(This is an open letter, dated September 1, written in response to the August 20th open letter from witnesses at the trial of Bishop Charles Bennison; I tried to find a copy to link to on Ms. Anderson’s own website and failed–KSH).
September 1, 2010
To Bennison Trial Witnesses:
Julia Alexis, Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Real
Martha Alexis, Western Diocese, Anglican Church in North America
Andy Alexis, Catholic Diocese of Sacramento
Maggie Thompson, Episcopal Diocese of Vermont
Rev. Margo Maris, pastor, advocate and editor, Episcopal Diocese of Oregon
I was moved by your letter expressing your pain and frustration over the recent ruling by the Episcopal Church’s Court of Review which has made it possible for the Rt. Rev. Charles Bennison to resume the position of Bishop of Pennsylvania. Good people can disagree about how the court interpreted our canons. I believe that most Episcopalians who have followed this case agree that Bishop Bennison’s choice to resume his episcopacy presents significant problems for the Diocese of Pennsylvania and for the wider Church.
I want you to know that I share your hope that the Episcopal Church can be, “a guiding beacon to all people everywhere who are affected in some way by clergy sexual abuse.” I also share your frustration that in your case, and in others, our churches were not “safe sanctuaries” for vulnerable people. And I share your outrage that individuals in positions of authority have been complicit in maintaining a climate of silence and denial that has inhibited our efforts to end sexual abuse within our church.
Like the Diocese of Pennsylvania’s Standing Committee, and many diocesan clergy and laity, I wish that Bishop Bennison had the wisdom and generosity of spirit to resign. As bishop he is more likely to deepen divisions and discredit the church than he is to bring healing or advance our common mission. I join the Court of Review in its assessment that Charles Bennison’s handling of the sexual abuse charges against his brother John was “totally wrong.” Bishop Bennison’s lack of remorse about his handling of this situation, and his solipsistic view of what is at stake, concern me deeply.
I have spoken recently with Bishop Bennison, whom I have known for many years. I have also spoken with members of the Standing Committee. I wish I could say that I can imagine a just and speedy resolution to this situation, or for that matter, a satisfying outcome following a protracted campaign, but I do not. It is my prayer that the Bishops of The Episcopal Church, when they are together this month in Arizona, will prayerfully consider this matter and either prevail upon Bishop Bennison to resign, or undertake other measures that lead to Bishop Bennison’s removal from office.
As a result of your letter and those of numerous others, I have turned my attention to considering the steps that our Church might take to prevent this kind of injustice from happening again. In the wake of this decision, it seems essential to address a deficiency in the structures of our Church, namely that there is no means of dissolving the relationship between a bishop and a diocese that find themselves in untenable circumstances. I am also considering the calls coming from many Episcopalians to amend our canons to include clergy and laity on the Court of Review.
In preparation for General Convention, a review of the canons relevant to these concerns is in order. I am presently in consultation with members of my council of advice, deputies and others with particular interest and knowledge in these matters to determine the most expedient and efficient way to proceed in this review.
I wish there were more that I could offer you in gratitude for your bravery in the face of all that you have endured at the hands of our Church. It grieves me to be another person telling you that my hands are tied, and I know the potential remedies that I am proposing may serve the church in the long-term but do nothing to right the wrongs inflicted upon you.
But within our polity, this is what is within my power to do. Please know that I will pursue these issues seriously and actively, and with the support and counsel of others in the church who also find this situation unacceptable.
All of you, and all the people of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, remain in my prayers.
Peace,
Bonnie Anderson, D.D.
President, The House of Deputies
cc: The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Deputies and First Alternates
The Standing Committee, Diocese of Pennsylvania
The Rt. Rev. Charles Bennison
“I wish that Bishop Bennison had the wisdom and generosity of spirit to resign. As bishop he is more likely to deepen divisions and discredit the church than he is to bring healing or advance our common mission.”
Oh, this is just too rich. Talk about hypocrisy! If Ms. Anderson was truly concerned about these types of damages to TEC, where were those same fears regarding Gene Robinson?!!
“solipsistic” Now there’s a big word I have never seen used before. Can any of yinz enlighten me? I guess Bonnie’s D.D. counts for something.
