BishopAccountability.org
	Pennsylvania: Court Rules in Favor of Charles Bennison Episcopal Life August 5, 2010 http://www.episcopal-life.org/documents/A-51_Final_Judgment_(2).pdf [decision of the review court] An ecclesiastical review court Aug. 4 ruled in favor of Diocese of Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison with respect to two alleged disciplinary charges stemming from his response to his priest brother's sexual misconduct some 35 years ago. The decision by the Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop is here. "I am very gratified by the decision of the court; I always thought the charges were without merit," said Bennison, in a media teleconference Aug. 5. The decision overturns findings by the church's Court for the Trial of a Bishop after a June 2008 trial that the bishop had committed serious disciplinary offenses warranting his removal ("deposition") from the ordained ministry and represents the final judgment in a two-year legal case. Bennison will now resume his position as bishop of Pennsylvania, which has been under the ecclesiastical authority of the diocesan Standing Committee since he was inhibited by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in October 2007. The principal charge against Bennison was that he failed to respond appropriately when he had reason to believe that his brother was engaged in sexual misconduct with a young girl in his parish. The court agreed with the trial court with respect to that charge and concluded that in that respect Bennison had engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy; but the court found that the charge was barred by the church's statute of limitations. "Because the statute of limitations has run on that offense, we have no choice under the canons of the Church but to reverse the judgment of the Trial Court finding that Appellant is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy under the First Offense," the Court of Review said in the conclusion section of the final judgment. Bennison, 66, who was on vacation in Michigan with his family when the court issued its decision, said he planned to return to his office Aug. 16. When asked whether he planned to continue to serve the diocese as its bishop, Bennison pointed out that church canon allows for a bishop to serve until age 72, and said that he will continue as bishop "if it seems appropriate and in the best interest of the church," until that time. The Pennsylvania Standing Committee has been at odds with Bennison since the mid-2000s over concerns about how he has managed the diocese's assets and other issues. More than once in the past, the Standing Committee has called for his resignation. When asked how he intended to repair his relationship with the Standing Committee, Bennison said, "I have always had deep respect for the members of the committee. They have done a really great job in the past two years and nine months." He added that while he was inhibited he stayed out of diocesan business. Bennison said during the media teleconference he had not yet called the Rev. Glenn Matis, the Standing Committee's president. The diocese referred media inquires to its chancellor, Michael Rehill. When asked what the transition might look like, Rehill told ENS, that people in the diocese had had strong feelings about the bishop and that the leadership was clearly divided between those who supported Bennison and those who questioned his leadership and his care of the finances. Rehill said that Bennison took one of the wealthiest dioceses in the Episcopal Church and made it one of the poorest. The Standing Committee, he added, has done a good job of finding common ground and moving the diocese forward, a job that will be turned over to Bennison now. The Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop on May 4 heard three hours of oral arguments about whether the evidence presented at Bennison's trial supported the Court for the Trial of a Bishop's judgment against him, whether the canonical statute of limitations on those actions had run, and whether the trial court's sentence of deposition would be unduly harsh because Bennison himself did not physically abuse the victim. In its February 2009 judgment, the Court for the Trial of a Bishop said that Bennison should be deposed or removed from the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church after finding against him on two counts of engaging in conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. The trial court subsequently rejected the bishop's request to modify that sentence and his legal counsel took the case to the Court of Review, a panel of bishops provided for by the church's canons on discipline. The trial court called for deposition after it found that 35 years ago when Bennison was rector of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Upland, California, he failed to respond properly after learning that his brother, John Bennison, then a 24-year-old newly ordained deacon (later priest) whom he had hired as youth minister, was "engaged in a sexually abusive and sexually exploitive relationship" with a minor parishioner. The abuse allegedly lasted for more than three years from the time the minor was 14 years old. Charles Bennison was found to have failed to discharge his pastoral obligations to the girl, the members of her family, and the members of the parish youth group as well as church authorities after he learned of his brother's behavior. The court said that he suppressed the information about his brother until 2006, when he disclosed publicly what he knew. John Bennison, who had previously been deposed in 1977 for an unrelated offense and had been restored to the priesthood in 1980, was forced to renounce his orders again in 2006 when accusations of the abuse became public. The bishops composing the Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop in the Bennison case are Michael Curry (North Carolina), Clifton Daniel (East Carolina, presiding judge), Duncan Gray (Mississippi), Mary Gray-Reeves (El Camino Real), Don Johnson (West Tennessee), Chilton Knudsen (Maine, resigned), Bruce MacPherson (Western Louisiana) and Todd Ousley (Eastern Michigan). Delaware Bishop Wayne Wright recused himself from the hearing for personal reasons. The roster is different from the current members of the court because the bishops who were serving on the court when the appeal was filed in the fall of 2009 are the ones who must review the judgment and sentence.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.