was $ased on the

presu3ption that the .electors would elect as replace3ents o# the Cardinals and not $asedon their privile e to act as electors "+ T E"5 *W+ 5"8 T in this e9tre3e case.There#ore the presu3ption 3ust yield to truth. We shall now outline the chan es inelection procedure $ased on the privile e o# the laity to elect/ when all other classes have#ailed.

A3end3ent o# Election ProcedureTo $e in with/ the electors shall wear lay dress/ since they are actin as lay3en

e9ercisin a privile e ranted the3 $y +icolaus "". 2 Even the cler y/ who 3ay perchance quali#y/ can only quali#y as lay3en/ since they have already disquali#iedthe3selves as a class. Althou h Canon )aw directs the3/ ordinarily to wear the properecclesiastical dress/ the cler y has a$andoned this dress and their a$andon3ent shall $ecarried on into the election/ i# they are quali#ied to vote. "t is 3ost li@ely that no cleric canquali#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 outsidethe Co33union rail as they would have done in people and cler y elections $e#ore

+icolaus 11. There#ore/ the sanctuary will $e s3all to provide #or an altar to lend theappearance o# a church/ althou h we cannot licitly erect a church per se. The tellers shallsit at a ta$le directly outside the co33union rail and the electors shall sit in pews or standas 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/ ordate o# Pro#ession o# &aith #or validly $aptiIed non=Catholics later received into theChurchD. The sacristan shall recite the 6eni Creator and prayer accordin to the ru$ricsstandin $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 spirito# 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 theinterpretation 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 theinterpretation $e so ri orous that the privile e con#ers no $ene#it #or so3e $ene#it 3ust

2 See #ootnote a$ove.

'


70/80

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 sa3equali#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 inthe 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$lestate o# wo3en shall not $e tolerated.

&i#thly/ our privile e was ranted prior to the esta$lish3ent o# the conclave andthe circu3stances o# per3ittin wo3en to vote require that the conclave 3ethod $ea$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 $e interpreted ST5"CT) F and Pope )eo the 8reat s law le islated#or an *PE+ election/ so the privile e allowin us to vote calls also #or a return to this3ethod. "t is o$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/ althou h not quali#ied to voteD/ are nevertheless

per3itted to $e present at the election as they were in previous elections where peoplevoted. *# course/ non=Catholics/ heretics/ apostates and notorious e9co33unicates are

$arred #ro3 the place o# election alto ether.

WE P)ACE T "S E)ECT"*+ "+ T E A+!S *& T E *) 8 *STThe 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.

;


71/80

;1


72/80

;2


73/80

!eclaration ,ade 0uly 1:/ 1 Prior to the PapalElection

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$lic acts o# heresy prior to his BelectionB in 1 :(/ he renderedhi3sel# incapa$le o# $eco3in Pope/ $ecause o# his departure #ro3 the Church andresi 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 "6in 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 $een valid/ accordinto the principles o# canon law. The 1 '4 BconclaveB was incapa$le o# electin a pope.

!ue to his notorious and pu$lic acts o# heresy prior to his BelectionB in 1 '4/ ,ontinirendered hi3sel# incapa$le o# $eco3in pope/ $ecause o# his departure #ro3 the Churchand resi nation #ro3 all o##ices in the Church.


74/80

&inally/ we declare/ that havin deter3ined the a$yss3al state o# the Churchtoday/ 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 Pro#ession o# &aith 3ade in the +etherlands and $rou ht withher.D!avid Allen -awden Pro#ession o# &aith 3ade in 7ansas 0uly (/ 1 D7ennett !avid Tho3as -awden Pro#ession o# &aith 3ade in 7ansas 0uly (/

1 DClara -awden Pro#ession o# &aith 3ade in 7ansas 0uly (/ 1 DTeresa )ouise Stan#ill -enns Pro#ession o# &aith 3ade in 7ansas 0uly 1


75/80

Catholic uide #ollowin the split with 0ones roup/ " ladly relied on !avid and his3other.

" was particularly i3pressed with the #act that even thou h !avid had $een3ali ned and calu3niated $y the Society/ even thou h other VCharita$le Catholicscontinued 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 $e innin#a3iliesF when his Ar3ada class3ates were assi ned to territories and cele$ratinV3asses/ !avid re3ained devoted to study/ #raternal correction/ and catecheticalinstruction. e continued to recite his $reviary and re3ained o$edient to his parents. etried 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 1 (


76/80

" deter3ined to place 3ysel# under !avid s tutela e. "t would still ta@e 3e two years toco3pletely accept Gurisdiction/ $ut durin those two years " did not receive thesacra3ents or attend ,ass/ since !avid had warned 3e " could not do so until " hadreached certitude.

