Thanks for all the e-mails pointing out that Archbishop John Hepworth has been in the news – again, for all the wrong reasons. I have seen. As CathNews reports:
Despite revelations of coarsely worded text messages by Peter Slipper, a leading member of his church says he would be welcomed back as a priest, reports PerthNow.
Mr Slipper was ordained as a priest of the Traditional Anglican Communion in 2008.
The TAC is a legitimate, international Anglican alliance, often described as a breakaway group but seeking, above all, reunification with the Vatican in respect of the 16th century split with the Catholic Church.
The church’s Archbishop John Hepworth said his friend was facing his darkest days in the wake of “grotty” sexual harassment allegations.
Archbishop Hepworth, who is a former priest in the standard Anglican and Catholic churches, ordained Mr Slipper…
I’m not going to say anything more. The Archbishop is media obsessed and sadly has become somewhat infectious. Someone who is in error and is to be avoided as such.
UPDATE: A news video here as a panel discusses the above news.
Rev. John Hepworth is notorious for his double standards and light flirtation with the truth.
What is good for Peter Slipper, clearly does not apply to compromised Msgr. Dempsey – a man with an impeccable record in the church!!
Would anyone care to enlighten us on what had become of the proceeds of 6 churches in Australia that had been sold for $1400000.00, and leaving just $30.00 in the bank when the new management took over?
From what I understand is that the Anglican Catholic Church of Australia basically funded the primacy of the Traditional Anglican Communion with little help from other Traditional Anglican Communion Churches except the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada. The TAC as a whole owes the ACCA some $300,000, no? Not sure when these properties were sold, but it is easy to see money from the sales going into salaries, rent (or the renovations and building of a shed/office on the TAC secretary’s property to store documents and provide office space in lieu of rent) travel expenses and other costs of operation—computers, phone bills etc. eating into that nest egg. The funding of the TAC’s office of the primate (which had two staff people in addition to him, no?) was approved by the leadership of the ACCA. Did the new TAC and remaining ACCA folk expect to see all $1.4 million sitting in the bank earning interest? If this is the thrust of their arguments against Hepworth, that they expected to see that money sitting in fund somewhere untouched but were shocked to find that it was used for other matters, all financial matters that were approved by a leadership and duly audited by outside professional accountants, then I think the dark hints of financial impropriety should stop. Hepworth spent money to advance the cause of unity with the Holy See. Maybe that’s what sticks in the craw of those who have decided their signatures on the Catechism of the Catholic Church meant whatever they want them to mean. Ten years of $100,000+ a year in salaries (for several people) and overhead and pouf! a million + dollars does not go very far.
As for comparisons between Hepworth’s situation, Peter Slipper’s or Msgr. Dempsey, I would say they all hold in common the experience of having their name dragged through the mud, of being considered a disgrace, of facing accusations of wrongdoing. If the disgrace is compounded by the outrage of being falsely accused, then we might have all the more sympathy. But all of these men could use our prayers and concern. May there be justice for all and mercy, too.
Some think the accusations Hepworth has made against Dempsey are false; some think the accusations against Slipper are blown way out of proportion and were perhaps even a sting operation of some kind. Also, for anyone who jumps to the conclusion Hepworth is persecuting poor Dempsey with false claims, Hepworth did not want to go to the police when he first brought the matter of his sexual abuse forward in 2007. He only went to the police as a last resort when the Archdiocese of Adelaide held an inquiry that he felt was stacked
against him (and in which he did not participate) and the findings basically made out Hepworth to be a liar.
Obviously, the police took Hepworth’s complaints very seriously and have turned their case over to the prosecutor who will make a decision on whether charges will be laid.
Cose not to participate.
Defending the indefensible, why?
The financials of the ACCA tell a different story. The auditor endorsed by yourself as a competent person, appending lists and lists of qualifications pertaining to questionable financial management to each set of statements.
Searing queries from the Department of Fair Trading about the lack of substantiating vouchers for expenditure do not bode well for the erstwhile Primate and his Secretary.
Added to the fact that a shredder was purchased the day after notification of his suspension…………… (yes, this voucher is miraculously available)
Should make you think, no?
I agree with Fr. Smuts, this man and issues should be a “dead” subject, lets all move on now. The Lord will deal with him, in divine providence!
He’s only an issue if you make him an issue.
But isn’t there a related question here, the disintegration of the TAC? The statement was made above that the TAC is seeking reunification with the Catholic Church, but this is certainly not true of the ACA. Its reversal on the Ordinariate is significant and certainly damaging to its credibility. And the ACA has another set of difficulties, with its mail-order Bishop Strawn and his bitter disputes with St Stephen’s Athens TX and St Mary of the Angels Hollywood, as well as the two or three other parishes that leave each year. The TAC is practically nonexistent in the country where Anglicanism got started. The Japanese province has left recently — something not covered here or anywhere (Fr Smuts?). There may not be reason to dwell on Hepworth’s case if nothing new comes out, but isn’t the TAC otherwise in a pretty bad way?
