The embattled Episcopal bishop of Philadelphia is defiantly refusing to resign, saying his three years of “suffering” through various church trials has “strengthened” his ability to lead his diocese.
Bishop Charles Bennison was removed from ministry in 2007 after being charged with “conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy.” He was found guilty in 2008 for failing to investigate or discipline his younger brother and former fellow priest John Bennison for an affair with an underage parishioner in the 1970s.
He was reinstated as bishop in August after a church appeals court ruled the statute of limitations on the charge had expired.
From Bennison’s perspective, why should he resign? Lawlessness reigns in TEC! He’s right at home.
Each and every message TEC leadership is sending is incoherent and inconsistent. A prime example of the folly of pluralism.
Watch out for a spate of moral lapses as TEC further demonstrates its complete inability to properly discipline any among its leadership.
I think they hit the panic button when they revised the disciplinary canon.
The 8 bishops who reviewed this case really based their decision on CONSTRUCTIVE knowledge attributed to Bishop Bennison’s conduct (i.e., through weighing specific circumstances such as the aspects of the knowledge of closed door meetings (in the afternoon) and disheveled clothing of the individuals involved). CONSTRUCTIVE knowledge is a legal term based upon concepts of matters that are inferred/construed/interpreted, and is one way of determining responsibility based upon exactly what is INFERRED/CONSTRUED/INTERPRETED. Although the HOB and the Court of Review obviously took care to avoid the use of the term “constructive” with regard to Bishop Bennison’s knowledge, they let the cat out of the bag when they refer to his “actual” knowledge occurred (obviously in contrast to constructive form of knowledge), and thus they acknowledge, without saying so, that Bennison’s “guilt” is actually and legally based on IMPUTATION to him of things that have been CONSTRUED. Given the facts of the case–not unlike cases where responsibility is established by circumstantial evidence (evidence that is always subject to interpretation), it’s understandable how the result in the case–Bennison’s return to his former position–has resulted. The members of the HOB are clearly aware, at least subconsciously, of their own human weaknesses and how inferences, etc. could indeed be imputed to them with regard to various matters in which they have been involved. Thus they deal with this saddening case by much discussion of moral expectations and condemnation of the failure to do precisely what is correct in a given circumstance. However, they’re smart and even honest enough to know this case is based on inference, things construed, interpreted and imputed, and understandably wind up where they did. A Biblical incident comes to mind involving a stoning that didn’t occur as those present, beginning with the eldest, dropped the stones and begin to walk from the scene…
billtrianglenc, even assuming that your summary of the evidence is correct (and I don’t know, I didn’t follow the trial or appeal closely), the current situation is that the Diocese does not trust the Bishop and cannot deal with him as their spiritual leader. I believe a real servant of God would recognize this and resign for the good of his flock.
But you see, he isn’t a real servant of God; he is a servant only to himself.
It is interesting that the Episcopal Church only recognizes legal authority and and not moral authority:
1) They ignore the desperate pleas of the Communion, saying “you have no authority, provinces are autonomous”.
2) They take buildings and land from groups of people that have bought, paid, maintained and were liable for saying, “if we can win in a secular court of law, it is the right thing to do”.
3) Now it comes home to roost. Since Bennison has not been legally removed as Bishop, he thinks he has the moral right to be Bishop. His is using the same logic to thumb his nose (or insert another gesture here) at the HOB in the same way the HOB did the same thing to the Anglican Communion.
Of course when the Anglican Communion tries to fix the problem with a Covenant, TEC gets all upset, yet TEC is doing the same thing with the Title IV changes.
Given that there’s obviously an impasse, should the diocese give him another chance to BE their bishop?
Or…is he beyond grace?
7. Good point; there is a point, though, where the relationships are so broken down, simply from a practical point of view, that the most graceful, reconciliatory thing to do is to step down. Space is often the best place for that sort of thing to happen.
My conclusion re whether Bishop Bennigan can be effective going forward is that that is a matter that isn’t capable of determination until the passage of some period of time…”Failures” can definitely turn out to be successes and careers given up for “dead” can resurrect livelier than ever. As far as I’m concerned, the opinion that Bishop Bennigan’s future effectiveness is irretrievably wrecked is just that: an opinion, and an opinion with virtually no positive hopefulness.
Ralph (#7) – while neither grace is not contingent on repentence (indeed, grace often causes repentence) and forgiveness is not contingent on repentence (again, forgiveness often causes repentence), restoration of the relationship between offended parties is contingent on repentence and amendment of life.
Bishop Bennison does not seem repentent and has equated “legal” with “moral.” He seems to think, that because he did not receive “training” on statuatory rape, he didn’t know it was immoral or that it was his responsibility to both fire his brother and report him to the police. Since he is not repentent, the restoration of the relationship between the diocese and the bishop cannot move forward.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
So, now TEC has set forward the principle that if a wayward [b]revisionist[/b] cleric stamps his or her foot enough said cleric can stay put and be a gigantic, negative, black-hole draw on an entire diocese and ALL its communicants. On the other hand, orthodox clerics can be treated with absolutely ZERO due process, tossed off the property, impugned, defamed, et cetera just because a [b]revisionist[/b] anti-bishop sez so. TEC is an alternate universe, AU, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_universe_(fan_fiction)) unto itself! Laity possess zero recourse, zero meaningful ability to engage in sort of ecclesial redress of grievances.
[blockquote]It is interesting that the Episcopal Church only recognizes legal authority and and not moral authority.[/blockquote]
[b]The ONLY authority TEC recognizes is of the temporal, controlling sort![/b]
“Embattled” and “three years of suffering”…does that mean we’re supposed to feel sorry for him?
All of this is most likely no more than grandstanding prior to holding out for a million-dollars+ settlement.
It’s perverse and has no integrity whatsoever. I feel deeply for all the constituents in DioPA.