On Oct 31 US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori suspended him after a review panel found there was prima facie evidence to proceed against him for his actions as a parish rector in the 1970’s.
Bishop Bennison is accused of covering up the sexual abuse of a 14 year old girl by his brother. The family of the victim brought charges against the bishop in 2006, accusing him of having knowledge of the offense, but taking no action. He is also accused of withholding information of the abuse from the Diocese of Los Angeles when his brother applied for ordination.
In May Bishop Bennison will answer charges before a civil court brought by the former president of Forward in Faith, USA, the Rt. Rev. David Moyer.
In a legal first, the Pennsylvania court will allow Bishop Moyer to test the legality of the use of the “abandonment canon” used to rid him of the Anglo-Catholic leader.
Besides Bennison and Jerry Lamb (formerly Diocese of Northern California), can anyone recall of any other TEC bishops who deposed or removed a priest without canonical notice or that priest’s clear voluntary consent?
As I recall, most, if not all other TEC bishops followed canonical procedures for notice and response even when intending to apply the abandonment of communion canon.
LTN, this is tangential to your note, but Steve Waring is reporting that Jerry Lamb will be the provisional bishop of the Remaining Episcopal San Joaquinians. See [url=http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/3/7/walkabout-scheduled-for-san-joaquin-bishop-nominee ]here[/url]. Perhaps, Kendall can post a thread about this.
William Witt…but did Smith provide Fr. Hansen with the 6-month inhibition period of Canon IV.10 or was it summary deposition without the inhibition period or notice to respond?
Bishop Andrew Smith of Connecticut deposed the Rev. Dr. Mark Hansen on the grounds of having “abandoned the communion” despite Fr. Hansen’s good faith denial that he had done so. Smith never acknowledged Hansen’s denial. Fr. Hansen continues to worship in a TEC parish in, of all places, the Episcopal Diocese of Newark!
[blockquote]William Witt…but did Smith provide Fr. Hansen with the 6-month inhibition period of Canon IV.10 or was it summary deposition without the inhibition period or notice to respond?[/blockquote]
Smith did provide Hansen with a 6-month inhibition period. However, the key phrase in your question is the last three words–“notice to respond.” Hansen responded with a good faith denial. Smith neither acknowledged nor considered Hansen’s response before deposing him.
BTW, “not acknowledging” was often Smith’s standard operating procedure when dealing with the CT Six situation. There were several occasions when Smith simply ignored documents delivered to him, including one we as a vestry sent to Smith by registered letter, challenging the legality of his imposing a priest-in-charge as “contrary to the canons.” We knew he received the letter because he had to sign for it. Yet he ignored it.
The committee that considered whether to bring Smith to trial acknowledged that Smith had violated canon law in imposing a priest-in-charge without consulting the vestry. Yet they exonerated him on the grounds that he was sincere and was unaware that his action was contrary to canon law. How could he have been unaware when we told him both face-to-face and by registered letter that his action was uncanonical?
Yet the committee followed the same procedure of ignoring uncomfortable contrary evidence. Although I was the elected parish spokesperson, an eyewitness to Smith’s takeover of the building, and one of those most closely involved in the events following Smith’s takeover of our property, the committee never interviewed me or contacted me, despite Hansen’s repeated request to them that I be interviewed as having indispensable first-hand knowledge. In its findings, the committee declared that several events that were claimed to have happened during the takeover never happened, e.g., the hacking of the computers. However, several of us who were eyewitnesses of these events saw them happen with our own eyes. Yet the committee never contacted or interviewed us.
William Witt…one of the sad facts about these bishops is that they like to cite canon law for their actions but when they realize that the canons don’t support them, they “cheat” by grossly reinterpreting or by just completely ignoring the canons. In the civil courts, they like to hide behind the separation of church and state which usually prefer to defer religious matters to the decisions of the “church.”
The challengers to the “church” are usually caught in a catch 22 if the courts apply deference to the highest ecclesiastical judicatory because that same ecclesiastical judicatory are often the ones that violated the challengers’ canonical rights. Any meaningful review of alleged violation of religious law almost has to go to an outside neutral to be fair–usually the civil courts–as the religious bodies have too much conflict of interest to be neutral–and in my view, this applies to both liberal and orthodox.
Hopefully, more civil jurisdictions will recognize neutral principles of law as the better method to resolving disputes involving religious entities, so long as it does not require the civil courts to interpret theology or religious doctrine. I think it is permissible for a civil court to rule on whether the church adhered to its own procedures.
Dr. Moyer has been denied a church trial. The Presiding Bishop KJS has said that everyone in the church is entitled to a trial. Important wage-earning, pension, health and other retirement benefits are at stake. To me, it is as if a corporation fired an employee without following its own rulebook. That leads to questions of motivation and possible malice. To me it is clear that Bennison’s act lies well outside the realm of separation of church and state. Clearly the judge agreed that the propriety of Bennison’s actions is a question for a jury and not a question of law (i.e. the Constitutional separtion). Judges decide questions of law. Juries decide questions of fact. Moreover the highest clerics in the Anglican Heirarchy, two Archbishops of Canterbury, as well as the Bishop of Pittsburgh, reinstated Dr. Moyer as a priest in their dioceses. If we are looking at the church as a hierarchy, that has to further call into question Bennison’s actions and motivations. Aside from the questions of fairness and due process, here is an opportunity to witness to the Gospel from someone who has followed Christ wherever he has led, at great personal cost. Bring on the trial! May God be glorified.
Adam…from what source did you obtain stating that PB Schori said that everyone in the church is entitled to a trial? I’ve never heard her issue that statement.
#9: The remark about church trials was derived from a KJS statement posted on the Diocese of Pennsylvania’s website last November: November 6, 2007
Dear sisters and brothers in Christ,
Grace to you and peace. I am writing you at this time following the events of the Presentment and Inhibition of the Rt. Rev. Charles Bennison, with the hope of clarifying some points that have been raised both within and outside the Diocese of Pennsylvania.
To address questions of discipline for any member of the clergy, detailed procedures set forth in our canons designate the steps to be taken in disciplinary situations. Trials are based on “Presentments†or charges issued by the review panels. In this specific case, public conversations in Spring of 2006, followed by a public forum in Fall of 2006, led then-Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold to pass information about Bishop Bennison to the Title IV Review Committee. This committee, which is formed by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church and serves as a Grand Jury for the Church, after reviewing all the material before them, issued a Presentment and delivered it to my office.
Speaking with Bishop Bennison before any of this was made public, I then was obligated to Inhibit him due to the nature of the Presentment. In doing so, I first consulted with the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania to request their support of an Inhibition. Such an Inhibition, in the words of the canons, means: “To cease all Episcopal, ministerial, and canonical acts, until after the Judgment of the Court of Trial of a Bishop with respect to the foregoing presentment becomes final.†Representatives of my office met with the Standing Committee the week before the Diocesan Convention to consider the facts of the case, determine if they would offer their consent to the Inhibition, and review the duties and responsibilities of the Ecclesiastical Authority. The Trial Court is now in the process of organization for the upcoming trial, and a meeting with the Diocese is being scheduled with representatives from my office within the next few weeks.
In all of this, our Church governance system, not unlike that of the American system, exists to prevent the misuse of authority or, when it is found to occur, to address it in ways that will honor God, and treat with respect both the person against whom a Presentment is presented and those persons who present it. My prayers, and the prayers of many, are with you, the people of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, in this difficult time. I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori