Thursday, 15 September 2011

Remarkable stuff

This has been a remarkable week of the confluence of religion and politics. A controversialist senator, Nick Xenophon, named a Catholic priest under 'parliamentary privilege' in regard to an alleged rape more than four decades ago.
The priest accuser, so-called 'Archbishop' John Hepworth ( a number of my blogs about Mr Hepworth are here) Perhaps the most instructive blog is here!
My real issue about Hepworth's Traditional Anglican Communion is that it is neither traditional nor Anglican nor in Communion with the see of Canterbury. A fairly basic criterion for what being an Anglican actually means!!
My advice to genuine Anglicans is that they should advise family and friends that despite Hepworth's sad tale, the Traditional Anglican Communion has nothing to do with the genuine Anglican Church.
Buit the Xenophon saga goes on ( see here)
Despite the Senator's protestations that he has had an awful lot of support, I have not spoken to anyone who thinks that his naming of a person who has strenuously  denied an allegation that has not been reported to police or furthered in other ways is appropriate use of 'parliamentary privilege'

Now I actually voted for Senator X at the last election but will not be doing so again.
I think a lot of people will be doing the same.

This is not straightforward. And that fact alone should have worried X. He admitted on radio today that he threatened the Catholic Church on Monday with the 'naming'. When did he actually speak to Hepworth...the same day apparently!
Clearly not a great period of reflection before he acted. ( Rather exposed by D Bevan on SA radio 891)
I just found that X's  seizing of the high ground was looking rather shaky.
He should have done better. And ti will have cost him votes.

I felt sorry for Mr Hepworth, his claim needs to be taken seriously. But it is a long way from being proven


Anonymous said...

Good stuff. What I find also remarkable is that the Catholic Arcdiocese has not asked the alleged perpertrator to stand aside during the investigation because the case did not allegedly involve children. What the archdiocese seems to me fail to understand is that a priest needs to be seen as a fit and prope person to hold the licence and confidence of the Archbishop,irregardless of who the alleged abuse was perpertrated against.

stephen clark said...

Oh what a tangled web!