Episcopal Bishop Charles Bennison faced his first day of ecclesiastical trial yesterday over whether he violated church rules by failing to disclose a sexual relationship between his brother and an underage parishioner.
The bishop’s younger brother John allegedly had illicit sex with a girl beginning in 1971 when she was a 14-year-old member of St. Mark’s Church in Upland, Calif., and he was a 24-year-old seminary student. The sexual relationship lasted until 1974, the year she departed for college.
On two occasions in the summer of 1973, according to the victim, Charles, then the rector of St. Mark’s, walked in on the seminarian and the high school student but did not report what he saw either to the girl’s parents or to the police.
Bp. Bennison stands accused of violating Title IV of the Canons of the Episcopal Church. His trial is neither civil nor criminal but will determine whether he can continue as bishop of the five-county region.
“I participate in this trial sadly, but with a sense of duty and obligation,” church attorney Larry White said in his opening statement. “It is a painful case.”
The Day One trial transcript is at this link
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8401
For whatever it is worth, witnesses are sworn in without recourse to Bibles.
Interesting testimony involves brother John Bennison’s taking over the youth-education program, renaming the Sunday School as a sort of learning academy, and painting the rooms in Peter Max themes. Then there is the account of him driving the alleged victim to the church from school in his two-seat Porche on a regular basis. The mother testified she was alerted that this was happening and accepted John Bennison’s assurance that the relationship was innocent.
One has to wonder what is in this for Bp. Bennison since the alleged victim herself is testifying. Any knowledge of what was going on in then Fr. Chuck Bennison’s church profoundly affected the welfare of a minor, his parish and diocese and even his brother’s marital relationship. Today evidently the alleged victim will be cross-questioned. The transcript seems to paint a picture of complete disfunctionality in the parish and larger church to many issues of substance regarding illicit sexual behavior. John Bennison is reportedly defrocked and then reinstated a short time afterward by the same bishop! Curious, too, is testimony regarding the unwillingness of one diocese to interfere in matters involving sex pertaining to another and testimony regarding Presiding Bishop Browning’s knowledge and lack of meaningful intervention. Browning was later Charles Bennison’s chief consecrator.
How different, too, things are today in terms of clerical and heirarchical militancy when so-called “sexual rights” are at stake.
A brief synopsis is available on VOL for those like me, who find it too time-consuming and too lengthy to scroll down and read.
I find it sad that this is the best hope that PA has of getting rid of this nightmare of a bishop.
I am no fan of Bennison and his cruel and uncanonical treatment of the orthodox within his diocese. But I must ask, is there no statute of limitations for this offense? Trying someone for something that occurred literally thirty-five years ago? Surely if the canons do not provide a statute of limitations one must be found in generalized notions of substantive due process!
How do we know that Bishop Bennison did not, at some point in the late 70s (or earlier), deeply repent of these acts (should I say failures to act?), availed himself of Sacramental Confession, and did penance?
To attack him with these charges now, decades later, seems to this Anglo-Catholic to be a sneak attack. Lord help me if my foes should drag up things I did 10, 15, 20 years ago and for which I have long repented and done penance.
Because Ouroboros, if he had deeply repented of his acts then his response toward this victim would be quite different than it is. He has never apologized to her. He has never offered her sympathy or understanding. He has never said that what his brother did to her was wrong or that he was wrong to cover it up. He continues to make excuses for himself and to be more concerned with his own future than the future of this person under his care. That is not the behavior of someone who has deeply repented of his acts. And so what if he went to Sacramental Confession and did penance? Without evidence of a truly contrite heart, I would say that is clinging to the form over the substance. But that shows the true evangelical upbringing in me I suppose.
I have found this entire proceeding to be deeply disturbing on so many levels. Every time I see a story describing these events as a “relationship” or an “affair” I feel such deep despair. A fourteen year old girl cannot have a “relationship” with her youth minister. It was not an “affair.” It was rape. It was abuse. It deprived her of her innocence, her trust, and her faith in God. As far as I’m concerned, any man who is more concerned with his own job security than with doing whatever he can to help repair the extreme and lifelong damage that was caused by his brother under his watch does not deserve to represent Christ and his Church.
