Statement from the The Traditional Anglican Communion College of Bishops Re: John Hepworth
October 18, 2012 23 Comments
The Traditional Anglican Communion
STATEMENT
The Tribunal of the Traditional Anglican Communion comprising Archbishop Samuel Prakash (India), Bishop Craig Botterill (Canada) and Bishop Brian Marsh (USA) on 6 October 2012 examined the charges brought by eight (8) Bishops against Archbishop John Anthony Hepworth under Section 10 of the Concordat of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and delivered the verdict that Archbishop John Anthony Hepworth was guilty as charged.
The following sanction was imposed:
1. THAT JOHN ANTHONY HEPWORTH, ARCHBISHOP, be, with immediate effect, permanently expelled from the COLLEGE OF BISHOPS OF THE TRADITIONAL ANGLICAN COMMUNION.
2. THAT all licences for any EPISCOPAL or PRIESTLY function within any affiliated church of the TRADITIONAL ANGLICAN COMMUNION, be with immediate effect withdrawn.
Charges under Section 6 of the Concordat are now being considered by the College of Bishops against Archbishop John Anthony Hepworth.
Johannesburg
South Africa
17th October 2012
Bishop Michael Gill
Secretary to the College of Bishops
Traditional Anglican Communion
______________________________________________________________________
The above is in pdf. here.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Hardly a shock.
In more biblical words… “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler – not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge (expel) the evil (wicked) person from among you.” (1 Cor. 5: 11-12)
These are very hard and sober words, but they are the words of and for the Church! They must be taken in great humility, but also in great authority! Let us pray for John Anthony Hepworth!
mmm the composition of this tribunal casts a shadow on it… Particularly Bishop Marsh’s presence, a man who reneged his solemn signature on the Portsmouth Petition, and his solemn plea (with the whole ACA HoB) for an ordinariate to be established in the US.
And while I agree that he should be stripped of power, I find it very harsh that the tribunal could press charges under section 6 of the concordat: for a “credible allegation of dereliction of consecration vows in the life or teaching of one of its members”. One can think anything about himm, but Archbishop Hepworth’s moral life is without a stain (or perhaps a divorce & remarriage, but then Bishop Strawn is in the same situation), and if teaching according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a document signed by most TAC Bishops) is what the tribunal is calling a dereliction of his teaching, this is a farce.
I don’t find any mercy toward him in this process. Now that he is no more in power, he should be left in peace, so that he can move on and work on his reconciliation with the Church (he said again in the compass programe that it’s his final aim).
+ PAX et BONUM
HIS (Hepworth’s church, the TAC), has spoken! Do we believe in this authority, and does it affect us other Anglicans? That is the only question!
Btw, Don, since you are a “R. Catholic”, why do you care, at least at this level? I mean we all have our opinion I suppose, but the issue is the TAC has spoken!
Clearly Sir, you have no idea of the man Hepworth and his antics!!!
Bishop Marsh (then a suffragan bishop to Bishop George Langberg of the ACA diocese of the Northeast) was not present at the Portsmouth Synod, nor did he sign the petition or any of the other documents which the other bishops signed at that synod) — but why he was allowed to succeed Langberg as the diocesan bishop some months later without signing them is an interesting question).
Would it be possible for the exact wording of the charges for which the former Primate was found guilty as charged to be published – if known?
I agree here, but so-called Section 6 (and we know what that means I think), seems next? But he is already being “permanently expelled”! So 1 Cor. 5: 11-12, can be in reality the only means, note “swindler” here, which is where it seems this has come? But, I am only assuming, but what I have heard.
And btw, if the TAC is NOT using 1 Cor. 5, etc., then on what biblical ground is the College of Bishops functioning? That would be your point I think Fr. Anthony, yes?
‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
I assume this is about Hepworth’s financial irregularities, but it does seem strange that the charges against him are not listed, so that readers may know what it is he has been adjudged guilty of doing.
Sadly, there are so many “irregularities” from Hepworth, I suspect however that his story about being raped by certain Catholic priests (so many years ago), did not go well with so many, both Catholic and Anglicans, (perhaps really a gay relationship gone bad?) We simply don’t know? And in the end he simply lost his Christian character, and became unbelieveable! But, we surely should pray for him!
I don’t think it fair to accuse him, the alleged victim, over his claims of being abused: that is a dreadful thing to do.
Similarly, to say he “lost his Christian character” is a dreadful thing to say – let us not sin ourselves by saying such things of anyone!
After those statements, to say “let us pray for him” seems both patronizing and hypocritical: I believe Our Lord had something to say about who should cast the first stone…
From what little I know, the accusations against him were of financial irregularities – whatever one may think of his life and work, the matters alleged against him were issues of impropriety in regard to use of church monies, so far as I am aware, and those other concerns mentioned above are separate issues.
