Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, Archbishop John Hepworth, will only be accepted as a layperson if he is to reconcile with the Catholic Church, reports the Australian.
Archbishop Hepworth has been notified by the Catholic Church that his bid to reunify the TAC with Rome has been successful, but his own case is conditional.
The fat lady has apparently sung.
He will demonstrate his character and sincerity by whether he now joins or does not.
Anyone even remotely surprised by this has not been paying attention.
Looks like he has been Hunwicked.
It is interesting though, that the Catholic Church has been de facto willing to accept his authority to speak for the TAC as its archbishop and consider the application he made for corporate joining; indeed they continue to do so in this letter giving their decision on his application. At the same time they tell him that they are not going to treat him as anything other than a layman.
Ah well, there you go with the Catholic Church – it does what suits it and finds a principle to attach to its decision. Mind you, he has been making such a fuss recently that they may well wonder if he is such a pain while outside, what will he be like within the church? The soap opera continues.
Pageantmaster,
Stalin referred to such people as useful idiots.
Well, Pageantmaster, we won’t know the outcome of John Hunwicke’s difficulties until it’s all resolved, but Hunwicke, unlike Hepworth, was not a Roman Catholic priest (1) who “left the Catholic priesthood” (but was never laicized in the Catholic Church) in 1974 to marry and become an Anglican, and to exercise a ministry in the Anglican Church of Australia until 1992 & (2) who after a divorce between him and his first wife in the early 1980s rec’d an annulment of that first marriage from the then Anglican Bishop of Ballarat and married again. From the Catholic Canon Law perspective, both of these attempted marriages were and are null and void, and for him even to be considered for restoration to the exercise of a priestly ministry in the Catholic Church he would have to cease to cohabit with his wife; however, assuming he would wish the marriage to continue, he would have (1) to be laicized, (2) to have his marriage “convalidated” (as the term is) and (3) to resign himself to living out the rest of his life as “a laicized Catholic priest.” Those always have been the only options, and for those around him to have been putting forth rumors for the last two years to the effect that he would be restored to a priestly ministry in the Catholic Church as a married man has always seemed to me little more than an attempt to push Rome into giving him what he wants, which has now reached its denouement.
I am not at to address the nature of the problems that John Hunwicke (whom I have been privileged to know and esteem as a friend since 1998) has encountered, but they are of a wholly different sort. The term “bushwacking” comes to mind in that context.
As 3, says. This has been clear from the beginning.
. . . can only rejoin as a layman
is one of the dumbest headlines I have ever read in my life. We should at least try, however hypocritically, to present a model of church hierarchy that is based on servant leadership. That is, an inverted triangle with the bishops at the bottom and the laity at the top. Nobody has a “right” to ordination, and we must always presume that the Holy Spirit is in charge. Lay membership is the greatest honor and all other vocations serve the laos.
RE: “Ah well, there you go with the Catholic Church – it does what suits it and finds a principle to attach to its decision.”
Although it may be true that in some other respects that the RC church “does what suits” that’s not fair in this instance. Even somebody like me — a fairly ignorant-of-RCism Protestant — knew that once a Roman priest departs Rome for another body, he’s not going to be returned/accepted as clergy when he returns to Rome, much less so if he has been married twice in the meantime!!
It has seemed pretty clear also that Hepworth has played coy with his decisions over the past several years due to his desire to somehow negotiate something different [i]from what everybody knew[/i] was the rule and practice of Rome concerning departures and returns.
#7 Dr Tighe – thanks, through friends I am aware of the approach taken by your church to these matters generally. I too wish Fr Hunwicke well, and am sorry he is not giving us the benefit of this blogging while he waits for Godot it seems. I hope his term in purgatory comes to an end shortly.
#10 Thanks Sarah, the RC response is certainly defensible on those grounds, however, like Fr Hunwicke being led to water and not being allowed to drink, the same question arises over Archbishop Hepworth, although with impediments which Fr Hunwicke does not have.
The question arises as to what the Archbishop has been led to believe – what has caused him to lead his flock to the edge of the promised Roman land, only to be told that like Moses, he must not enter for his past sins. Welcome to the flock, says Rome, only leave your Archbishop outside. So, what was he told, or allowed to believe, which encouraged him to deliver his flock? Having done what was required and outlived his usefulness, to rather late be told that he is no longer required, but can sit looking longingly at the land of milk and honey suggests that he has been allowed to delude himself?
It is a puzzle, but to be frank I don’t have much time for any of it, but it is a curiosity to see how those arriving after the treck across the Sinai are being denied entry now. Frankly, if I had been treated as AB Hepworth says he had as a young man, the last place I would want to go is back into the hands of my abusers, and those who had protected them, but there we are, such is human nature. I hope he finds healing, and perhaps a decent church to continue his ministry in as God leads him.
All very curious, and a puzzle.
RE: “The question arises as to what the Archbishop has been led to believe – what has caused him to lead his flock to the edge of the promised Roman land . . . ”
Well . . . I’m fairly confident that that’s the question that Hepworth [i]wishes[/i] to arise! ; > )
RE: “. . . he must not enter for his past sins.”
Of course, he has been told no such thing. He is perfectly welcome to enter — without the power and prestige and recognition of a clergyperson or bishop.
And if he believes that Rome is the one true church, the loss of that recognition will be a trivial price to pay to be allowed to be a part of such a wondrous thing.
RE: “So, what was he told, or allowed to believe, which encouraged him to deliver his flock?”