Mr Bruce, the journalistic ‘method’ employed in reports about Hepworth in the Australian press is to take a new snippet of ‘news’ (in this case something Hepworth said the day before) and then pad out the story with bits of old reports to give context. They don’t even know the name of the ACCA.
Regarding the ‘disintegration of the TAC’, might I remind you that you are enjoying the hospitality of a priest in one of the most vibrantly growing member churches?
I don’t know much about the ACA, but if it can afford to lose two or three parishes a year and still be there, it was a reasonable size to start with.
I am not qualified to comment about Japan, but I believe the member church was tiny to start with.
Likewise in ‘the country where Anglicanism got started’, the TAC member church was never large at all, and the TAC (or, indeed, continuing Anglicanism) didn’t start there. The English are more wedded to the view that ‘Anglican’ means ‘C of E’ than the rest of us. Having a substantial member church in England is no yardstick for any continuing Anglican body.
The ACCA was never large, and Hepworth’s policy of selling up churches, among other things, tended to alienate people from it. The Ordinariate has made it smaller, as has been the case wherever one has been set up. We wish the folk who went or are going to it well. Fact is, there’s still an ACCA and the Acting V-G in charge of it is a dynamic man with a love of God and of souls, and if God wants us to succeed, we will, despite what the doomsayers and those fascinated by ‘disintegration’ say.
OK, but again, the source Fr Smuts links says the TAC is different because it wants unification with the RC Church. OK — we must assume that the great bulk of this unification in the UK, North America, and Australia has been done. The TAC franchises haven’t gone away in any of those places, and again, there’s the lasting loss of credibility with the ACA reneging on its own intent. The ACA has, by my current count, 69 parishes. If three of those leave each year, it will be down to zero in 23 years. I don’t believe it can afford to lose two or three parishes each year and “still be there”, as you suggest. And so far, the RC Church has said there is no plan for an Ordinariate in South Africa, and I don’t believe anything has ever been said about an Ordinariate in India — the only two places where the TAC has any noticeable presence. So it seems to me that any statement that the TAC still intends to go to Rome is meaningless. Indeed, your defense of the TAC makes no such claim — outside of India and South Africa, it’s just not a factor. But beyond that, any assertion of the overall size of the TAC relies on the idea that there are 400,000 or so communicants in India. If that were so, why wouldn’t Rome be hot to trot there? I suspect that any claim of 400,000 in India is just not substantiated. So we’re talking maybe 3,000 in Australia, 3,000 in the US, and name your number in South Africa. Prudence, a cardinal virtue, would suggest we’re talking about a comic-opera denomination.
Read what I wrote and use your God given brain. I said they pad out new copy with old copy. I clearly identified the new copy. So which bits do you think are the old copy? Quite frankly, I really don’t know why you even bother with us, except that you would appear to take a special delight in our apparent imminent destruction.
At this point, I think we will always have some Anglo-Catholic groups, Continuing Anglicans and just Anglicans, etc. Not every High Church aspect in Anglicanism wants to go to Rome. Not to mention there are some Anglicans that are Orthodox friendly, i.e. the EO. I know, I was one of them! (Years back)
@John Bruce
“we must assume that the great bulk of this unification in the UK, North America, and Australia has been done”
Well, as for ACA, it is not necessarily so. After those news about St Barnaba’s, Omaha having to wait to be received due to property litigation, the CSP Ordinariate reported today: “Beautiful Holy Nativity Church in Payson, Arizona, will be received into the Ordinariate on December 16 by Monsignor Steenson. At that same Mass, Holy Nativity’s Anglican rector, Rev. Lowell Andrews, will be ordained a Catholic priest by Most Rev. Gerald Kicanas, Bishop of Tucson.”
http://www.facebook.com/CSPOrdinariate
Sandra, I’ve been knocking my God-given brain to see what I missed here. You seem to believe I was saying something or other about old copy or new copy or something, and I don’t believe there’s anything about copy, old or new, in my post. My post is about the TAC and the claim in the article linked above that the TAC is (present tense) unique in wanting to seek union with Rome. Even the cases Continental Catholic cites don’t apply: Holy Nativity Payson is no longer an ACA parish. It would be among those I’ve cited as the three or so that leave the ACA each year. It is not listed on the ACA web site. St Barnabas Omaha is a former TEC parish and never was an ACA parish. My point continues: the total membership of the ACA, about 3,000 (I’m being generous) is smaller than many single RC parishes. Same applies to Australia. The TAC has renounced Hepworth’s intention, which was never entirely realistic, of joining Rome. My point was twofold: the TAC’s self-description is incorrect, and the TAC is an organization too small to notice in most parts of the West. Apparently Sandra finds this upsetting.
I think Ms McColl’s point was that referring to TAC as “unique in wanting to seek union with Rome” was not “self-description” but a journalist’s recycling of old comments from the Hepworth era. Clearly that is no longer the TAC agenda and I fail to see the utility of continuing to beat anyone up about it. TAC was never very significant; now it’s less so. Pointing this out to people who are continuing to find something of value there seems just mean-spirited.
Yes, you have correctly identified the old copy.