Hepworth Redux
October 28, 2012 21 Comments
A day ago someone in Australia who goes by the name ‘Jay Walk’ (no, that’s not Gay Walk) has conveniently uploaded a video which has been entitled: Traditional Anglican bishops sign Catechism Catholic Church Portsmouth UK October 2007.
Deborah Gyapong has today conveniently put it to good use, setting the stage for yet another blog post forming part of her ongoing series of posts coming out in defence of Archbishop John Hepworth. Her blog remains the only sanctuary left for him on the blogosphere. Her loyalty, albeit so misplaced, is most admirable. Me? I’m tired of fighting the Hepworthian PR machine… All the lies that are so quickly and easily spread, half-truths, deceit, conduct unbecoming, schismatic behaviour, slander, an unwillingness to repent, collusion, failing to admit any accountability, the refusal to work with fellow Bishops, running off to the secular media (or anyone else who is willing to listen), endorsing Slipper, making unsanctioned press releases, using the TAC as a bargaining tool to orchestrate his hoped for glorious return to the Catholic Church, not following through on his own word, the promises (is he a Catholic layman yet, and if not, why not?), the arrogance, the self-pity… It has been a long and taxing fight that includes:
- Hepworth going on record and calling the Tribunal set up, the one that he was invited to and asked to defend himself in: ‘la-la land‘.
- Documented evidence of his financial mismanagement as a Catholic priest, having faced court for misappropriating funds as an Anglican priest, and on top of all that, being accused of financial irregularities as a Continuing Archbishop. People used to say, ‘Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.’
- A martyr? Well, you decided.
- Repeatedly involving the TAC with and in his alleged sexual abuse, with sick graphic details, ’cold, wet sand…’ and all.
- Offering to drop demands for action over the above rape allegations in exchange for being helped to return to the Catholic Church.
- Not supplying any spiritual leadership to his bishops or the people of the TAC.
- Rebuffing calls for his resignation.
- Seeking a Papal nod.
- Ruining the life and ministry of Msgr Ian Dempsey, an innocent Priest who up until Archbishop John Hepworth’s unsubstantiated claims, was a Priest in good standing, as an Officer of the Order of Australia, and the former director-general of the Australian Navy’s chaplaincy.
- Openly advocating schism.
- Clandestine canvassing.
- Bashing fellow Bishops in the secular media.
- Refusing to meet with his Bishops.
There’s so much more. It has, indeed, been a long, sick and sordid story. Unchristian. So what, I must ask, is the point Deborah? Archbishop John Hepworth has been charged and found guilty, sanctioned by a Church (TAC) that he in any event does not want to be in. What more is there?
It’s time, I’d suggest, to look forward. You have an Ordinariate. You are part of that. Those who wanted to go went. Others stayed. Why still bother with the TAC and her internal processes? Why the bitterness?
Not so long ago, I said:
The Archbishop is media obsessed and sadly has become somewhat infectious. Someone who is in error and is to be avoided as such.
And Fr Robert responded:
… this man [Hepworth] and issues should be a “dead” subject, lets all move on now. The Lord will deal with him, in divine providence!
PS. I’m only really left curious on one thing: Who is Gay Walk, oops, I mean, Jay Walk, the one who so opportunely posted the above lame, boring, soundless video to YouTube. Please, do tell us Deborah.
UPDATE: See also, the impact of Bishop Hepworth’s handy work, here.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Well said Fr. Stephen, what a sad “litany”.. the ‘Hepworth Redux’, may we all take note! And sadly one cannot defend what is simply “wrong”, and that visible appearance (“form”) of evil, (1 Thess. 5: 22).
Dear Fr Stephen, I esteem both your and Deborah’s blog very highly – and by proxy, the persons running the blogs. It is for this reason that I have to ask: why can’t you let go? If Deborah wants to defend Hepworth, what does it bother you? I have no dog in this fight but would wish for you to move on too, as you ask Deborah to do. What happened, happened. Everything has been said here and elsewhere, at least once. Let’s save our own souls, not judge others.
In Christ,
Victor from Germany
It’s not about judgment, private or otherwise, but about the truth. And “all it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing…” ― Edmund Burke. I will not remain silent when that which is not true is passed off as truth, and that unchecked or unchallenged. To be asked to do so, is to be asked too much. That’s what bothers me.