What I find pathetic about this trial is that Bishop Bennison’s heresy and persecution of Christians under his charge were not considered important enough to merit a trial, but now he is being tried for failing to squeal on his own brother MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS AGO. There are no allegations of sexual misconduct against Bishop Bennison himself. If the things that we did as long ago as the early seventies are going to be held against us, what hope is there for any of us?
#6: Not “failing to squeal on his brother” but rather alleged failure to protect a minor from repeated and degrading abuse under the roof of his own church. Alleged failure to protect his own sister-in-law from being badly hurt by the actions of an adulterous brother. Alleged failure to protect parishioner family members from deeper shame and the potential scandal it might bring. Alleged failure to safeguard from potential harm other minors when John Bennison moved on to other parishes by supporting his brother in his vocation. Alleged failure to safeguard the reputation of The Episcopal Church. Why should there be a statute of limitations on something like that? Prison is not at stake here, just the right of a bishop to hold his job. Yes, there is irony that there are no heresy charges, and that Bp. Smith of “Connecticut Six” notoriety is head of the judicial panel. That is yet another symptom of the disfunctionality and drift of the entire denomination. But to deny the import of this case is to deny 35 years of pain and shame for the victim, and that would be unconscionable.
Patty, No. 5, you’re right of course. Is that what Bennison is still doing? Making excuses? I had thought for some reason that he HAD apologized, HAD said he was wrong, etc. Maybe my brain supplied that information as a kind of hallucination because I did not want to believe anyone would do otherwise. 🙁
Ouroboros, I hope you are right and I am wrong. But in everything I have read, I have not seen any apology from him. He does admit his brothers actions and he does admit that he knew about them. But then he gives all sorts of excuses for why he failed to act and why his failure to act should not be seen as conduct unbecoming. He seems to be behaving as a defendant who is trying to get out of trouble and not as a mature bishop who is willing to pay whatever consequences are necessary in order for God’s justice to be served.
I think a truly repentant person might say that he knew about the actions and refused to act on them under a mistaken belief that was the best way forward but that he had come to realize what a terrible mistake that was and to acknowledge the consequences to the victim of his actions, to ask for her forgiveness and to be willing to accept whatever accountability the church deemed appropriate in light of the serious nature of the offense. But I realize that takes a lot of courage, grace and humility. Not many people are able to acknowlege their sinfulness in that way. I can’t honestly say that I would be able to, though I pray that God would grant me the wisdom to act in this girl’s best interests.
This case points vividly to the reality that our sins not only grieve God, but they cause harm to other people. When we ask God’s forgiveness for our sins God is truly gracious to forgive us. But the consequences of those sins remain upon the ones that we have harmed. That does not get wiped away with forgiveness in the same way that our sins do. And so even when we are forgiven, we still must pay the natural consequences of that.
I don’t see here any willingness on Bishop Bennison’s part to acknowledge that the consequences of his sins were so devastating to a young vulnerable person that it is not enough to simply say he is forgiven and move on. He owes a responsibility to this now woman to be with her and to do all in his power to help her overcome, whatever that takes, for as long as it takes. Otherwise, what we’re looking at is the most blatant example of modern day cheap grace.
This might have remained buried had not Bp Swing (now retired) tried to place the brother (who had been re-frocked) in a parish in the East Bay. SNAP raised a major objection, which in turn brought up Bp Bennison’s coverup.
Bill Matz: I’ve heard that same link, and believe it. I personally witnessed Jack Spong cover for one of his cardinal priests (at St Luke’s Montclair) in the mid-1980s. It was well known — and the Rector went off to head a congregation in Toledo, Ohio! I’ve often wondered how that poor congregation fared under his ‘leadership’. YEEETTTCCHHHHH!!! on all of them covering for each other!