N: "He's insane"
I was his friend back when I was Palmarian, and a little later too.
To my mind he is not slow, he is a bit thick. Not meaning dishonest. Nor confused over any proportion to situation.
SE: "How anyone can maintain such a personal delusion for 20 years is mystifying. But I'm no psychologist."
CK: "The internet aids in that."
As an amateur canonist and sedisvacantist he arrived at a position which he has found no canonic reason to abandon.
@ C(K): being in any way cut off from the companies YOU consider as having common sense aids in maintaining the positions YOU consider as delusions. Mr Bawden lives on the country side.
Having any kind of access to companies YOU consider a...s lacking in common sense may aid there too.
But it is RUBBISH to claim he gets a great feedback on internet by fake followers.
He is getting the heat on internet. He had hopes for me, since I am geocentric, as is he, as is for that matter Robert Sungenis (who accpeted John Paul II). He got heat from me, on more than one canonic and Latin grammar account.
Papacy traditionally never claimed to be able to distinguish what person is "maintaining a delusion" (in psychological sense) and who is responsible for heresies. See here: http://o-x.fr/xet [St Robert Bellarmine]
"Dicimus PRIMVM, non posse errare Pontificem in iis praeceptis, quae toti Ecclesiae praescribuntur; quia, vt suprà diximus, in praeceptis, & iudiciis particularibus, non est absurdum Pontificem errare."
FIRSTLY we say, that the Pontiff cannot err in precepts, which are prescribed for all the Church; since, as we said above, it is not absurd that a Pontiff err in precepts or judgements on particular matters.
"on particular matters" could as easily be translated "concerning particular persons" or "in individual cases".
Whether a person has claimed that a conclave may be entirely made from laymen and supported it by example of a mediaeval conclave where laymen by far, far outnumbered the bishops or even simple priests and deacons, that is a matter of objective testing. David Bawden, even before taking practical steps of applying his conclusion, came to it and published it in "Will the Catholic Church Survive the XXth Century?".
If John Paul II was Pope at the time, it is also a very sound question: did he condemn the book, and if not why?
If John Paul had condemned David Bawden for writing and publishing that book - look it up in the acts of the Holy See! - he would have been acting on an objectively testable principle, he would also have been deciding for the whole church (or whoever accepts papacy and him as Pope) whether such a thing as a lay conclave is even theoretically possible. In such a case, he would have been within the limits of Papal Infallibility.
If on the other hand, he decided David Bawden was a kook, he was deciding purely on a matter concerning an individual whom, on top of that, he did not know. In such a case he was no wiser than Argentine officials calling the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo fools and dismissing their claim to get their children back.
For believe me: David Bawden certainly did think it was his duty to inform Karol Wojtyla that he was a heretic before the 1978 conclave, and so was Paul VI.