Moreover, what Archbishop John Hepworth has done, he has done, and it is out there for the world to see. This is not personal. I never put it out there. But that which he so blatantly did, cannot be conveniently swept under the mat either, for while some may have chosen (again conveniently) to forget, we have not.
You seem to have amazing certainty about the truth, Fr. Stephen, with little regard for whether Archbishop Hepworth is in fact a victim of severe clerical sexual abuse, as the Melbourne independent commissioner found. Leaving Msgr. Dempsey aside as the accusations against him may still yet come before a court of law and Msgr. Dempsey is entitled to the presumption of innocence, are you saying the findings against Fr. Pickering and Fr. Stockdale are false? Yes, what Archbishop Hepworth has done is out there for the world to see, and the ordinariates are a fruit of what he’s done and so is that fact that our little flock in Ottawa is happily on its way to being inside one.
And you know that I’m glad for you and that ‘little flock’. I read of that joy and happiness so often on your blog! The point, or person, that we disagree on is John Hepworth. No doubt, he played a pivotal role in the Ordinariates unfolding and establishment. His self-destruction however began when he received the news that there was no place of primacy for him in an Ordinariate. In fact, it’s rather ironic that he will never… I’ll say it again, never, be part of any Ordinariate. He must reconcile with the Catholic Church as a layman. To date, that pill has been too bitter for him to swallow and so he pollutes the world with his poisonous rhetoric.
And I’m going to be very honest with you Mrs Gyapong: Whatever happened (or did not happen) between him and the other men on a beach in the night, years before I was even born (!) has nothing to do with me. That is his business. He was the one who made it a public point of conflict (between himself and the Catholic Church). I have absolutely no opinion or interest. I can only but bemoan and condemn the way he went out and destroyed the good reputation of an innocent and decorated Priest, Msgr Dempsey. That he was capable of going to such lengths disgusts me (my personal opinion) and only leads me to want to have as little as is possible to do with Archbishop John Hepworth.
But when you paint the rosy revisionist picture that you do of the man, while damning the rest of the TAC that did not go the way of the Ordinariate at the same time, that is something else… You really shouldn’t do that. It is wrong. Very wrong.
@Fr. Stephen: As just an observer, and a evangelical Anglican (odd man out here
I most certainly agree with you! I will always be simply dumbfounded by and about the whole Hepworth affair/problem, for the “appearance” of evil has been blatant! Indeed there should have been more early biblical authority applied, but Anglicanism is certainly these days slow at best to see spiritual and doctrinal standards! Of course I am not one to run to “Rome”, (been there and done that). So I don’t see the whole love-fest for Roman Catholicism, doctrinally for sure! But, that is an on-going debate, as we know..since the Reformation, also. And indeed yes, Lord give us more “certainty” for truth, as Jesus said, for “spirit and truth”! Again sadly, people sign stuff, but where is the spiritual and Christ-like authority? “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine (teaching). For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Matt. 7: 28-29) Oh we still have those “scribes” in the church don’t we!
Fr Stephen: Even if Ms Gyapong is misguided in her support for Mr Hepworth, as you will recall from a previous post, the TAC announcement on the outcome of its proceedings against Hepworth raised “due process” issues by reason of the absence of a reasoned decision.
I raised at that time the issue that at least one member of the tribunal which sat in judgment was a lawyer, and not any old lawyer, but one of Her Majesty’s Counsel.
If Ms Gyapong’s post here is accurate in its description of the papers served on Mr Hepworth and the manner in which the tribnual proceeded, then I fear that even more due process issues are raised.
The world was given to understand that the charges to be bought beofre the tribunal were to do with the malversation of church funds. Now, if Ms Gyapong’s post is correct – and she writes as if copies of the documents will soon be on the internet – then the actual charge was one of: promoting activity contrary to the fundamental declarations or ruling principles of the Concordat of the TAC. That is the kind of accusation that requires further specification.by way of particulars. But according to Ms Gyapong, there were none and she asserts moreover that particulars were requested and not forthcoming.
It is begiinning to sound as if Ms Gyapong is in a position to put together a case that a number of the prelates who signed the Portsmouth Declarations had second thoughts and that the proceedings against Mr Hepworth may have been trurmped up to provide a plausible excuse for those second thoughts.
