Ordinariate talks stall in Canada

From what I’ve read on the Anglo-Catholic, this former Catholic priest, TWICE-divorced, had ideas above his station. He thought the Vatican were going to make him some sort of roving ambassador/bishop. He knows full well that divorcees, twice in this case, had no chance in hell of being ordained a Catholic priest, let alone monsignor. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I think a rush to judgement against Abp. Hepwoth may not be appropriate. I am personally in no position to defend Abp. Hepworth’s past history — nor to condemn him, as few of the things I have seen written against him have included substantiation. I have met him, in fact I had breakfast with him once, and we discussed the constitution. Whatever his past history, or his private faults, I do know he has publicly done a lot to make the apostolic constitution happen, and that he has publicly stated that he is willing to give up his own ministry in order to further it.
Nor does it appear that he is deserving of such opprobrium in this case. I am not in possession of all the facts, but from what is reported it appears that the process offered would have effectively destroyed these communities, which is hardly the intent of Anglicanorum Coetibus. The situation is entirely different in Canada, and what would seem a reasonable approach in the UK, where folks do not have buildings etc. in place, would have very different consequences there, where they have had to sacrifice to build things up from from scratch, and where their liturgical style is even more removed from that of the ordinary Novus Ordo parish than in Britain.
We are not in possession of all the facts, and so we do not know what Abp. Collins was thinking, but on the face of it Hepworth has some legitimate concerns. These were conveyed in a letter that was supposed to be private. Excerpts were made from this letter, commentary was added, and the letter was published, not by Hepworth, but by David Virtue, a man who is very anti-Catholic and anti-ordinariate. If Hepworth might be criticized for anything in this case, it is putting his raw sentiments at a perceived injustice on paper when discretion and moderation might better have served him, — and perhaps a phone call or a face to face visit. So to attack Hepworth like this, on this issue, seems to me excessive. If you want to give anyone a hard time, it is David Virtue. Overall however, I think attacking anybody is a distraction from what God wants us to do. As for this situation, perhaps the most Christian response would be to let these issues work themselves out, reserve judgement until all the facts are known, and carry on with one’s daily work and prayer, especially for the success of Anglicanorum Coetibus.

Actually, he could not even validly attempt a first marriage, as he was still an ordained Catholic priest who had not been dispensed from his vows of celibacy, but chose to join another ecclesial community.

The Vatican authorities still insist on reordaining “absolutely” those who have already been ordained as priests in the Anglican Communion.  This is a complete disgrace.  There is no way to objectively know that Anglican orders are “null and void” and the theological arguments underpinning “Apostolicae Curae” are highly dubious from a proper Catholic understanding of “intention”  -  a point which which the Church of England archbishops of the time more than ably argued.  If former Anglican priests must be reordained to remove any doubts then it should  –  for both moral and theological reasons  –  be “conditionally” in all cases. 

The telling factor is ABP HEPWORTH.
He assured and reassured everyone that ”it would be business as usual”.( Verbatim quote.)
He insisted that no reordination would be required.
He even denied that chrismation would be necessary.
According to him everything, including clergy training and qualifications, was up to par.
Until people took off the rose tinted galsses and cautiously started to analyze and enquire.
What happened then? They were summarily given marching orders.
Imagine the shock when the truth finally dawned…………………..
Not fair that he witheld the facts. He knew all along, but bullied all and sundry into submission.

The assertion in the article that the Canadian situation is  “an alphabet soup of different acronyms for various continuing churches” is just plain wrong. There are only two groups in Canada that are looking to enter the Ordinariate (which is not yet set up): the TAC-affiliated ACCC and a one or two parishes of the Anglican Church of Canada (the Canterbury Communion Anglican church).

Mr. Williams assessment that the entire enterprise has been a disaster is based on his own (inaccurate) estimates of numbers (there are at least 30 parishes & missions in the ACCC — do they have 10 or less people per parish? Hardly.).

The idea expressed in the article above that the Ordinariate in the US doesn’t depend on the TAC’s good will is misleading; of course, the Holy Father can erect an ordinariate without the TAC, but as the TAC churches make up the majority of those Anglicans who have petitioned for entry into the Church’s communion, it would make little sense to set it up for the sake of the Pastoral Provision churches alone.

As for Archbishop Hepworth, all I know of him for sure is that in person he was a gracious man; and that he has stated publicly that if he needed to step down and not exercise ordained ministry he would do so; his efforts to shepherd the TAC into unity with the Catholic Church have not been about how he would get something for himself.

Attacking the messenger distracts from the real issue, which is whether these conditions are likely to be acceptable to the ACCC, whose members, unlike those of the CofE entering the Ordinariate, have been emotionally and financially invested in the project of their continued existence for many years.  The estimate of an average of 10 members per parish is probably accurate, BTW.

Still at it Lina?
I thought getting thrown off a few other blogs for persistent trolling might have slowed you down?

This has nothing to do with conditions. It is all about ensuring that the Apostolic Constitution is not reinterpreted using an alien hermenuetic, which many have sought to do.
Contrary to the spiel of career trolls, the hermeneutic presented by Archbishop Hepworth is in fact in accord with the sense in which the AC was written. 

 The fact that you make these allegations behind the cloak of secrecy speaks for their value…

To add some points, I certainly do not want to blame anybody in this difficult situation where I know people are working hard and with good will, but I would like respectfully to make one suggestion to those involved.  I know from military and Homeland Security Planning how important both communications between different services and organization are, and also how important Public Affairs are.  I know high clergy are busy, overworked men who have to carefully budget their time, but I would respecfully recommend that time spent on communications and getting info. out to the interested public all along saves more time than is lost by having to deal with nonsense like this.  The former works to avoid such misunderstanding, and in the latter case, when people feel they are being left in the dark, it leaves a vacuum that an enemy or mischief maker is always happy to fill. 

Mr. Woodsall should also realize, archbishop Hepworth, has no chance of being a bishop for canonical reasons. The same is true for the other former Anglican bishops who converted to Rome.  Bishops cannot be married, divorced or not, and still become a bishop in the Roman or Orthodox churches.

 In these cases it is the Church who judges, not individuals.
——————————————————————————————–
The Church consists of individuals. They make errors, therefore, so does the Church.  So much for this rubbish about the “infallible church” speaking to us when it is nothing but a pack of red tape, rubber stamping bureaucrats making a decision.

Not fair that he witheld the facts. He knew all along, but bullied all and sundry into submission.
———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Hepworth was put up to doing this as part of Rome’s crass duplicity. Tell them anything, but get them into the program.  The whole idea of an ordinariate is blowing up in the pope’s face and so it should. He is
paying the price for browbeating women and gays, and making a mockery of the liturgy along with his predecessors.  Paul VI’s fear of the “smoke of Satan” overtaking the Vatican is being witnessed here.
 

 The amount of anti-ordinariate hysteria appearing in the comments relating to this story (whose grounding in truth is suspect, to say the least) leads me to suspect that this may well be part of a propaganda campaign that is not wholly opportunistic.

In particular, we read allegations that the Vatican has some sort of acquisitive policy of snatching Anglican church buildings – allegations that are as wild as they are shrill. As is clear from Anglicanorum Coetibus, any Ordinariate property will be subject to the governing body of the Ordinariate. And church property (as any Anglican should know!) is not some kind of battle-trophy, but a grave and costly liability.

It will be interesting to reassess some of these comments in a couple of years’ time. (By which time their authors will doubtless be using different aliases and preoccupied with other campaigns of online obloquy!)