Archbishop John Hepworth and the Traditional Anglican Communion: Reflections
December 9, 2011 13 Comments
To Archbishop John Hepworth (Primate), the TAC College of Bishops, Bishop Michael Gill (my Ordinary) fellow Clergy, brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.
I wish to reiterate a previous call (made publically), for Archbishop John Hepworth to step down as Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion and to do so forthwith. Under the present circumstances, it is the only honourable thing left for him to do.
By now, most people have heard of the Archbishop’s appal shaming of a Roman Catholic Priest, a Vicar General and the former Director-General of the Chaplaincy in the Australian Navy who, up until this point, had been a Priest in good standing. This was done via the mouthpiece of independent senator, Nick Xenophon, who used his ‘parliamentary privilege’ to ‘name and shame’ the Catholic Priest. The ambiguous claim made by Archbishop Hepworth was that he was raped by the said Priest some 45 years ago. Hepworth was a 24 years old man at the time. It is the Herald Sun, that gives us some insight into the graphic, sad and sordid details (quoting verbatim our Primate):
‘Let’s first remind ourselves that “rape” generally means the victim was forced to have sex against their expressed will, usually because they were too weak to resist. The rapist must also know that the victim was objecting.
It’s a terrible accusation, and X has now had his reputation trashed. Who believes a Catholic priest is innocent when the hostile press brays that he’s a rapist or might be?
Yet even the most basic facts of this case raise grave doubts.
Hepworth says he was at least 24 years old when X allegedly raped him; X was one year older. This is not the stereotype of an older priest intimidating a boy.
Nor is it obvious that X could have overwhelmed Hepworth with his strength. Hepworth is 1.88m tall — or six feet two. X is shorter.
Hepworth doesn’t claim he was drugged or drunk, either.
He told The Australian he’d been invited to the beach one night by two priests, one of whom “stripped off and began wrestling with me”.
“He was stronger than me,” Hepworth said. “Or perhaps I was just weary of it all … I remember cold, wet sand…
But then comes a caveat: “I want to state quite clearly that I never fully consented to sexual activity …”
Never “fully” consented? What does that mean?
In fact, Hepworth describes his reaction hours later as not one of anger, but guilt: “I had an awareness of the illegality of homosexuality, a sense of gross sinfulness, but also a sense of the glamour of the group with which I had been involved.”
Couldn’t this suggest that Hepworth’s “no” was a quiet no from his conscience, not a loud one to his “rapist”? Indeed, Hepworth claims he was sexually assaulted by X up to seven more times, yet not once did this tall man forcefully resist. He says he felt “so weakened physically and emotionally” by his past abuse that he just gave in.
To the ABC, Hepworth told a similarly ambiguous story.
ABC: Why were you unable to stop it?
Hepworth: Even though I was six foot two and I was fairly light in those days, but I always thought myself a very small person, very weak person.
I was trying to befriend a few people, priests. I think it was out of a sense of loneliness, also a sense of an effort to belong. And then the experiences of (his past abuse) particularly, of overtures that I couldn’t resist and didn’t know how to, repeated itself a number of times.
And when I had come close to people whose company I found thrilling, entertaining, invigorating and then these events happened, I think I was confusing the expectation of sex almost with friendship.
ABC: Does that mean that the people with which you were involved in these episodes would have thought that you had consented?
Hepworth: No. I would say things that were negative. No, not this. No, don’t . . . I don’t believe anybody could have thought I was consenting. I was taken advantage of.
He confused sex with friendship? Wanted to belong? Said no to some things?
Even on his evidence, there seems more reason to doubt Hepworth was raped than there is to believe it.
In fact, X strongly denies any rape, and at his press conference one parishioner called him “a good shepherd” and another, a retired judge, “a good bloke”.
Moreover, Hepworth’s credibility has been challenged in the past.
He concedes he faced a Ballarat court about 30 years ago, charged with misappropriating $1200 — a lot of money back then — from his Anglican parish to pay for his son’s baptism party.
“I pleaded not guilty. The magistrate refused to find any verdict,” Hepworth told the Canberra Times.