If the prelates involved were determined to proceed in a manner so procedurally unfair that it might have been devised by Master Thomas Cromwell, then perhaps they should have added a charge that they only signed up at Portsmouth under the influence of witchcraft.
Lord deliver your Church of the spirit and process of Law & Judaization! Note again Matt. 23: 1-3, etc. As, Gal. 5: 22-23. Btw, does the Church need lawyers? (See, 1 Cor. 6: 1-8)
My point was “spiritual”, and not legal, Hepworth had lost that a longtime back! The spirit and standard of the presbyter is always in “word and doctrine”(1 Tim. 5:17)….looking back also to 1 Tim. 4 15-16. We need men who are spiritual, i.e. the Spirit of Christ, and not just smooth talkers, and tell people what they want to hear! (2 Tim. 4: 1-5)
Pingback: By their fruits ye shall know them . . . | Foolishness to the world
I cannot go into the specific reasons I have for saying this here ~ and obviously this makes me open to criticism that I am maliciously making things up ~ but as someone who once knew John Hepworth quite well, I must doubt the veracity of his claims that he was ever sexually abused by the two dead priests whom he has accused. There is no doubt that these two priests were serial sexual abusers. There is reason, however, for me to doubt that they ever sexually abused John Hepworth. It gives me no personal satisfaction to have to say this ~ and may God and John Hepworth forgive me if I am wrong ~ but I feel compelled to do so as my own conscience has been greatly disturbed by this situation. Please delete my comments if you deem this appropriate.
Theologicos, are you a trained investigator into sexual abuse matters? Do you have more expertise in ascertaining the validity of abuse claims than the independent commission set up by the Melbourne diocese, which found Archbishop Hepworth’s claims credible? If so, then why are you hiding under a pseudonym?
It should be obvious to anyone why I am using a pseudonym so your question is not worth asking or answering. I can assure you that there are genuine reasons for me to doubt John Hepworth’s claims of sexual abuse and it isn’t necessary for me to be a “trained investigator into sexual abuse matters” in order to have such doubts in this particular instance ~ although I don’t doubt that his claims were “credible” to those who investigated them. But being credible doesn’t mean that they were actually true. It is a good thing to want to believe people’s claims of abuse so I don’t want to believe that he intentionally invented the claims for unethical reasons or unintentionally due to some psychological disorder. I do not have any personal antipathy towards him. I feel compassion for him more than anything else because I believe that he is a deeply wounded person.
Hepworth’s claims of sexual abuse may or may not be true. That is not what he was accused of by the TAC bishops. Judging by what has been published by on two other sites today, that of Fr Chadwick and that of Ms Deborah Gyapong, the legitimacy of what the TAC has done to him seems ever more questionable.
I hope the judgment by the TAC on Hepworth, is not going to become some piece of canon law or scholasticism, to be re-judged by others? The TAC Bishops have spoken morally and with authority, lets move on! And surely Mr. Hepworth has brought on his own demise, spiritually! And one does not need to be an expert on sexual psychology, or psychology otherwise.. to see pastoral moral failure!
Since we are of the same age, you will undoubtedly recall the comedy by Aristophanes entitled “The Birds” in which Pisthetairos and Euelpides seek to create the perfect city: Νεφελοκοκκυγία – “Cloud Cuckoo Land”
A church, (note – not just “the Church”, but any ecclesial community), has to exist in the world. It will have assets which its leaders will hold as trustees for its proper purposes and it while have to observe the laws of the states in which it operates. Therefore it will have need of lawyers qualified in the state(s) where it operates to operate prudently. Likewise as a church it will very possibly have it own internal laws and regulations in which case it may need help with interpretation, enforcement and drafting – hence the existence of canon lawyers (BTW I am not a canon lawyer).
Finally, when a Church acts in a disciplinary matter, its decision will inevitably be scrutinised by others, both within and without the particular church, not just at the time when it was taken but also by church historians.
As a cleric nominally of the Church of Ireland and in any event a long way away from the bishop to whom you owe canonical obedience and probably also formally in retirement you are probably in as good a position as anyone to do your own thing – but that is the exception rather than the rule.