Looks like your a Queen fan! (see Andrew above) How on earth can you come up with this when you wern’t present at the hearing? I think the plank and the mote spring to mind!
I am always quite amazed at the Anglican Communion sometimes, especially some of the rank and file clergy, at their lack of biblical understanding and authority! The loss of the Law/Gospel in the Anglican Communion is one of the reasons the Church as a whole has little authority and sense of the strength of Holy Scripture! I think of the text of 1 Thess. 5: 22, “Abstain from all appearance (or form) of evil.” Sadly, the general Anglican Communion is very far from this! And indeed this whole long affair at watching the now former Archbishop Hepworth has been nothing but an “appearance” and form of evil! One of the reasons I quoted from 1 Cor. 5, was to show indeed just what Holy Scripture and St. Paul had to say on such outright matters! Does the Hepworth affair measure in here? Well the Bishops of TAC have finally felt so. And btw, I have heard myself, and I won’t mention names, that the “charges” were felt not to be aired openly, but will be seen with the so-called Tribunal itself, with Section 6. After all, this is a Church matter, and not an open to everyone matter. Certainly not for the Blogs! But they will come out, surely.
As to showing mercy to Hepworth, this indeed must be done on the edge of being “permanently expelled” from the TAC College of Bishops! I mean do we understand what this kind of reality and decision means and entails? It appears with many, not to be so? Again, in reality one of the grave problems with the long history of the Anglican Communion, is just that, little if often any “judgment”, on matters biblical and theological, and sadly today morally (sexual ethics, etc.)
I feel very saddened by this, because, as I have said before, in my relationship and dealings with + +Hepworth, he was a very firm and at times a tough mentor, but he was a very good pastor to me in my dealings with him and , as such, a very firm influence on my Christian journey.
It would be helpful perhaps if the exact charges upon which the Tribunal has made its verdict could be made public and more clearly spelt out by the 8 bishops who are his accusers. As ‘blogger ‘ Joshua rightly says, “it does seem strange that the charges against him are not listed, so that readers may know what it is he has been adjudged guilty of doing.”
Like Don Henri, I agree that, in the announcement of the Tribunal’s verdict, “I don’t find any mercy toward him (++Hepworth) in this process. Now that he is no more in power, he should be left in peace, so that he can move on and work on his reconciliation with the Church; as he said again in the ‘Compass’ TV programme, that it’s his final aim.”
His accusers should be reminded that some of them were consecrated bishops at ++Hepworth’s hands.
I have just spoken to ++Hepworth this morning via “Skype” to express my shock on hearing of these allegations. I was even more stunned when he also said to me in this conversation that he is still awaiting formal charges from the tribunal to be put to him. He has told me that he has written to the new Acting TAC Primate requesting a list of these charges, but as yet, the new Acting primate has allegedly not replied to his request.
In addition to this, ++Hepworth also said that he was sent an ultimatum by the said tribunal, demanding that he should sign a document stating that he would “unequivocally” cover all the costs of the hearing.
It is well documented that ++Hepworth gave an undertaking to Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (prior to the Cardinal being elevated to the Papacy as Pope Benedict XV1) that he would resign once the Ordinariate was in place. This has indeed happened. ++Hepworth has resigned.
How is it then that the TAC Council of bishops has ‘expelled’ him in this manner from a church from which he has already resigned in order to retire?
As I understand it he is happy in retirement at his home in Adelaide Australia as he said he’d be once the unity with the TAC and Rome had been achieved.
Again I ask the question why then did these bishops unanimously sign the historic document requesting unity with Rome on the altar of the Lord at Portsmouth?
Didn’t they know what they were signing?
I am no longer a member of the TAC, and I guess that I should not be bothered about these things; many readers on this site have accused me of being ‘apostate’; I’ll let God be the judge of that, but I find these proceedings quite baffling to say the least.
As those who faught against the heresy of Apartheid in South Africa say “an injury to one is an injury to all.” When one part of the Body of Christ or one individual within the Body of Christ is hurt, the whole body suffers.
The prophet Micah calls us as he did the people of Israel “To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” Micah 6:8b (NIV).
I’m sorry, but I’m afraid I do not see any acts of Christian compassion and mercy at work here.
There is such a thing as natural justice (to say nothing of “mercy triumphing over justice”, as it ought among Christians, always remembering how much we all of us have been forgiven for the sake of Christ and his Cross). Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The press release should have itemised the charges, in the same manner, mutatis mutandis, as in a secular court the charges are listed; and similarly, the judgement of the judges, not merely their final verdict, should have been at the least explained, if not given in toto. There is an expression in Australia: a “kangaroo court” is no court at all, but lawlessness masquerading as law. Does the TAC want to appear as Judge Lynch?
Whilst waiting for the exact wording of the charges, I found these two germane comments by someone in Japan on Virtue Online:
I had the privilege of working with Abp. Hepworth a decade ago when he and Abp. Falk flew to Japan to lend their bone fides to the official founding of the Nippon Kirisuto Seikokai. I was tasked as the interpreter.