Mr Wilson, I had to look it up. Ironic, actually. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solipsism
While Bonnie and I stand on opposite sides of the theological chasm, I’m glad, nonetheless, she had the courage and integrity to write this. Whether that integrity spills over into other areas or not is beside the point. Well done for taking a stand.
Thanks Annie for looking up solipsistic. Trying not to be solipsistic up myself perhaps Bonnie could have used the word “self-centered” or “self-absorbed” and gotten the point across in a way most people would understand. I think I will email Bill O’Reilly solipsistic as Word of the Day.
What she is silent about is with all the lawyer clergy and lawyer bishops and the army of hired lawyers that the case shouldn’t have prosecuted with the statute of limitations run out. No remorse on her part.
Pardon me for asking this of a woman whose judgment on Bp. Bennison’s irresponsibility agrees with my own…But…exactly who is Bonnie Anderson to be sending such a letter? Is she not merely the lead lay person for the triennial General Convention? What is her basis for insinuating herself in this process? She may be part of TEC’s Exec. Committee…but, that does not give her standing to pontificate, does it?
The Diocese should just stop paying him.
Finally, a statement from Bonnie Anderson in which I am in entire agreement. There should be a mechanism for the recall of a bishop in a situation like this, with the proper checks and balances in place of course. I would add that there is something that Anderson can and should do, and that it to propose legislation to the next GC to revise or eliminate the statute of limitation in such cases as this. The RCs are getting hammered for such scandals going back 50 years or more, and rightly so. That we Episcopalians, who have so often boasted our moral superiority in such matters, have allowed a more recent case to slip by on a technicality should be seen as a scandal to the Church. And GC legislation is precisely Anderson’s purview.
As to her being involved, it is hard to say as Kendall has not been able to find the original open letter. But it does sound as if the witnesses reached out to her in one way or another, hence her penultimate paragraph about being sorry to disappoint them.
And a final word to my fellow commentators: the English language is a treasure. Certainly we should not be unnecessarily pretentious in our discourse, but let’s not needlessly dumb down the language either. “Solipsistic” is an exquisite word and could not be a more apt description of Bishop Bennison’s behavior.
I commend Bonnie Anderson for her letter to these five persons. Although some may not like the fact that she is the President of the House of Deputies and other actions she has taken as President, she is responding as an elected leader in the Episcopal Church to a very grievous situation in which people feel abused by a process that has allowed a bishop who brought much pain and grief in their lives to return to his office in the church based upon a “technicality.” In situations such as this, people feel doubly abused by the “system.” Few could speak on behalf of the Episcopal Church. She has chosen to do so as one of the highest elected persons in our church. I thought the letter was clear, caring, and appropriate to what she can and cannot do as one of the two highest elected leaders in the Episcopal Church in the face of five very hurting people.
And this, as far as it goes, is one rare instance in which I will agree with Dr Anderson about anything. She did the right thing.
Sadly I have to agree with Neal that this is the ONLY thing I have ever agreed on with Bonnie Anderson. It is the ONLY thing she has EVER done publicly with which I have agreed.
Out of the hundreds of things she’s done I’ve agreed with none of them until this letter. Despite the fact that I expect it’s some sort of attempt at damage control of the obscene thing that Bishop Bennison [along with apparently many other bishops, including Dear Griswold/Browning] has managed to get away with, I still have to agree with this letter and think it a good one.
There.
I said it.
It tasted just as bad as I thought it would. I hope I filled it with enough caveats.
What Bishop Bennison has succeeded in getting away with is the equivalent to me of RC bishops getting away with their shenanigans. It’s repulsive.
And now he has proudly returned to take up the mantle of TEC bishopdom over a diocese, ruling over a people who wish to have nothing whatsoever to do with him and who utterly despise his actions.
What. A. Travesty.
What a church.
“Solipsism is not a single concept but instead refers to several worldviews whose common element is some form of denial of the existence of a universe independent from the mind of the agent.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
What this means, among other things, is that each person is his or her own moral center. It is in fact the death of morality. And it is part and parcel of the inherent nihilism in the materialist worldview.