“I was trying to stop the marriage breaking up. My then wife wanted a big party and I could not afford it.
“The diocese brought (the charge) because I had wrongly used … (a parish account) and regretted it … I had paid an account intending to pay it back.”
Hepworth was also accused of financial irregularities at Glenelg, an Adelaide parish he administered in 1974, but says his bishop refused to confirm any allegations to an investigator.
Again, he denies any wrongdoing and we must give him the benefit of the doubt.’
I must at this point state that none of these things were previously known – and not least of all by those whom Archbishop Hepworth was now supposed to be shepherding. It is here that things really began to unravel, and rapidly so. In light of the ‘breaking news’, a call was immediately made in the form of a resolution passed during a meeting of the Anglican Church in America for the Archbishop to resign. He chose rather frivolously, to ‘rebuff’ the call:
‘Archbishop Hepworth told ABC radio this morning he still had the support of his church and the Vatican to proceed with negotiations.
“Nine years ago, when I became the primate, I wrote to the then Cardinal Ratzinger who headed the CDF, which is where unity takes place, and said that if I ever became an obstacle through my personal circumstances or background, then understand that I will step aside,” Archbishop Hepworth said.
“Now, at the moment, the Vatican isn’t saying that to me, they’re saying to me the opposite, to keep going as you are.”
He said calls for his resignation by the Anglican Church in America House of Clergy were spurred on by church politics and the ongoing public spat with the Adelaide Archdiocese over the rape investigation.’
Far be that from what the true intention was (at least not from what I can see): A call for the Traditional Anglican Communion to be distanced and spared from the embarrassment of becoming embroiled in a repulsive sex scandal, one that should have been a private point of conflict between the Primate and the Catholic Church. However showing very little regard for anyone but himself, the Archbishop rather selfishly blundered on:
‘The head of the Traditional Anglican Communion, John Hepworth, is hoping a reunion between his church and the Pope will be ratified within weeks despite concerns his abuse complaints could hinder the process.
Archbishop Hepworth’s group, which splintered from the Anglican Church and wants to unite with the Catholic Church, has 400,000 members. “I think it will be a very successful resolution in the new year,” he said.’
Something else then briefly surfaced:
‘Controversial Anglican Archbishop John Hepworth has offered to drop demands for action over rape allegations against a senior priest identified in Parliament.
In exchange he would like help to return to the Catholic Church.’
The above report was however quickly rubbished (the very next day) – it had to be for the insinuation would be tantamount to a form of blackmail.
Next came the real bitter pill:
‘Archbishop John Hepworth will be forced to relinquish his role as the primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion if he is to reconcile with the Catholic Church, after being informed he will only be accepted as a layperson.’
Total disbelief. I recall saying at the time: ‘this will surely test (and demonstrate) the sincerity of the man’. And I believe it has done exactly that.
While the decision made by the Roman Catholic Church is but a standard procedure applied to anyone who has forsaken his vows and abandoned the Catholic Priesthood - as John Hepworth did - humility, honesty and following the conviction of his previously vociferously held beliefs (namely, the ‘accept[ance of] the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter… [and] that the Church founded by Jesus Christ subsists most perfectly in the churches in communion with the See of Peter’), the Archbishop should have submitted to the judgement of that higher authority, one he so believed in. But alas, this was not to be. Instead of doing so, and showing the world what true humility faith so frequently seems to demand of us, he weighed his options and decided to:
- Take his ‘sex case’ to the police.
- Resign as Primate at Pentecost but stay on as Bishop Ordinary in Australia and Japan, and under legislation of the Canadian General Synod, Primate of the ACCC.
His first choice amounted to a total public spectacle. Posing, striding in full regalia in front of the Adelaide Police Station prompted one commentator to reflect:
‘I fail to see how any of this public posturing aids in the fulfilment of what should be any bishop’s mission in life (or indeed any Christian’s)–the furtherance of the cause of the Gospel. It saddens me deeply.’