The TAC is a hierarchical church. It is not every day that such a church takes action against a Primate or former Primate. You will probably have more knowledge than I do on matters of this kind in the Anglican Communion – but how many times has a Primate been deposed or otherwisre been subject to ecceiastical disciplinary proceedings in (i) the Church of England or (ii) any other church officially part of the Anglican Communion? I suspect that such occasions are very rare.
If you or the leadership of the TAC think that its actions in regard to Hepworth are not going to be subject to intense scrutiny within the TAC and without the TAC then you and they are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
I hold no brief for Mr Hepworth. I subscribe to the principle of “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” and I am not aware of his present canonical sitution in the Church. I think it was foolish of somerbody to purport to confer episcopla orders on him \and I think it was even more foolish of the TAC to make him their Primate – but that is not the issue. The issue is whether the TAC proceeded against him “justly”. As things stand at present, that is very much open to question.
@Mourad: WE simply have very different presuppositions and authorities! YOU are a devout old school traditional Roman Catholic, and trained as a lawyer. Btw, I can appreciate the “old school” place, indeed we both come from the same generation! But, surely we don’t see at all the same religious places, but myself having been raised and somewhat educated Roman Catholic, I feel I know more about where you come from, and what you believe. But, I simply don’t think you can be objective at all about the Protestant, Reformational and Reformed churches (note the latter is plural). Again something you miss and don’t understand since you only see the RCC, and the High Church positions, etc. Also, I am a “theolog” holding two graduate degrees in theology, but more generally I am simply closer biblically, and as I like to say, I am more of a “biblicist”, simply and in finality! (Note, as I have said in my own blog, I have been a non-stipendiary priest/presbyter for several years, and now really “ecclesiastically” retired. I also have a military retirement – RMC’s). And now, besides doing hospital chaplain work, I do get to move among other Christian groups, doing some preaching/teaching, etc. And I am always something of the theolog here too, but foremost a pastor & shepherd! So indeed, as an Evangelical Christian I love and value the truth of a certain kind of independence. But I am always a “confessional” type Reformed Christian! Note, I do not see the so-called “ministry” (presbyter) as somehow higher than the priesthood of all believers, (Rev. 1: 6)!
As concerns the TAC, I am not from such, though I have certain friends there. And I confess to not understanding often their biblical/theological, and moral ground? I should say I understand it “somewhat”, but I don’t accept the High Church aspects! And I have been puzzled at their long leash for Hepworth? Aye, I can be old-school myself on some points, especially moral ones! But, I do wish the TAC well, and hope they can maintain the older Anglo English Catholicism! Numbers are never the foremost issue, but the “ground of truth”, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Btw, I am one of those that feels Anglicanism is generally English or British, i.e. the Book of Common Prayer (Anglican Articles, etc.), and thus always part of the Reformation!
Finally, I would leave Hepworth in the hands of his own, i.e. the TAC. And again, we all need to move on, and as I have said… let God have Mr. Hepworth, in His good providence!
The Peace of Christ,
But surely this has nothing to do with the TAC as such! It is a matter of justice – don’t tell me that there is no place in the church for justice! You remind me of the Jews who cried “Away with him – crucify him!”
The question whether or not Hepworth was sexually abused is irrelevant in this context. The question which denomination the accusers and defendants belong to is irrelevant. The question whether Hepworth is spiritually right or wrong is irrelevant. What is relevant is: did he get a fair trial? If you say that you don’t care about that kind of “lawyery” things, then I hope you have as little people to spiritually care for as possible, for their and your spiritual good.
Indeed the whole point is to allow the TAC leadership and bishops to do what they think is right. The case against Hepworth is within their hands, and not what others may think! This is my main point. And theology yes, but canon lawyers, only if they know theology! And the character of Hepworth is always something that must be considered, but again, by his own. That’s how it works at the local church level, also.
I disagree. The point was not “to allow the TAC leadership and bishops to do what they may have thought was right, but to do right. The test is an objective one. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to have been done.
And of course this always has the objective/subjective sense of the biblical and theological, and this can only be the judgment ot what the TAC itself believes! Note, I too have concerns over the too long allowed Hepworth so-called ministry, but this I don’t, nor do you Mourad, have any say or control over! Again certainly “justice” in the Roman Church has often fallen on hard times over the centuries! You don’t want to hear the biblical doctrine of the Pilgrim Church again do you?
Indeed there is no perfection in the historical Pilgrim Church on earth, we should seek for it, but we always fall short here!