As the diocese prepares to come together in convention, and as the hard facts of the Program Budget shortfall become evident to the diocese, we are extremely concerned that your apparent insistence on putting everything back the way it was before you left will cause a large number of parishes to hold back funding to the diocese, both assessments and pledges. The Standing Committee continues to hear from people in the diocese daily, through letters, emails, and phone calls, concerning your return. About 85% of these communications are negative. When it becomes clear to more and more that you want to move us back to some vision of your own, we are afraid that this will add to the potential “revolution” in the diocese.
Bishop, we ”“ i.e., you, the Standing Committee and all the leadership of the diocese ”“ are not here to affirm our own personal vision but to help guide and support the diocese in determining a shared vision. Can we please let that work go forward without throwing obstructions up, creating dissent through distrust and misinformation, and investing heavily in anything that will stretch the finances of the diocese beyond anything realistic and cause more and more parishes to withhold funds.
Finally, and perhaps most shocking of all, we have been made aware of what you said at Diocesan Council on September 25, 2010, concerning the witnesses at your trial: “It is known now that all the witnesses at my trial intentionally perjured themselves.” These are shocking words, and words which we feel you need to address immediately. Can you possibly have meant what you said? If so, this is one more indication of a serious problem. You have managed to ignore or discount the opinions and conclusions of three courts, two Presiding Bishops, the House of Bishops, and untold numbers of lay and clergy in the diocese of Pennsylvania, and now all the witnesses at your trial. We find it amazing that you are able to think that this is in any way normal behavior.
One more reason to question the logic of Title IV, which will give more authority to the Bishops (with various officers) and less to the Standing Committee.
…”a war broke out in Heaven”…
Perhaps he could do like some former bishops of Calgary and New Jersey, and offer to take early retirement if they make him an offer he can’t refuse!
Charles Bennison by all accounts married into significant wealth. Power is the issue at hand.
I wonder if their diocesan history is ever going to see the light of day – if it does, it will be an interesting contrast to that of Pittsburgh!
And apparently they still have money to burn; our chronicle cost Pittsburgh Anglicans/Episcopalians less than half of what was previously allocated by the Diocese of Pennsylvania.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
#4, I suspect ego and personal honor are also issues. Nobody would want to resign in disgrace, under such duress. So many people are putting so much pressure on him, and in public, that there’s now no way for him to leave with intact personal honor.
I suspect that if this had been handled quietly (but persistently) in a way giving him an easy, quiet exit, things would be very different.
I’m sure he thinks he can win the standoff, repair the diocese, and be remembered as an excellent servant bishop.
There is no easy solution here folks since we are dealing with someone who is clearly mentally ill and in power and independently wealthy.
Ralph – given the testimony given by the victim, I don’t see how +Bennison could ever have left, even quietly, with “intact personal honor” – perhaps a way to “save face,” but I’m afraid the “personal honor” is long gone.
Oh my. Bennison sounds mentally ill. I just can’t think of another way of explaining such an outrageous statement. Serving on the Standing Committee must be incredibly stressful right now. I can’t imagine.
Once, in my work as a health care provider, a group of my friends/colleagues were working on a VERY difficult hospital floor, full of CVA(stroke) patients and other neurological maladies. The administration had sent them ~ three nurses(on a day shift, no less, when care is usually the heaviest) for ~ 40 patients, an absolutely impossible ratio. The charge nurse called staffing and told them they needed more help. Staffing said no–a quick on-site conference resulted and the charge nurse called back, telling staffing that everyone presently on the floor was sitting down at the nurses’ station and refusing to do ANY work until more staffing was sent. More staff arrived within the hour, at which time the original nurses got out of their chairs.
The moral of the story is that sometimes abstaining, or silent protest, is a good course that can net results. In other words, refuse to “play”, keep all your nickels to yourself, and vote “no confidence”.
And if a certain someone holds out for a huge cash settlement despite familial independent wealth, then he’s got even less integrity than people like me initially believed.
Prayers for DioPA…