Monday, 28 November 2011

Anglican Ordinariate developments...

The Australian reports today that Archbishop Hepworth has been told he can only re-enter the Church as a layman.

Not entirely surprising news, for reasons I've previously explained.

Sympathetic as I and everyone else is to what happened to the Archbishop, a priest who abandons his ministry - no matter the reasons - and defects to another ecclesial community is always going to find it very difficult indeed to persuade the Vatican that he should be returned to ministry.  Maybe it could happen in some circumstances, but someone in an irregular marriage and who wants to remain so? Let alone aspiring to a continuing leadership role in the Church.

Media strategy?

What is surprising though is that the story was apparently given to selected media (there is no generally available press release as yet on the outcomes of the Bishops' conference meeting, or on Ordinariate developments) even though Archbishop Hepworth has apparently been given a few weeks to consider his response to this decision, and was not consulted on when to make the news public.

So I'm guessing that the liberal establishment's continuing resistance to the Ordinariate has not changed...

Bring on those new bishop appointments (and maybe consideration could be given, in the course of assorted proposed amalgamations, to moving some of our existing bishops to some new dioceses, or some very old (and empty of people) ones.  I'm thinking a new Archdiocese of the Nullabor, for example, to atone for the continuing neglect of Aboriginals for example, could solve more than one problem)!

And in the meantime, at least the US Ordinariate is moving forward fullspeed.


Joshua suggests that the story may have been liked by a third party.  There is also an interesting debate on the discernment process, with some very helpful comments in the comments box by David Schutz (which comes first, union with Roman or priestly vocation)! And for more on this issue take a look at Mr Stove's Remnant article (written just before latest developments).


A Canberra Observer said...

OT I realise but I note you mentioned you engaged in debate on CathNews re architecture, I tried to post on David Timbs' 'article' of today. As usual my comments must have been deemed not in the spirit of debate.
You must not be as blackballed as me.

R J said...

Thank you, ma'am, for linking to my article. This was, as you say, printed (for some reason the 5 November dateline seems to have been omitted from the PDF version) before the latest developments on both the Hepworth and the Dempsey sides.

Nevertheless I can't think of anything in the piece which, given subsequent developments, I would wish unsaid. Rather, I would simply like - all boasting aside - to see branded on the brows of our bishops (and yes, that includes those tolerating "Acceptance") the following sentence from the article: "The nation's flourishing Islamist and Green ideologies, however objectionable, thrive primarily in the moral vacuum of local Catholicism’s explicit turpitude."

In other words, it's absolutely no use us merely slagging off at Bob Brown and Sheik al-Hilaly if our own actions are so disgusting that we are ourselves blackmailable. This basic truth is not rocket science. But it might as well be, given the problems of explaining it to Australia's mainstream "conservatives" and pro-life activists via any method short of emergency brain operations.