The Review Committee voted not to issue a presentment, and the Standing Committee has responded to this action.
The Review Committee voted not to issue a presentment, and the Standing Committee has responded to this action.
I find it rather ironic that nothing gets done to Bennison, while in what seem to be similar circumstances O’Neill publicly branded Don Armstrong as a felonious tax evader before the diocesan investigation was fully complete, IIRC.
Bp. Bennison is the poster boy TEC bishop. The Diocese of PA gets the spiritual, moral, and financial bankruptcy it deserves when they hired him without looking into his past. Welcome to Episcopalia.
Intercessor
Perhaps his heart was in the right place.
Daniel:
I see no comparison at all. Don Armstrong has been virtually absolved and cleared of any wrongdoing whatsoever; so, to compare him to Bennison is totally ridiculous. O’Neill is the one who should be deposed and drummed out of the “Communion”.
Is there any possibility of recovering the assets in a civil court, ala OJ Simpson? Has the standing committee shared their evidence with the IRS?
Marie
The church is cavalier about theology (see Captain Yip’s current post) and about morality, but hypersensitive about procedures.
Over at the Rapid City Journal, the comments on the PB’s visit to SD fall into three groups – Indians who are angry about destruction of their culture, Christians who are angry about TEC’s innovations, and defenders of TEC. The main pro-TEC argument? I’ll just paste in the quote:
[blockquote] And to the rest of you who do not understand the basic constitutions and canons of the Episcopal Church, I suggest you not comment about that which you do not understand. [/blockquote]
I grew up in the Episcopal Church – what a sad, empty thing it has become.
Intersessor #2, I couldn’t disagree more. Our brothers and sisters in Dio PA did NOT get what they deserve. They deserve a bishop who will lead them in their journey of grace, providing sound biblical teaching and right doctrine. They apparently hired a lemon, but that is surely not what they (or any of us who seek to follow Christ) deserve.
If it had been my bishop, +John-David Schofield, or Bishop Duncan, or Iker, the Title IV Review committee would have recommended presentment! TEC has become a club! It is no more a church than our Local Elks Lodge, Jobs Daughters, Rotary, Masons, etc….Sad!
So what now PA? What are you all gonna do now?
Payton, if they have been paying his salary, they get what they deserve. Where your money is, there your heart will be also.
Sorry, but I don’t buy the “I relied on my lawyer for advice” bit. As Bishop of the diocese, Charles Bennison was ultimately responsible for his actions regardless of the legal advice he got. I believe that it was HIS decisions which got him into hot water…..NOT the advice of his lawyer. As a military officer, I was responsible for whatever happened “on my watch,” and I took my responsibilities very seriously; knowing full well the consequences of my actions if I failed.
Charles Bennison is no different.
The standing committee’s statement about the presumption of innocence should remind us of how ECUSA’s revisionist rulers circumvent procedural protections by resorting to the abandonment-of-communion theory.
The statement seems to say that one does not commit a canonical offense by doing something unwise or wasteful or foolish with church funds. Unfortunately the canons also don’t seem to provide a way to simply fire a profligate bishop. In other dioceses, bishops have been shamed into taking buyout packages and resigning. Bennison won’t go, and I don’t know if the diocese has enough money left to do a buyout.
The only hope left appears to be the presentment for conduct unbecoming. I don’t know if, since the alleged unbecoming conduct was committed before Bennison became bishop, he can be held accountable for not disclosing the scandal before consecration.
What a mess.
It is important to remember that +Bennison’s troubles are not over. If I am reading this correctly, this has nothing to do with the pending ecclesiastical trial concerning an entirely different matter.
At least it is a consistent judgment. The panel in the Righter trial came to the same conclusion: no canonical offense if there is no canonical definition. In both, it is apparently too much to ask that an appeal be made to that document upon which (one would hope) the Canons find their foundation. Nonetheless, our sister mainline denominations that DO have carefully defined rules and regulations that mirror scripture are having their problems despite biblical and canonical definition. Ah, humanity….
I think we just passed a road sign a few miles back that read, “Rotten, Denmark”
“Keeping our Vows” refresher training seems to be in order…
[blockquote]And to the rest of you who do not understand the basic constitutions and canons of the Episcopal Church, I suggest you not comment about that which you do not understand.[/blockquote] If we apply this across the board, 70% of the HoB would have to take a vow of silence.
How do we know Bennison actually received legal advice to the effect that he could or should do what he did? How do we know he followed the advice he received? (And does a lawyer’s advice about financial management qualify as “legal advice”?)
A major national law firm based here in Dallas advised their clients that a certain tax shelter scheme they were selling was “more likely legal than not.”
The IRS thought otherwise. The firm was bankrupted by client law suits. I think the lawyers are selling used cars these days.