Every bit of evidence, investigation, and inquiry, apart from his own testimony, shows that there is absolutely no substance to his claim to have been raped by the Catholic Priest. None. Zip. Nothing. What does he possibly hope to accomplish now and why does he not do so in a personal capacity? Leave the TAC out of it. Please!
As for the second pronouncement, by whose authority does he get to make such a decision, one begs to ask? His own? The Church is not some kind of autocratic state where you get to do as you see fit. Collegiality is how it is supposed to work Archbishop. Why? So that we can avoid falling into error and sin. Now, in this case: One day you’re merrily off to Rome, and the next, oh, but the offer was somehow not quite good enough? So now I’ll stay? Surely not Archbishop, for that would make you, by your very own words, nothing short of a hypocrite.
It is the now expressed will of the majority of his sheep and fellow Bishops, that Archbishop Hepworth resign to sort out the mess that he alone has created for himself; and moreover, to stop dragging and bringing the credibility of the TAC as a whole into disrepute. Truly, there are ‘none so blind as those that will not see’ (Matthew Henry). Why will Archbishop John Hepworth not accept the facts as they stand, and do what can be the only honourable and pastoral thing left to do? Go to the Catholic Church (as promised to do, vocally and numerous times, over the past four years) or resign as Primate while seeking the wise and godly counsel of fellow brother Bishops in the TAC College of Bishops. Not at Pentecost. Now. The fall out and damage is massive as things stand. Instead, he superciliously seems to find their opinion to be ‘whimsical’?
What is so sad here – and this is so glaringly obvious – is that if the Roman Church had offered John Hepworth a collar, he would in all likelihood have gone (a pectoral cross would have been an added bonus of course). And because they will only, as discerned before an Almighty, Living God, receive him back as a layman, he will not go (?!), and that, despite the fact, that he believe Rome to be home.
The Holy Scriptures insist that a Bishop be ‘above reproach’ (1 Tim 3:2). The secular media calls our Primate ‘controversial’. What does that say about the Traditional Anglican Communion as a whole, and that before a lost and fallen world? It makes for a pathetic witness is what it does. It is beyond me, as a Priest (in this said Communion), as to how things could have gone so far, and how it is that we have managed to get ourselves into such a position. And all the while the Gospel is being choked out by Church leaders playing Church politics. The situation is anything but ‘whimsical’ Archbishop. What it is, is a terrible indictment against you. And you should be the one to do something about it, and spare the TAC from any further embarrassment.
‘There is a beautiful transparency to honest disciples who never wear a false face and do not pretend to be anything but who they are.’ – Brennan Manning.
‘… keep far from a false charge’ (Exodus 23:7).
‘… desiring to conduct ourselves honorably in all things’ (Hebrews 13:18).
Honestly, I have no idea how the Church works in America, or Australia for that matter, but here in Africa, our single greatest desire is to lead people to Christ and Christ crucified, and by our witness bring lost sinners to Him for salvation (1 Corinthians 1:23). It means being holy and blameless and above reproach in our public testimony. And if I say, now, to the world, through the medium of this lowly blog, that our mission is being compromised by what is going on in the Office of the Primate, then I say so because it is. And I will not one day be held accountable to an Omnipotent Creator Judge, because I would not speak out against the sin that is presently threatening to engulf us, and choose instead to sit ideally by, hoping that our elected leaders will do the right thing. Very souls are at stake!
In this, I have absolutely no aspirations but to implore each and every one of you who reads that which has been written here, to prayerfully look deep within, search, and ask the question: ‘whom am I serving?’ Be holy. Reflect: Am I seeking the favour of men, or of God? (Gal. 1:10).
_________________________________________
And almost as if to make my point (above), see out today:
- TAC House of Bishops Calls for Archbishop John Hepworth’s Immediate Removal here.
- Virtue article that needs to be cross-checked here.
- Hepworth should quit now, bishops say here.
UPDATE: A press release by the TAC Bishops here.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Dear Father Stephen,
As you rightly say, “here in Africa, our single greatest desire is to lead people to Christ and Christ crucified”. A resounding Amen to that . I would like to thank you and all the African clergy for remaining focussed in turbulent times. I am proud to serve alongside you in God’s Army!
