The subject is really sickening me, and I have decided to delete the last two postings, published as a result of having my attention drawn to Australian newspaper articles on two matters concerning Archbishop Hepworth: his accusing an Australian priest of having buggered him in the 1970’s or thereabouts and allegations of financial irregularities whilst exercising his former functions as Primate of the TAC. The blog articles in question are Deborah Gyapong’s A few thoughts and an apology and Fr Smuts’ Monsignor Ian Dempsey Cleared to Return to Parish Duties. A more recent article is Fr Smuts’ Archbishop John Hepworth Quizzed on Funds.
What really bothers me is not that I might be too proud to admit the error of ever having had anything to do with Archbishop Hepworth in the first place or not having resigned from the TAC to reconcile with Rome as a layman. It is the notion that many people, even of ideologically opposing viewpoints, have ganged up on Hepworth and scapegoated him over the past few years. He has been trashed, “virtually” stoned by those who thought they had no sin themselves. One can have the impression, reading certain personal opinions, that the TAC has begun to rebuild itself on the basis of hatred against the former Primate, the man they followed as their hierarchical leader. That is what I am really angry about.
It is possible that Hepworth’s accusations against Monsignor Dempsey are without foundation as the Adelaide Archdiocese clergy claim. Hepworth was lying purely and simply, capitalising on his real experiences as a victim of clerical sex abuse to optimise his claims to mitigating circumstances to get reinstated into the RC clergy as a priest. Was he sexually abused by physical force or psychological manipulation? We will probably never know, because I imagine that the Australian police would stretch this thing out for so long that there will be no winners or losers. Both men will be damaged beyond repair, and of course the Church is only interested in the strong and powerful – at least the ruling class in the Church.
Then there are allegations of “financial irregularities” and “misappropriation of Church funds”. These are serious accusations, and should be the subject of a complaint to the police and proper legal action to establish guilt and recover the stolen or embezzled money. I express doubts on the basis of Deborah Gyapong having said in her article Fr. Smuts trashes Archbishop Hepworth:
As for the charges of financial irregularities and the tribunal now setting out to get answers, I am satisfied the financial matters were duly audited by professional accountants.
So what bothers me is that he is being trashed for the sake of an ecclesial communion that wants to extricate itself from a corporate commitment to whatever plan Rome would come up with to cater for groups of Anglicans wanting to become Roman Catholics with some cultural concessions and exceptions.
I am angry about this whole thing, and I sincerely ask myself the question of whether I should remain in the TAC, if its entire justification for existence is the trashing of a human being. Is this whole thing about settling scores and getting revenge like France in 1944, or in quietly re-establishing justice in regard to a corrupt archbishop? I am not satisfied as to the purity of this blood vendetta, or what seems to be one. There are still too many loose ends for condemnations to be pronounced. One reaps what one sows, the law of karma, cause and effect.
I am beyond trying to defend Archbishop Hepworth. I owed him a debt of gratitude for having made it possible for me to join the TAC in 2005. He appeared to have a considerable amount of credibility within the TAC and with people who matter in Rome – and that in spite of his matrimonial situation and being a Roman priest being known. He has never done me any harm personally, but I have on occasions “winced” about things he said about others. I cannot bring myself to diabolise him and say that he is all bad, but I can no longer defend him.
The two contentious questions – whether Hepworth’s accusations against Dempsey are founded and whether Hepworth has been fiddling money – need to be properly resolved by way of legal action. That is what the law is for, so that people don’t get lynched and hanged from a tree like in the old American West. Accusations in justice have the onus of producing proof, because the accused has the right to presumption of innocence: Mgr Dempsey for the alleged buggery and Archbishop Hepworth for allegedly being caught with his hand in the till.
And so, apart from keeping a record of newspaper articles on The TAC Archive, I am not going to allow myself to write any further on this subject. The subject is closed whatever Fr Smuts or others write or say, at least until a proper legal judgement is rendered public.
For the record, I acknowledge the existence of a letter from Archbishop Prakash to Archbishop Hepworth in which contentious issues are made clear. Subject to Archbishop Prakash having been correctly informed, I cannot object to his position. I would then be of the opinion that my former Ordinary should petition the Holy See for a rescript of laicisation and live out his days as a private person attending Mass and Office in a monastic church, and never be heard of again.
For the rest of us, may God have mercy upon us…
The Blue Flower 
I am certainly willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt. I doubt any of these things would have happened if Rome had not promulgated the apostolic constitution. All signs point to him being scape goated for the TAC split and his actions to promote unity with Rome. I think it was a mistake to go public with the abuse cases during this process, but that was his decision.
It is rather rich to see the current primate criticing the archbishop for not returning to the Catholic Church as a layman, “lack of integrity”, when I believe the man’s own signature was placed on the TAC petition.
Indeed, this whole thing is a conscience twister. Just another couple of months, I’ll see it through to the end of 2012 and then I really do need to be straight with God. Pray for me.
My poor prayers.
I also agree with your assessment of the forces that appear to be massing against Bishop Hepworth. Even if the allegations against him prove to be true, and the allegations made by him are found to be without merit, there is no justification for the trial by media (and blog) that is ongoing. As I asked on Fr Smuts’ blog, who leaked the letter to the press, and what did they expect to gain from it?
My prayers, too. This has been a most painful episode for all concerned. I think that God will never deny his grace to those who are genuinely trying to do the right thing.
Thank you, Father. You have been through the crucible yourself. There will be a new way forward, and we will be united in Christ. That is my hope and prayer.
When I was at the College of Bishops meeting in Portsmouth in October 2007, I had a long conversation with a TAC bishop. I don’t know whether his opinion was at all representative. It consisted of saying that they would just go along with the Primate’s agenda because Rome would take at least 30 years to shift this thing through their system, plus another 10 years to translate the document into Latin – that is if the document doesn’t end up in some Cardinal’s tagliatelli carbonara! In short, it wasn’t anticipated that Rome would consider anything within our lifetime.
In a way, the TAC episcopate bluffed and the bluff was called. That bishop was of the opinion that dialogue with Rome would be the right thing to keep the TAC mainstream and credible, giving it an advantage over other continuing Anglican churches.
Now the ruin is complete except in those places where an ordinariate has not been offered. Therefore South Africa and India still have advantage of what I could call the Portsmouth 2007 Bluff.
I read this on a comment in Fr Smuts’ blog:
There is therefore a double standard in the TAC, between bishops in countries where there is no Ordinariate provision and bishops in countries like England (the TTAC seems to be wiped out), the USA, Australia and Canada.