&ollowin !avid s visit we decided to write an e9pose o# ,artin 8wynne s roup

#or the sa@e o# those still entrapped $y hi3. Even thou h !avid had advised 3e todevote ti3e to study $e#ore atte3ptin to write/ he a reed we should do this #or the sa@eo# others. The E9pose was distri$uted only to those directly involved with 8wynne/ $utthe written report and photocopied research a3ounted to over : pa es. " wrote/ !avidedited and typed/ and to ether we co3piled the E9pose in 3uch the sa3e 3anner wewould 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 additionalsources. ,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 $eco3e weary o# his role astutor. !espite 3y repeated calls and letters and haphaIard 3ethod o# arrivin at the truth/!avid stuc@ to his Gurisdiction uns and held #ast do 3atically while " #lailed a$out in theun#a3iliar waters o# Canon law and 3oral and do 3atic theolo y. To this day " have notincorporated these truths into 3y very $ein the sa3e way that !avid hasF " 3ust @eepre#reshin 3y 3e3ory over and over a ain. -ut !avid has internaliIed the3 " such away 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 1 (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# !avid s would drive this point ho3e tohi3/ $ut true to #or3/ !avid devoted all his research talents to unearthin every possi$le

precedent and each and every Canon )aw relevant to the pro$le3 once his 3ind had $een3ade up. While " 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 thePapal Election Series with the help o# !avid s research/ and !avid hi3sel# issued a lettersupportive o# the election e##ort. e also wrote 3any co3ple3entary pieces #or theseries 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. 7hoat s apostolate there and assist hi3 in its pro3otion should 7hoat s credentials

prove le iti3ate. -ecause 7hoat had at least wei hed the Gurisdiction issue and wor@edout 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 $etween acceptin 0P"" andsede vacante/ and e9hi$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 electionand 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

;'


77/80

despite our #everish doctrinal disputations in #avor o# such a 3ove/ we decided that thewidespread 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 1 :( 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/ 1 ( / already he

had written V)aw/ Un$elie# and eresy / and " had written VSleepin -eauty/ Part H/ andVThe -e innin o# Sorrows. The wor@ we hoped to acco3plish durin !avid s 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 [email protected] $rainstor3in pro$a$ly helped 3e 3ore than anythin / since so3e ideas see3 toco3e alive once they are Vwal@ed throu h with so3eone else. The two wee@s went tooquic@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 !avid se9cellent wor@ on law and heresy in Part "/ the $oo@ would have had no #oundation onwhich 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 Apostasy in Part ""/ we could

not have hoped to prove the #utility o# Traditionalis3. And the Pro#ession o# &aith inPart "" was very ti3e consu3in as well as an accurate su33ary o# those articles o# #aith3ost o#ten violated today. While " $usied 3ysel# writin and editin / !avid @ept 3e onschedule $y 3a@in up pro ress charts/ @eepin ta$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 theco3pleted $oo@ was delivered to the )i$rary/ !avid sent it out/ @ept trac@ o# orders/ andtallied the pro#its and loses. A#ter the $oo@ ca3e the wor@ #or VUpdate / which !avidtypeset and #olded and 3ailed hi3sel#. e also wrote a lar er share o# Update owin tothe #act that so 3uch o# what needed to $e covered involved wor@s in Canon )aw/!avid s chosen #ield o# study. *ne reader has co33ented that the 3aterial covered inUpdate was #ar 3ore interestin and in#or3ative than the $oo@ itsel#.D "n addition to allthis !avid and " conducted phone con#erences so3e ti3es 4 or < ti3es a wee@/ si3ply to3a@e sure that the 3aterial #or the $oo@ and the newsletter was properly correlated anderror #ree. These con#erences dou$led as pep=tal@s #or 3e since without a uidin hand "tend to stray o## trac@. "n all #airness " 3ust say that without !avid s assistance wewould 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#. !avid shelp 3ade all the di##erence.

"n addition to what " ve already said here/ " would li@e to add that !avid isdiscreet and entirely trustworthy/ attentive to details/ a co3petent litur ist/ possesses theadequate 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 esides unless it is clear such a chan e is a$solutely warranted. Whatever s@ills he 3i htlac@/ !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 $yhis stead#astness. -y dint o# sel#=study $e un at the Vse3inary in Econe and on ointoday/ !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/

;;


78/80

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 $eenordained a priest/ in order to avoid displeasin *ut )ord/ $ut $y virtue o# desire his roleas alter=Christus co33enced lon a o.