It’s been pretty apparent, Pageantmaster, that the “pursuer” has been certain parts of the TAC, and the pursued has been the RC church. So . . . I’m not really buying that he was “encouraged” to “deliver his flock” by anyone much at all from the other side of the Tiber.
#12 Sarah
[blockquote]Of course, he has been told no such thing. He is perfectly welcome to enter—without the power and prestige and recognition of a clergyperson or bishop[/blockquote]
Well we don’t know what he was or was not told, and of course it has always been open to him to just individually become a lay Roman Catholic again by jumping through the arcane hoops Dr Tighe describes above including putting aside his wife and the promises he made before God to her, but that is of course not what this has been all about.
[blockquote]It’s been pretty apparent, Pageantmaster, that the “pursuer†has been certain parts of the TAC, and the pursued has been the RC church. So . . . I’m not really buying that he was “encouraged†to “deliver his flock†by anyone much at all from the other side of the Tiber.[/blockquote]
Well, in turn, I am not sure I am buying that Sarah – long before any issue of the English Anglo-Catholics arose, there have been those in Rome encouraging TAC to join, as a group, as well as those in TAC, primarily it appears AB Hepworth, seeking such a solution. It was always open to TAC members to convert individually in the normal way, but that was not the issue; the issue was whether TAC could join as a, shall we say, ecclesial community, or whatever term the Romans use, and in the early days the push for the Ordinariate seems to have been pushed by some in Rome on behalf of TAC. It was only later that our CofE HOB presented a resolution to our General Synod which they dutifully passed almost unamended making no proper provision for our Anglo-Catholics that the Ordinariate plans seem to have shifted to be primarily focused on the CofE Anglo-Catholics. I think though that one has to remember that the origins of what became the Ordinariate started with TAC in mind from the Roman supporters of it.
So yes, he was ‘encouraged’ to deliver his flock, and I am not buying the ‘nothing to do with us’ and ‘come or not as you please, we are not bothered’ line at all. But it is pretty clear that Hepworth has outlived his usefulness to Rome [except to keep driving the flock in TAC Romewards], and Rome is in two minds whether their desire to absorb TAC is worth the scandal and hassle and acrimony it seems to be bringing with it. It’s a bit like what has happened with the English Ordinariate when you think about it.
[blockquote]And if he believes that Rome is the one true church, the loss of that recognition will be a trivial price to pay to be allowed to be a part of such a wondrous thing.[/blockquote]
I can’t help but feel TAC would be better off concentrating on Christ, head of our one true church, rather than all the machinations and angst which has been going on trying to take people hither and thither without their consent.
If I was Rome, I would be getting out the bargepole too.
“The question arises as to what the Archbishop has been led to believe – what has caused him to lead his flock to the edge of the promised Roman land, only to be told that like Moses, he must not enter for his past sins. Welcome to the flock, says Rome, only leave your Archbishop outside. So, what was he told, or allowed to believe, which encouraged him to deliver his flock? Having done what was required and outlived his usefulness, to rather late be told that he is no longer required, but can sit looking longingly at the land of milk and honey suggests that he has been allowed to delude himself?”
The TAC approached Rome — have you actually read the “Portsmouth Petition” formulated by the TAC synod there in October 2007, at which time the TAC bishops signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well? — as suppliants, not as “negotiating partners;” and there certainly were no preconditions (such as “recognizing our bishops as bishops”) set on the part of the TAC. Now, I do have some reasons to believe that some TAC bishops thought that they were, in fact, entering a process of “negotiation” with Rome, and that at least one TAC bishop (divorced himself and remarried to a divorcee – not Hepworth) insisted that he must and would remain “a bishop” even after reconciliation with Rome; but I do know that at at least one point in this process Archbishop Hepworth expected to live the remainder of his life after sealing the deal with Rome as “a laicized Catholic priest” — since he told me that himself.
RE: “it has always been open to him to just individually become a lay Roman Catholic again by jumping through the arcane hoops Dr Tighe describes above including putting aside his wife and the promises he made before God to her . . . ”
Eh?
No, those hoops were listed for Hepworth to “even to be considered for restoration to the exercise of a priestly ministry in the Catholic Church” — not for being a lay RC.
RE: “I can’t help but feel TAC would be better off concentrating on Christ, head of our one true church, rather than all the machinations and angst which has been going on trying to take people hither and thither without their consent.”
Right — but that’s one reason why you’re not Roman Catholic! Still, if one believes the RC church’s claims about itself, then the decision seems to make itself [if one is a person of integrity of course].
I am sorry that I seem to write so obscurely, as I seem to have muddled Sarah who writes clearly enough – cf. #7 above. Let me try again.
Hepworth (1) wishes above all else to return to the Catholic Church and to be restored to the exercise of a priestly ministry OR (2) wishes to return to the Catholic Church as a married man. For #1 even to be considered he would have to separate from his wife (“wife” in Catholic Canon Law terms, since for any Catholic bishop or priest to attempt marriage without being laicized, his marriage is invalid pure and simple from the beginning) and then submit to a process of inquiry that might, or might not, end in his being deemed suitable for such a restoration. For #2 to occur he would have to do what I wrote above: “(1) be laicized, (2) have his marriage “convalidated†(as the term is) and (3) resign himself to living out the rest of his life as ‘a laicized Catholic priest.'”
I am very sorry for having introduced further confusion in an area where there is so much already, and where clarity is so important.
On another matter, while I could write, either briefly or at length, in response to the paragraph in #13 above beginning “Well, in turn …” concerning the relative standing in Rome’s eyes of the TAC and FiF/UK, but I have already done so, and it has already been reproduced on this blog:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/38131