+Michael
Southern Africa
Thank-you Bishop. May God in Christ Jesus lead us on!
Pingback: Boom! – from South Africa | English Catholic
From the moment the Apostolic Constitution was published, I (and, I expect many who, like me, had in retrospect foolishly hoped and prayed for an honourable ‘united but not absorbed’ corporate reunion) knew exactly what we were getting and that it was not what we’d hoped for. Hepworth went on record at the time in the words: ‘It more than matches the dreams we dared to include in our petition of two years ago. It more than matches our prayers.’ (http://themessenger.com.au/Annoucements/20091020.html) Was he buttering the Romans up at the time, or was he delusional? The plain words of the Constitution made it clear that all the normal procedures regarding returning priests would apply.
That said, I think I’m headed for the Ordinariate. My bishop and all (or at least most of) the priests I currently have any sacramental dealings with are going, and I’m a realist. This is the best offer we’re going to get for 450 years and Bishop Elliott, whom the Romans have made their delegate for this purpose, has been handling things with sensitivity and, if rumours are true, with a view to minimising our indignities as far as possible, for which he should be thanked. Added to that, the choices in Australia for any Anglican who wants to maintain orthodoxy and sacramental integrity as an Anglican outside the Roman Church will be:
1. find another continuing bishop (they are circling); or
2. stay in the rump ACCA under Hepworth.
Now, I’m not a donatist, but what I’ve seen of the way the ACCA has been run under Hepworth, particularly in latter years, has demonstrated to me the unviability of the TAC at least locally in Australia (no judgment being passed on Africa or anywhere else) and, thanks to Hepworth, the Petrine claims have never looked so good and the bosom of the Pope never so cosy.
It is somewhat distressing to read orthodox Anglicans (yourself excepted, Father) who appear unable to divorce their dismay at the spectacle Hepworth has made of himself from their hostility towards Rome. The pursuit of the priest whom you do not name in the article above (although his name is now all over the internet and in the parliamentary record) has been in my opinion an enormity most detestable. Let us all separate that from the ecclesial decisions we will be making and continue to pray for each other in a spirit of Christian brotherhood, recognising that we will all still be on the same side.
So please allow me to add a lay ‘Amen’ to what you and Bishop Gill have written above. (The only think I would say is that ‘there is no substance to his being raped by a Catholic Priest’ should be ‘there is no substance to his being raped by this particular priest’. Another inquiry found that he was abused in seminary when consent was vitiated by his age, and therefore ‘rape’ would not be an unfair term for what is found to have happened.)
Thank-you for sharing Sandra. And the very best to you as you seek to follow our Lord’s leading light.
A loud Amen to that!
Controversial Archbishop John Hepworth bows to the inevitable.
By ABC Reporter Alan Atkinson
The seeming never-ending saga of Archbishop John Hepworth and his clashes with fellow bishops overseas and the Adelaide Catholic Archdiocese at home may finally be coming to a painful end.
He has announced he will step down within six months as primate of the breakaway Traditional Anglican Communion, though colleagues overseas want him to quit immediately.
For months, John Hepworth has been pushing to have his small high Anglican church (which has no affiliation to main Anglican Church) unite with Rome.
As part of his campaign (and to the dismay of fellow TAC leaders in America and South Africa) John Hepworth this year went public about alleged abuse he had suffered as a young man at the hands of trainee Catholic priests.
This painful public display of his own shame and suffering was, he said, an attempt to explain to the Pope why he had fled the Catholic Church and become an Anglican, in the hope that this would help him to be accepted back and be reunited with Rome.
The problem for this occasional media commentator (John Hepworth’s other speciality is local state politics in South Australia) was that the whole debate about his alleged abuse quickly became a somewhat tragic media and political circus.
Not only did he have American bishops in the Traditional Anglican Communion ranged against him over his bid to take the TAC into the arms of Rome, he had one very senior local church leader and one very outspoken politician take up the cudgels for him.
