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.