Wednesday, December 07, 2011

John Hepworth: Why the surprise?

Archbishop John Hepworth of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) is once again creating quite a stir among both Roman Catholics and traditionally minded Anglicans on the blogosphere.  For those not familiar with his background Hepworth started out as a Roman Catholic.  He was ordained as a priest in that church in the late 1960's but in 1976 he became an Anglican and was accepted as a minister/priest in the Anglican Church of Australia.  In this capacity he continued until 1982* (1992) when he was received into one of the so called "continuing Anglican" churches.  Not long after he was made a bishop in their church and eventually succeeded as the primate of the TAC.  Subsequent to his Roman Catholic ordination he has been married, divorced, and married again.

In recent years Hepworth, has been instrumental in leading the TAC into the Roman communion.  Under his leadership the college of bishops voted to request full communion with Rome and each member then signed the Catechism Of the Catholic Church as a sign of their unconditional acceptance of Rome's magesterial authority and all of her doctrines and dogmas.  During this period Hepworth intimated that when the time came he was prepared to accept whatever role the Roman Church deemed right and appropriate for him, including that of a layman.

Now his work is bearing fruit.  Pope Benedict XVI has ordered the erection of an "Ordinariate" for Anglo-Catholics seeking full communion with the Holy See.  Guidelines have been issued and in several countries local Ordinariates have been, or are in the process of being, erected.  If perhaps there has not been an avalanche of Anglican conversions there have been more than a few, especially in traditionally Anglican countries like Great Britain and Australia.

In general the guidelines for receiving Anglican clergy appear to my mind to be fair and even to some degree generous.  But Rome has it's own rules and and also some doctrinal issues.  Recall those signatures on the Roman Catechism.

First, Roman Catholic canon law forbids the return to active ministry of their clergy once they leave for another church.  In other words once you are a Roman cleric, including their so called "minor orders," if you leave there is no coming back as a cleric.  You can return to Rome, but only as a layman.  A very few exceptions have been made over the years, but usually only when there are truly unusual or extenuating circumstances.*

Secondly Rome does not recognize the validity of divorce and remarriage.  Nor does it recognize the possibility of a valid marriage by someone bound by vows of celibacy.  This is so elementary it should not require serious discussion.

And yet it needs to be mentioned because there have been howls of astonishment in certain quarters over the fact that Archbishop Hepworth has been told by Rome that he will not be received back into their church as anything other than a laicized priest, and then presumably only after his irregular marital situation has been remedied.  All of which leads me to ask...

Why the surprise?  Seriously.  Anyone who did not see this coming has either been willfully blind or appallingly ignorant of what would be expected of persons entering the Roman Catholic Church.  Did they think they would just continue to be Anglicans, only now with the added benefit of being admitted to the sacraments of the Latin Church?  Rome has some standards and while there may be some give on a few things there is none on others.

I do not mean to be uncharitable or disparaging of John Hepworth.  But it is worth taking a look at his resume from a Catholic perspective for a moment.
  • Ordained a Roman Catholic priest.  Vowed obedience and celibacy among other things.
  • Left Rome and twice changed religions.
  • Married then divorced then remarried.
  • Has received Protestant orders as a "bishop."
  • Has claimed (credibly) sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests.
How can anyone have realistically expected that a man with that background would be received into active ministry as a Catholic priest?

And now reinforcing to my mind Rome's judgment in this matter comes word that Hepworth has opted to remain outside the Roman Church to minister to those Anglicans not yet ready to make the leap!  So let's get this right.  He signed the Roman Catechism and affirmed each and every doctrine of that church.  He encouraged his clergy and lay flock to convert into the Roman Church.  He even persuaded the Pope to make special arrangements and concessions to facilitate large scale conversions by Anglicans.  And he indicated his understanding that when the time came he was prepared to make the move himself as a layman.  Now though, the moment having come and Rome's terms being made clear, he has refused to take the plunge.

I really am having a difficult time understanding the shock among Anglicans at Rome's refusal to receive him in any clerical capacity.  And I am equally having a difficult time grasping the surprise of Catholics that a man with his track record would balk when told he must live the remainder of his life as a layman and endure a painful process of sorting out his marital situation with no certain outcome.

