It is indeed a very serious thing in the life of the Church when a bishop or priest is inhibited from his ministry. Charles Bennison is in my prayers that this situation brings him to repentance, and back to the faith and order of the Church Catholic.
It is ironic that Charles Bennison will be put in trial before the Church for a pastoral failure to report his brother’s sexual misconduct and to protect a young teenage girl and others from his brother where Bishop Bennison denied me a Church trial as I sought to report his theological misconduct and protect my people and others from him.
The Presentment shows the same pattern of conduct of the concealing of evidence that my attorneys discovered occurred in his actions against me.
Whatever happens to Charles Bennison in church proceedings, my litigation will continue unless resolved with a satisfactory settlement.
From [url=http://www… ]Anglicans United[/url] which released the statement:
[blockquote]Ed. Note: Bp. Bennison inhibited and then deposed the Rev. David Moyer – and all of the other Biblically orthodox priests in his diocese – earlier this decade. This two year fiasco resulted in Moyer’s transfer to an African diocese to stop the proceedings; he is still the Rector, Good Shepherd, Rosemont. Moyer was elected Bishop of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) in 2004 and is suing Bennison and the diocese for failure of due process with regard to that deposition. Cheryl M. Wetzel[/blockquote]
[url=http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?PHPSESSID=22a3b04c8e095284a8e7b5289b897517&s=david+moyer ]Search for David Moyer[/url] on old titus site gives background.
I wonder how many people know that David Moyer was a marathon biker for many years? (Maybe he still is, for all I know.) What +Bennison never bargained for was David’s obsession in “running a race to the end, and obtaining the prize.” Gee, how biblical can you get?
Does anyone need any further proof?
Why are there no comments asserting the oft-repeated notion here that litigation is inherently unChristian?
Well, you’ve just said it, haven’t you, Dale?
Are you going now to defend Bennison, a man who brought disgrace to his office and sowed discord and financial chaos in his diocese even before this shocking malfeasance came to light?
#4: There is a difference between defending a man who is charged with such misconduct and pointing out the hypocrisy of some who loudly cry foul and unChristian (is anyone else reading that book right now?) when a bishop sues to retain a church but say nothing about lawsuits in secular courts when “one of their own” does it.
Consistent application of the same standard across the board goes a long way in maintaining legitimacy of cause and personal integrity.
#4 (in re #3) this issue of whether Moyer is justified in litigating now in civil court is answered by the nature of the claims originally made by the diocese and now by Moyer in response. Literally, it is the bishop’s job to make presentments if justified. It is also his job to ensure that the ecclesiastical court process is just. Moyer is asserting that his deposition was illegal, both canonically and secularly, and that there is no redress under the canons due to Bennison’s ability to manage ecclesiastical justice in PA, and furthermore that a civil injustice ensued.
Dale’s #3 is simply a statement that he would prefer ecclesiastical and secular injustice to stand, uncorrected. His point is much diminished by the fact that the litigation had its first causes with Bennison’s actions in the first instance. Dale’s prescription would be a victory of form over function, a substitution of a superficial scriptural gloss for actual justice within the church courts.
It is entirely within the purview of the PA standing committee at this point to grant Moyer redress within the diocesan courts, and render the civil case moot. Whether PA will do this now, after Bennison’s inhibition, is of great interest.
Dale, it’s litigation between Christians that’s “inherently unChristian.”
Bennison isn’t a Christian, so we can sue him or those like him as much
as we feel inclined. As Dr Walter Kaisar said in a recent lecture, when he had a difficulty with an automobile dealer, he asked the man “Are you a Christian?” When he crook said, “No, I’m not,” Dr Kaisar responded, “Well, that’s a good thing. I’m at liberty to sue.”
My goodness, Laurence, it is one thing to say someone is not Christ-like in his behavior (as you are not at times and as I am not), but it is another thing to presume a person’s relationship with his God. You know this, but why do you persist in defying Scripture concerning judging the intentions of others – who are God’s, and not ours. We all make judgments, but whether he is a Christian or not depends on what God thinks of him in his mercy, not what you or I think of him within our own blindness, sin, and hypocrisy. I remind you of Romans 2.
I’m saddened that you use the example of Dr. Kaisar as an example. I’m sure the auto dealer was persuaded by Kaisar’s witness that the Christian life really is something other than the way-of-the-world and was immediately brought to repentance and salvation.
My goodness people, what are the two great commandments of our Lord?