At the urging of Sydney’s conservative Catholic Cardinal George Pell, John Hepworth some time ago took his claims of abuse to the Catholic Church in Melbourne – and their process of inquiry quickly led to an apology for the suffering caused to him by two (now dead) priests, plus a $75,000 payout.
John Hepworth’s word was apparently accepted without demur, and an outside observer might conclude that such a finding against two now dead priests would not be that difficult to achieve.
However, John Hepworth chose also to mention that a still living priest in Adelaide was a third abuser. And this priest chose not to accept John Hepworth’s version of youthful events and said he had never had a sexual relationship with Mr Hepworth.
Undeterred by the fact that he did not have both sides of the story or any concrete evidence to go on, Senator Nick Xenophon – who is not known as a fan of the Catholic Church – chose to name the living Adelaide priest under parliamentary privilege in the Senate and demanded he be stood down pending an inquiry. He appeared to base his
statement solely on the fact that he believed John Hepworth’s story.
Unlike the Melbourne process for dealing with abuse complaints, in Adelaide the stakes were higher. Dealing with claim and counter-claim between two living persons is notoriously more difficult than dealing with one person’s claim against two dead people.
Faced with an outright denial by the priest (so peremptorily named by Senator Xenophon) the Adelaide Archdiocese had tried to set an inquiry in place – but it only got going this year, the church says, because, after four years of discussion, John Hepworth only formally agreed to the inquiry in February.
Leading Adelaide QC Michael Abbott (who is neither Anglican nor Catholic) did his best to seek out witnesses and although John Hepworth refused to take part, Mr Abbott could find no substance to John Hepworth’s claims against the living priest. Perhaps predictably both Senator Xenophon and John Hepworth immediately cried foul and said the Adelaide process had been biased as well as tardy. They claim no-one can now safely take a claim of abuse to the church – this despite the fact that all Catholic Dioceses appear to have moved to a much more rigorous process of inquiry than those of previous years – and now urge complainants to go to the police.
So where is it all ending now? John Hepworth has indeed finally taken his complaints to the South Australian police who may or may not be able to find more evidence than Michael Abbott QC. Senator Nick Xenophon is unrepentant about naming the Adelaide priest entirely on the word of John Hepworth. And the accused priest himself says his reputation has pretty well been demolished.
As for John Hepworth and his bid to join with the Catholics, that goal seems further out of reach than ever. The Catholic Church recently told him he could only rejoin Rome as a layman. And now John Hepworth says he will resign as primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion next May, but remain as a bishop.
It seems his dream of once again joining the Catholic Church is in tatters – along with the reputation of an Catholic Adelaide priest, so publicly damned in the Senate.
(Footnote: One can only wonder whtat the Honorable Peter Slipper, the new Speaker of the Australian House or Representaives, and incidentally an ordained priest and Chancellor in the Traditional Anglican Communion, makes of it all. Peter Slipper incidentally has his own problems, with investigations into his extravagant use parliamentary travel allowances, allegations of inappropriate behaviour with a male colleague on video (held by his former Liberal Party), and numerous warnings from colleagues about his state of sobriety in Parliament.)
Nice one, Mr A. I hope this neat summation finds a prominent place somewhere.
And another thing: not only a claim against two dead people, but one against two dead people with substantial abuse records, as opposed to a living man with no such record at all. It’s a whole different ballgame, and it’s not to Hepworth’s (or Senator Megaphone’s) credit that he can’t see that he wasn’t the only one with something at stake in the Adelaide inquiry with which he refused to co-operate.
As a Catholic, I can only welcome to those seriously desiring union with us but please, you can keep John Hepworth and Anthony Chadwick and thier ilk. They are yours to keep with our prayers and blessings!
Oh dear, Mr Mainwaring, I see you don’t like me! What a shame. We ought to meet up one day…
I don’t understand why Rupert thinks that Fr Anthony is deserving of such comments. Whether you agree with his views or not he is surely a voice of moderation and charity amid all this chaos. Rupert, however, demonstrates the personal “qualities” that only turn people off the Roman Catholic Church.
Pingback: The TAC | Catholic Canada