Teresa ). -ennsThis was prepared #or presentation at the Papal Election 0uly 1'/ 1 . "t was3ade 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. Thesa3e 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 3ystate3ents 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 ina supple3ent to the $oo@ entitled Election Update. -ecause very #ew readers orderedUpdate/ i# did not $eco3e eneral @nowled e that so3e research #inds had $een 3adeconcernin this su$Gect/ which *-)"8ATE! wo3en to vote under pain o# 3ortal sin. "nour Special "ssue Update 3ailed ,ay 41 st/ we addressed this 3atters and thorou hlye9a3ined the particulars involved. This 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@eto re#er the reader to pa es 4 =4 1 o# the $oo@/ where we report the +icholas "" in hisdecree 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 consideredlaw#ul. -ecause the supre3e law iver/ the Pope/ had authoriIed such a departure/ wecited this #act as proo# that lay3en could vote in a papal election. et we did notauto3atically e9tend this privile e to wo3en/ $ecause #or years the privile e had

$een invested only in the cardinals. This despite the #act that others su ested wo3enshould vote/ and we @new that the people o# 5o3e/ 3en and wo3en had ta@en part inthis type o# election in the past. -ecause we always true to #ollow what see3s to $e thesa#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/ since3any Catholics un#a3iliar with our doctrinal stand 3i ht assu3e that i# we allowedwo3en 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 1 :( shall not $e put into practice now. *# course wo3enas 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. "t3ay 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 $y Pope )eo the 8reat and +icholas "" cause us tore=e9a3ine the 3atter/ and as a result we discovered that 1D the 3any centuries o#layOclerico elections esta$lished a custo3 in the ChurchF 2D This custo3 then acquired the

;(


79/80

status o# a privile e with +icholas "" s decree on cardinalsF 4D -ut such a privile e could +*T $e e9ercised $ecause the Church/ le islated otherwise in appointin cardinals as the*5!"+A5 electors. The only way the #aith#ul could elect/ then/ was in a situationwhere cardinals no lon er e9isted and it was i3possi$le #or $ishops to call a eneralcouncil. &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 e9cusinCatholics #ro3 certain o##enses on the rounds o# #ear are o# any help here/ #or i# #ear hascaused any Catholic to co33it a cri3e which causes conte3pt o# the #aith or pu$licinGury to souls/ the #ear will not e9cuse hi3 #ro3 incurrin the ipso #acto penalty attachedto the said cri3e. When the Church has under one innu3era$le tor3ents and prostitutedas 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 ourduty to de#end the &aith or $e uilty o# heresy. "# the privile e had $een accorded towo3en $y anyone other than the 5o3an Ponti##s/ or i# su##icient nu3$ers o# 3en hadco3e #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# wo3en s ri ht to vote. Who are we to question the wisdo3 o# popes whoallowed wo3en to vote in #or3er a es? And who reduced this custo3 to a privile ewhich 3a@es no 3ention o# e9cludin the3? Silence i3plies consent/ as the rule o# lawdeclares. Canon '( reads that VY in no case should the interpretation o# a privile eD $eso ri orous that the privile e con#ers no $ene#it/ #or so3e $ene#it 3ust accrue #ro3 the

privile e. +ot only can this canon $e seen to apply to wo3en as well as Canon ' /which requires the holders o# a privile e to use it where !ivine law is concernedD/ $ut itcan also $e applied to relatives o# the pope who were allowed to vote. Could the othervoters have #or$idden the3 to vote and deprived the3 o# their ri hts when Canon '(clearly states that this is to $e done in +* case? Could the unrelated voters haveoverridden the decrees o# two popes rantin these privile es? +ot i# they wished tore3ain o$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 $eenridiculous. The Canons overnin canonical elections 3a@e no 3ention o# e9cludinrelationsF only those who are not true 3e3$ers o# the votin $ody $ecause they haveeither lost the #aith/ or resi ned their ri hts. "# anyone were to question the validity o# theelection and 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. Thelaws/ then/ 3ade our choice an easy one. *nly Pope ,ichael a3on the three 3alecandidates possessed the @nowled e and dedication to the cause o# oly ,other Churchnecessary to $e considered a worthy candidate. We @new what the reproaches o# ourene3ies 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 ti3elyPro#essions o# &aith and participated in the election. Those who cast aspersionsconcernin #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.

;


80/80

election update

Documents