Charles Bennison has been reinstated as the head of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania following a church court ruling overturning his conviction on charges of covering up a sexual relationship between his brother, also a priest, and a 14-year-old girl in California more than 30 years ago.
This and firing janitors in 815, all the same. Talk the game, but do not walk the walk, even the political one – much less the moral, ethical or religious one.
Well, we wrote the Law, so we can rewrite it.
Oh, no! Sigh…
I’d say, “unbelievable, ” but it’s entirely believable.
I think he will retire very soon with full benefits and a golden parachute!
No surprise, yet still disgusting.
I have posted a PDF of the review court’s ruling at The Living Church‘s website.
I agree with Eugene.
An admittedly quick review of the ruling reads like the squishops on this “court” were bending over backwards trying to find a reason to reinstate Chuckie B.
Re: Douglas’ pdf — “in his green Porsche automobile” did not do much to add to my depleted store of sympathy for the offender. But do I read correctly that the “Appellant” has been exonerated on the basis of not having engaged in molestation himself, and so cannot be deposed for behavior that simply overlooked and facilitated admitted molestation? No snark, I’m trying to comprehend what they think they’ve done, versus what a person with eyes and a heart can tell has happened.
Is it a done deal that he will be restored to the see of Pennsylvania? I thought he had been deposed by the HoB.
The Court of Review concluded that whilst the Bishop did indeed commit conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy he nevertheless cannot be found guilty of such a charge due to the Statue of Limitations.
The whole case is a catalog of heartache and my prayers go out to the victim and her family today. The Court of Review acknowledges that not one but many bishops, including from 1979 the then diocesan bishop of both Charles Bennison and his brother John, knew of this story (including former from 1993 Presiding Bishop Browning). Of course by 1993 it was already too late to successfully charge Charles Bennison for his misconduct. However there is no statute of limitations on offenses of sexual abuse and John Bennison was never, as I understand it, formally charged despite the fact he ministered as an Episcopal priest until he was forced to resign his orders in 2006 when the case was reported in newspapers and that many lay people, clergy and bishops knew of his sexual abuse of a minor.
As an aside the costs to defend this case must have been enormous. Given the Bishop has had his conviction overturned, who pays them?
I suppose that one could make a case that knowing about and covering up sexual abuse by someone else constitutes a form of sexual abuse itself and that this “court” was grasping at any legalistic straw it could to reinstate this piece of garbage into the episcopate.
At any rate, I suspect that the relevant canons will be tightened up considerably as a result of this debacle. They’d better or Anglicans lose forever any right to crititicize other churches for their responses to their own sexual abuse cases.
Incidentally I’m curious to compare this verdict with the guilty verdict issued to Bishop Jones of Montana for “immorality and conduct unbecoming” in relation to an affair 15 years before he was tried. Court decision here http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/0103ci_jones.html. I can’t find the Court of Review decision in respect of Bishop Jones.
driver8,
I cannot find the review court’s case online, but I do remember that it softened the sentence against Bishop Jones. This ruling cites the Jones case twice for precedent.
#14 One could make that case, but it was not the case made. In fact the Court of Review address themselves to whether Bishop Bennison could have been found guilty, under the Canons, of sexual abuse and take the view that he could not.
However I wonder if the prosecutors had been guided by Bishop Jones’ precedent in which a Bishop was removed from office for offenses that seem, on first glance, also to fall outside the Statute of Limitations?
#16 I recall that Bishop Jones was not in fact deposed, only suspended as a “bishop in good standing” for 5 years. He was reinstated as a bishop, though ineligible to sit in the HOB, at the HOB meeting in New Orleans September 2007. http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90451_ENG_HTM.htm
Here is the full initial judgment on Bishop Jones. I can’t find the Court of Review judgment (which occurred in May 2002): http://rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/cijonesverdict.html.
It’s worth noting that Bishop Jones (unlike Bishop Bennison) was charged with immorality and conduct unbecoming in relation to sexual exploitation following an affair he had with a married woman from 1981 – 1983. Sexual exploitation is a charge which has no statute of limitations but as I read the Canons the victim has to be a minor for this to apply. Such was not the case with Bishop Jones adultery. Canon lawyers may understand this better than I!
The Episcopal monolith trudges on. It is not like you could tell the difference between Bp. Bennison and the other HOB crowd. Long may he reign in the Bp. Schori regime.
Intercessor
And finally…even though the initial trial of Bishop Jones deposed him (later changed on appeal to suspension from good standing for 5 years) Bishop Jones negotiated a settlement from the Diocese of Montana that he would resign as bishop and the Diocese would apparently pay 15 months compensation (about $118,000) and forgive about $54,000 of the mortgage held on Bishop Jones’ house through the Diocese. (Mentioned as part of Bishop Jones’ subsequent dispute with his lawyer: http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/PDF/084/CurryEI-OPN.pdf).
I have no idea if this was a final settlement or whether there were further developments but it looks to be a very expensive business to speed the resignation of a bishop found guilty let alone of one acquitted of all charges.
TEC ‘justice’ is rather a strange bird, isn’t it?
Where is John MacEnroe when you need him? “You CAN NOT be serious!?”
Of course, celibacy is to blame; ordaining women and freeing the “American Church” from foreign potentates would have prevented this; … oh, wait.