A lot of milk has been spilt since then, and I don’t know enough to judge Abp. Hepworth on the wisdom of going public to deal with the molestations from his past. Nor am I privy to any records to prove financial malfeasance on his part.
All that I can say is that when I worked with him in Japan I found him to be a bold leader, a brilliant theologian, a gifted preacher, a patient pastor, a skillful negotiator, and above all, a man with a great sense of humor! It was clear that the burden of being primate would weigh heavily on his shoulders. It pains me to see that he is now the object of some very vindictive behavior by his brother TAC bishops. I hope that they have good reason for being so harsh with their former archbishop.
* * *
Let’s remember that this rapprochement with Rome wasn’t just about the ACA, but about the whole TAC, of which the ACA is only one province. Further, the idea to get the bishops of the TAC to sign the Catechism of the Catholic Church did not originate with Abp. Hepworth. He did indeed proffer it to the college of bishops and they all signed on to it without objection. However, the bold move to swear assent to the CCC originated as part of a five-point platform that had been suggested by Fr. John I. Fleming of Australia. Get a copy of his Convinced by the Truth: Embracing the Fullness of Catholic Faith and you will see (pg. 98).
Pingback: Seems Archbishop Hepworth is winning on the public relations front | Foolishness to the world
When I saw the TAC announcement I did wonder whether I should comment. My poor contribution must begin with a disclaimer. These goings-on are for me res inter alios acta. As a Catholic, I do not recognise the orders of any TAC bishop and for me Mr Hepworth is a just very sad priest who is not in good standing with his diocesan and, evidently one whose personal circumstances are deserving of compassion rather than condemnation.
But just as one must recognise the existence of many different ecclesial communities separated from the Church, then one hopes that those who adopt an episcopal form of governance can operate in a way which commands the confidence of their clergy and faithful and, were I a member of the TAC, then I would be worried.
After all, it is not every day in the life of a Church that a Primate or an Archbishop is deprived of office in formal ecclesiastical judicial proceedings. In Anglican terms, it’s a cataclysmic event. How often has a Primate been deposed in the last 500 years? Still, one expects Anglicans to know how these things ought to be done.
Not least in this case because the tribunal was composed of (1) The Most Reverend Samuel P. Prakash, Acting Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, Metropolitan of the Anglican Church of India, (2) The Rt Reverend Brian D. Marsh, President of the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America and (3) the Rt. Rev. Craig R.G. Botterill, Q.C, Acting Metropolitan, Apostolic Administrator (and Lord High Everything Else) of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada.
Not everyone may know the significance of the letters “Q.C.” after Bishop Botterill’s name. They stand for “Queen’s Counsel” – technically “one of Her Majesty’s Counsel learned in the law”. The then Attorney-General and Justice Minister of Nova Scotia recommended Craig Botterill for the appointment in the 1980′s when Botterill was serving as Senior Crown Attorney in the Public Prosecution Service of Nova Scotia. So with such a distinguished lawyer among its number, this particular Tribunal must be taken to have had the ability to proceed with entire propriety – if it wished to. Perhaps it did. But not visibly so.
The statement on the web site does not exactly fill one with any confidence that it did. There is no mention of who were the 8 episcopal complainants. There are no details of where the Tribunal sat or when. There is no publication of a reasoned decision, still less any publication of the evidence put before the Tribunal.
In short, the TAC seems to be behaving more like what I would charaterise as a “sect” rather than a church with pretensions to a world-wide remit. to undertake the care of souls.
I don’t find that the Church of God has to explain its decisions of discipline to the open world, Roman Catholicism surely doesn’t. And indeed the Local Church is also part of the Church Catholic, if it is a biblical and historical, i.e. Creedal Church Body. Though the Creed here is foremost the Nicene, and a Christology that is theocentric in God Triune. With this measure, there are many churches that are Catholic!
“I don’t find….Roman Catholicism certainly doesn’t
(i) If one does’t look, one doesn’t find. If you were to look, you will find that in appropriate cases the he Catholic Church certainly does explain some disciplinary decisions – somtimes very publicly: see, for example, Decree on the Attempted Ordination of Some Catholic Women of this Notification on the works of Father Jon Sobrino, SJ .
(ii) The test for catholicity is communion with Rome.
@Mourad: You forget I was a English Benedictine in my 20′s for a bit, and so I know something about the inside workings of the Catholic Church. Not to mention my own extended Irish family.
And the true test for “Catholicity” is always really God In Christ, the truth of the Incarnation, and from here of course we see the Father and the Son, John 1:14;18. Here too Luther loved the great truth of the Nicene Council and Creed. Indeed there are many Christians outside of Roman Catholicism! You might want to re-visit the documents of Vatican II!