Anyone shocked by recent events simply hasn't been paying attention.

*Corrections: See Dr. Tighe's comment in the combox (2nd from the top) for two corrections.

7 comments:

Michael Shier said...

I think you mean "the shock among TAC members at Rome's refusal..." Actual Anglicans have watched the entire Hepworth affair unfold with the mixed emotions evoked by a particularly tragi-comic Jerry Springer episode.

William Tighe said...

May I make two corrections?

First, it was not 1982, but 1992, when Hepworth left the "Anglican Church of Australia" (in reaction to that church's synod accepting WO in that year) to help to found the "Anglican Catholic Church of Australia" (of which he became an assistant bishop in 1998, diocesan bishop in 2000, and Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion in 2002).

Secondly, when you wrote "First, Roman Catholic canon law forbids the return to active ministry of their clergy once they leave for another church. In other words once you are a Roman cleric, including their so called 'minor orders,' if you leave there is no coming back as a cleric," you are mistaken; it happens, to my knowledge, regularly, if not frequently. What is forbidden is the ordination in the Catholic Church of any Catholic man who leaves for a non-Catholic denomination, and is ordained in that denomination. This means, any Protestant (Evangelical, Lutheran or Anglican) denomination, for I know of cases in which men raised Catholic have left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy or the Old Catholics, been ordained, and upon their return to the Catholic Church have been given, once their suitability has been ascertained, faculties to function as priests (or deacons), probably because the Catholic Church, with its belief in the "indelible character" conferred in ordination, cannot refuse to consider the situations of those ordained outside the Catholic Church by bishops whom the Catholic church regards as possessing "valid Orders" on a case-by-case basis.

Hepworth's situation is one of a Catholic priest who left the Catholic church and priesthood without ever having been laicized, married, became an Anglican, ministered as an Anglican clergyman, divorced, received an annulment of his first marriage from his Anglican bishop (the late John Hazlewood, Bishop of Ballarat), remarried, continued to minister in the Anglican Church of Australia until he left it in 1992 (etc., as above).

More information can be found at this more recent posting:

http://catholicusanglicanus.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/three-questions/

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Dr. Tighe,
Many thanks for the corrections.

In ICXC
John

Anthony said...

Archbishop Hepworth's decision to remain an Anglican, apparently solely so that he could remain a clergyman, doesn't surprise me, but I would like to know what it is about certain Christian ministers that causes them to make this kind of decision. It seems to me that some people love being priests so much that they will, in this case for example, pronounce absolute loyalty to a confession until the moment it gets in the way of their ministry. It strikes me as not just odd, but somehow unsavory.

Deacon Down Under said...

Firstly, given that Orthodox do not accept that the Roman Church is part of the Church, therefore we cannot accept the validity of their priesthood. To that end their priesthood is no different than the Anglican priesthood. Anglicans for all their faults, believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in their eucharists. They have the sacrament of confession. As an Anglican in Australia I was raised to both confess and go to mass regularly. So for those Anglicans including orthodox Continuing Anglicans who rejected women priests and liturgical chaos, their priests are priests, and their bishops valid. Lets face it - a number of Orthodox in the 1920's and 30's recognised the orders of the Church of England - albeit erroneously. So their is no need to lambast Anglicans as 'Protestants' because many do not see themselves as such.

Next, John Hepworth was sexually abused. Such abuse and trauma has lifelong scars and consequences, and I am sure his running from the Roman Church is tied up to his reactions as an adult to his experiences.

I feel very sorry for John Hepworth. He runs a Continuing Anglican Church that is a schism from the 1978 Anglican Congress of St. Louis and whose numbers worldwide are a fraction of the 400,000 claimed. He is marginalised and castigated, and yet in so many ways his life has been about escaping from the trauma damage, and seeking somehow to find God. May God bless him.

Anthony said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anthony said...

I just realized that Subdeacon David's comment was directed more at Dr. Tighe's comment. At least, I think. So I've deleted my reply.