BishopAccountability.org
	Expert Witnesses Testify Bennison Knew and Should Be Accountable Day Two of the Ecclesiastical Trial of PA Bishop Charles E. Bennison By David W. Virtue Virtue Online June 10, 2008 http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8408 Witnesses, at the ecclesiastical trial of the inhibited Bishop of Pennsylvania, say Charles E. Bennison knew about his brother's sexual abuse of a minor and acted in his own protective self interests. He also urged the abused family not to take action because it could cost him his job and pleaded confidentiality when no such case could be made under the church's canon law. Bishop David Richards, Head of the office of Pastoral Development in the 70's, testified that Bennison violated all the ground rules by failing to inform the girl's parents, showing no concern for the girl, failing pastorally both the girl and her parents, offering no therapy or safety, healthcare or psychological counseling, and having concern only for his own reputation and that of his brother. Sitting grim and red-faced between his two lawyers, the usually smug look on his pale face now gone, Bennison tried to put the best front on his situation as he heard witness after witness condemn him for his inaction in the face of grave sexual misconduct by his brother, John. Bishop Richards publicly declared that Bennison engaged in "'conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy.' "He did not discharge his duties as a priest." he told the court. "He did not stop the abuse and did not carry out his pastoral obligations. Look at the Lord Jesus, he was the Good Shepherd. His (Bennison's) job is to keep away the wolves and care for the young. That is his sacred obligation. Bennison failed." Questioned about what he should have done, Richards said Bennison should have turned to his bishop, Robert Rusack (Los Angeles), and alerted the rector of the next parish John served and reported his sinful behavior. He said, if that had been done, his ordination would have been held in question. "He should not have been an authority in the church." When Charles Bennison ran for Bishop of Pennsylvania, he failed to disclose what happened at St. Mark's or why he left under a cloud at St. Luke's in Atlanta. When he was finally questioned about his behavior regarding what his brother had done, he made three justifications: He wanted to prevent scandal, he pled confidentiality and he wanted to be a brother to John. Richards retorted that this was a life- threatening situation where confidentiality should have been breached as the girl could have committed suicide. "He used confidentiality as an excuse not to do anything. He should have informed the parents, as they were her guardians. By not doing, so he denied the girl. She deserved the same service as a rape victim." Richards described John Bennison as a man with a "pathological sexuality". Richards blasted Charles Bennison saying that his desire to protect the church was not valid. "The church should be transparent. Keeping secrets never works. To protect his place as a rector in the church is understandable, but not justifiable. He had no obligation to his brother to keep the sexual abuse a secret. He was negligent in his behavior." Richards said, that while the church had no national guidelines on sex abuse, there was screening in the 60s. He said he worked with the Commission on Ministry to provide standards for the protection of minors. Under cross examination, James Pabarue, Bennison's attorney, attempted to portray Richards as one among many bishops, including Bishop William Swing, Robert Rusack and Presiding Bishop Ed Browning, who had jurisdiction over Charles Bennison. "They were well aware of the facts for years and yet no one felt that their conduct (justified) bringing charges against Charles Bennison as unbecoming a member of the clergy." Bennison's lawyers contend that Bennison had no training in what to do in such situations. Dr. Gary Schoener, a clinical psychologist from Minneapolis and an expert on clergy sex abuse, examined some 4,000 cases, half of them having to do with church abuse situations said otherwise. He testified that, in the 60s and 70s the issues were more around adultery, but "common sense not policy" should have prevailed. Asked what should have happened in the Bennison case, he said Bennison should have intervened and stopped the behavior, aided the victim, told the parents, considered the safety of others and kept the offender away from other kids. He should have helped the offender get counseling and assessment. "The offender should have been removed from his position. In the 70s, sexual abuse was widely understood, though it was called sex between an adult and a minor. It was illegal and not proper. In the 80s and 90s, sexual involvement between a leader with a young adult, whether it was someone 17 or 18, didn't change the facts." Fr. James Armstrong Trimble, who headed the search committee for a new bishop for the Diocese of Pennsylvania in 1996, said he worked with Bishop Hopkins from the Office of Pastoral Development in the nomination process, but knew nothing and was told nothing at any time about John Bennison's history and Charles Bennison's cover up of his brother's abuse. "Did Charles Bennison volunteer the information" asked national church attorney Larry White. "No", said Trimble. Asked if Bennison had informed the search committee about his brother's behavior and would it have been pertinent to his candidacy, Trimble said yes. "We would have investigated these serious allegations." Charles Bennison was under an obligation to disclose all this. Asked what affect it would have had on his candidacy, Trimble replied that they would have taken it very seriously as a moral matter. Another witness, Anne Allen, who lived in Upland, California, between 1962 and 1989, said that her son Bruce had heard about Martha Alexis. She wanted her son to take Martha to a school function. When asked why he didn't want to take her, he said, "Mum she's John's woman." "I was shocked and balled him out for passing gossip. I told my husband and asked him what we should do. "I told Charles Bennison about his brother John. We thought about telling June and Don, Martha's parents, but we did not. In the library after a vestry meeting, I told Charles Bennison what my son told me. Charles just shrugged and said, '"That's the way it is.' He took no steps to do anything." Asked if she talked with anyone else, she replied that she told Joan Bennison (Charles' wife) in a car going to Pasadena. Joan replied she knew about a couple of other affairs John had had. "I had a telephone conversation with Charles Bennison and at the end he said 'I appreciate you not telling other people. It would negatively affect my career.'" Under cross examination she admitted "We chickened out" in not taking it further and telling the parents. The nine-member panel of judges, which consists of five bishops, will decide Bennison's fate. At least six of the judges must find him guilty of the presentment charges. They have 30 days following the end of the trial to issue a verdict. If he loses Bennison can appeal.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.