Abp Hepworth On The Portsmouth Letter And Anglicanorum coetibus

I had a number of questions for Abp Hepworth on the 2007 Portsmouth Petition and Anglicanorum coetibus. His replies were wide-ranging and compelling -- His Grace is friendly, charming, and straightforward, with a definite gift of blarney. Included in his answers was quite a bit of Vaticanology based on what appear to be extensive ongoing contacts in the CDF and elsewhere. Some of this I can't fully remember at this point, and most of it I'm not authorized to disclose in any case, but I'm certainly making note of his remarks in hopes of eventually determining how much is blarney and how much is accurate.

Regarding the Portsmouth Petition, he did authorize me to quote him thus:

Am I disappointed that some bishops went back on their vow? Yes. Am I surprised? No. I knew several of them were shaky, but I needed their signatures. I bullied them!

As I said in his presence in a different context, bishops aren't teddy bears. He did make the additional point that the petition did go to the Vatican, and whatever the subsequent behavior of individual signatories, the petition is still in effect, and the TAC never revoked or renounced it. He also made the point that he drafted the petition in consultation with Vatican contacts, and it wasn't made out of the blue. In particular, the provision that in addition to signing the letter, the bishops also sign the Catechism was a strong suggestion from the Vatican which was well received when it took place.

This goes to how much impact the Portsmouth Petition may have had on the promulgation of Anglicanorum coetibus. Bp Lopes mentioned it in passing in the lecture I discussed Sunday as one of several appeals to the Vatican for corporate reunion. It's worth pointing out that a visitor responded to my Sunday post on Bp Lopes's lecture by reporting at second hand a view from the CDF:

[some other] "petitions" seemed rather insistently demanding of concessions on the part of the Holy See, and others seemed to have some overtones along the lines of "if the Holy See concedes the requests we have made, some of us might consider taking up the offer;" which seemed to mean that some of these Anglicans were more interested in haggling with Rome, rather than submitting to it.

The Portsmouth Petition was not of this sort. Abp Hepworth said he was told Pope Benedict was moved on receiving it and instructed that it be placed in the Vatican archives as a historic document.

Regarding the role of Cardinal Law in setting up the 1993 meeting between Episcopalians Pope and Steenson and Cardinal Ratzinger, Hepworth said there had always been a "Law faction" in the process leading up to Anglicanorum coetibus, but it was not the only one, and the process was contentious start to finish. In particular, although Steenson drafted a proposal for a personal prelature that had some resemblance to what was in the final constitution, this leaves out an entirely separate liturgical effort, something Bp Lopes stressed as well in his Vienna lecture.

Hepworth repeated a view that I've heard now and then elsewhere, that the implementation of the OCSP was a creature of what he called a "Law-Wuerl faction" that was not entirely consistent with the intent of the CDF, and this appears to have had some connection with Steenson's removal. But there were other sources of resistance to Anglicanorum coetibus among other bishops' conferences and elsewhere, having to do with the geographical distribution of ordinariates, including the reversal of the original position that there would be a separate ordinariate in Canada.

Abp Hepworth is clearly supportive of Bp Lopes -- he enthusiastically cited a lecture Bp Lopes delivered in Australia a few months before the Vienna lecture, and he clearly feels Lopes's designation as ordinary has been a very positive step.