Re-Evaluating
© Prakash John Mascarenhas. 24th November 2002.
Pope Michael's Papal Claim
I had received a mail from Teresa Stanfill-Benns, in which, among other things, she asked me to re-read the book, Will The Catholic Church Survive the Twentieth Century, co-authored by her and David Bawden, latter, Pope Michael, so as to re-evaluate my position on it, as described in my article, The Sad-Misadventures of Benns & Bawden which I had written sometime in 2000. It took me some time to dig out the book and then to read it, but finishing reading the book on 20th November 2002, I wish to make the following statement of re-evaluation.
Background
I had learnt, sometime in 1995 or so, of an elected papal claimant, Linus, and when I first went on the net in 1999, I began to search for him. In searching for him, and in corresponding with him and his party, I found also the claims of Pope Michael and of Lucian Pulvermacher as Pius XIII. According to dates, Michael's is the first claim, followed by Linus and then by Pulvermacher's. However, at the time, this did not immediately strike me, and I kept on after Linus, by email, with Cc.s to Michael and Pulvermacher. Then, I found an article by Robert Hess, in response to which I was forced to pause and think, to compose my answer justifying an Extra-Ordinary Papal Election by the Laity in the current circumstances. Thus, I recognized that one must address the prior claim first before going on to the latter claims.
At about the same time, I received from David Bawden or Pope Michael the above book. Perhaps, he sent it to me in response to my mails to the Linus party, seeking information and proof about the legitimacy of that claim. However as it may be, I sat down and began to read the book.
Now, sometime before I walked out of the New Church in 1993, for about a year or so, I was part of a body called the 'Association of Concerned Catholics.' However, I disagreed about the limits they imposed upon themselves in combating the prevalent errors, and I had walked out. Then I broke off from the Lefebvrists too for their acceptance of the New Church heresiarchs as their 'popes.' That left me all alone, with no fellow-believer or fellow-walker. When I first went on the net, I found and rapported with a person, whom at this time, I shall merely call JL. Therefore, when I began to interact with the various papal claim parties, I took what I thought to be the precaution of keeping him abreast, so as to avoid the danger of being sucked up into a cult.
Soon after getting Bawden's book, and after I had finished a hurried, preliminary reading of it, I wrote to him, and Cc.ed to JL, promising to do a more systematic study of the book. But in the meantime, I received messages from JL and others and, to my shame, I must say that I succumbed to the pressure. I was not even aware of this, thinking that I had done a fair and just evaluation of the book, but now, after re-reading it again, calmly, I find that the 'Sad Mis-Adventure' that I decried was not of Benns and Bawden, as I thought, but my own. I can see now, that I succumbed to pressure and began a hatchet job on the book, searching it out and even manufacting or distorting evidence for my rejection of the Bawdenite claim.
In truth, this is not the first time that I have lamentably found that I had succumbed to social pressure, for once before, being pressured to join the Charismatics, I recall that at one time, being so brainwashed, that I attempted to persuade a member of the Legion of Mary and in general all pre-Charismatic groups, that to be Charismatic is essential to secure their eternal salvation. Thankfully, I was disabused of that in a few months. However, this one has lasted something like two years.
Having read the book carefully from end to end, (though I have impatiently skipped the pages dealing with the fairy tale about Sleeping Beauty), I can say that I today recognize that there is no real and significant error in the process by which David Bawden was elected pope by six persons, including Teresa Benns and two other ladies. I have already shown, in my response to Robert Hess' contentions, that two of Bawden's electors being his parents, does not in anyway detract from the legitimacy of his election.
In particular, while reading the book, this time without colouring prejudice, I have found many useful things that I had not noticed previously. Thus, I have found, and entirely agree with the book's treatment of the pre-electional heresies and therefore disqualification of Angelus Joseph Roncalli, the antipope John XXIII.
Another important treatment is that of the objection raised that Pope Pius XII's Apostolic Constitution, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis legitimized the election of such heretics as Roncalli, etc. This position has been restated more recently and more forcefully (see here) by a Brian W. Harrison, in opposition to whom I had formulated a partial response, Against Harrisonism. However, I find that the book's treatment of this objection, Q. 8, on pages 351ff, and pages 408-409. What becomes evident is that Harrison has been deliberately lying, tomtoming article 34 and supressing article 35, which destroys utterly his very premise.
In summation, therefore, I must say this to Pope Michael and Teresa Benns, "I am sorry, I have erred and wronged you, and I beg your pardon." Moreover, I must also say this to Pope Michael, "I now know beyond any doubt that you are the legitimate pope, the Vicar of Christ, and I ask you to instruct and guide me so that I can submit to you."
24th November 2002.