BishopAccountability.org
	Pennsylvania: Bishop Continues Defense in Sexual Abuse Trial By Jerry Hames Episcopal Life June 13, 2008 http://www.episcopal-life.org/81803_97822_ENG_HTM.htm [Episcopal News Service] The ecclesiastical trial of Bishop Charles Bennison concluded June 12 with the bishop saying he would do nothing different than what he did 35 years ago when he learned that his younger brother, John Bennison, who he had hired as a youth group supervisor, seduced a 14-year-old girl in his parish. Charles Bennison, now bishop in the Diocese of Pennsylvania, said he was made aware of the situation shortly before John's ordination as priest. He said he confronted him in a field outside St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Upland, California, but John denied repeatedly any improper conduct. The bishop said he ordered John to leave the church, but it was two more months before his brother departed, while continuing his abuse of the girl. Under cross-examination, when he was asked if he believed that his brother's manner of life was suitable for a person to be ordained, Charles Bennsion said he felt "a little bit" uncomfortable, but maintained that he knew of no impediment or criminal action to prevent John's ordination. As a result, he testified, he presented his brother for ordination by his father, Bishop Charles Bennsion Sr., at a service in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The court was told that John Bennison, married and 10 years older than the girl, seduced other women at St. Mark's Upland, California, and at least two others in the next parish in Santa Barbara where he was a curate. The bishop told the church's prosecuting attorney he was unaware of when events occurred. His recollection during the past 35 years was "hazy," he said, repeating he could not remember conversations with others who had called attention to their suspicions of sexual abuse initiated by his brother. Completing his testimony that began on June 11, Bennison said, "It's been a long time -- 30 years." In another statement, when the prosecuting attorney questioned him about what he knew and when, he said, "I haven't kept in my mind the chronology of the story. I do think that I have an amnesia problem. I'm not clear about a lot of things." He defended his handling of the situation between 1975-78 when his brother and the teen engaged in sexual relations in the church offices and Sunday school rooms. Earlier testimony revealed that Charles Bennison confronted only his brother, who repeatedly denied any impropriety. He did not speak to the girl, her parents, other members of the youth group, parishioners, or seek advice from others. "My views have changed during the course of this week," he said. "I have always felt terrible about this situation. It's not the only thing in my pastoral ministry I've felt badly about, but it's been a major hurt. I did not oversee John's presence in these years. I can never escape responsibility over that. During this week, I think maybe my pastoral judgment was correct not to tell the parents, not to breach the confidentiality of Martha." Again, he defended his action not to tell the girl's parents. "If it were divulged even to parents, she would have been seen as culpable, having done something bad," he said. He said he regarded the illicit relationship not as abuse, but as adultery by John and premarital sex by Martha. In response to questioning, he said he did not know what the term "minor" meant in the 1970s. Two of the nine judges on the panel posed questions after his testimony finished. One asked if he was familiar with the term "statutory rape" in 1974-75. "To tell you the truth I was not familiar with that term," Bennison said. Another asked what consideration he gave to bring to John Bennison and the teenager the sacraments of repentance and forgiveness. "I assumed if he [John] had sinned, he would do whatever he needed to do," said Bennison. "I was not his seminary supervisor. I was not his spiritual director." Asked again what he would do for the teenager, he replied, "If she had come to me, I would have counseled her, listened to her and tell her to tell her parents." In 1978, Martha did tell her mother after suffering from emotional problems, binge drinking and a period of counseling while she was a sophomore at UCLA. A majority of the testimony and cross-examination June 12 was spent reviewing correspondence between Charles Bennison and a number of people, including June Alexis, mother of teenager involved, and Margaret Thompson, the divorced wife of John Bennison. In one letter June Alexis said her daughter, Martha, needed an acknowledgement from him, admitting the wrong that was done to her and she provided Martha's address at the bishop's request. "Why didn't you write to her?" the attorney asked. "I thought it was inappropriate...I didn't think she would welcome a note from me," Bennsion said. "It could be possibly injurious to her. Sometimes a pastor can be too invasive." In a later exchange, responding to his own lawyer, he said didn't now why he didn't write to Martha. "I might have been busy, negligent and busy." The four-day trail concluded with summary statements with the attorneys for the prosecution and defense. The church attorney citied several instances of neglect on Bennison's part and said the bishop's concern was not for Martha and her family, but he was mainly interested in avoiding a church scandal, preserving his family's relationship and protecting his own career. Defense lawyer James Pabarue said no one in the past 35 years -- neither bishops nor the victims -- had initiated charges against Bennsion, seeking his removal, and suggested this had now come from members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania who since 2006 have sought the bishop's resignation for alleged financial malfeasance. He noted that the persons who made the initial charges in 2006 to former Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold have not been identified and he read into the record that the Rev. William Wood, then president of the standing committee, had been asked by defense counsel to appear and had refused. The day before the trial began Michael Rehill, chancellor the Diocese of Pennsylvania issued this statement: "The statement made by Bishop Bennison's attorney, James Pabarue, is totally false. The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania had nothing to do with the charges or the investigation that led to the Presentment now pending against Bishop Bennison. This case is in no way motivated by the belief shared by all of the members of the Standing Committee that Bishop Bennison should resign, but rather is the product of an independent investigation conducted in accordance with the canons of the Episcopal Church." The presiding judge, Bishop Andrew D. Smith of the Diocese of Connecticut, said the judges must reach a verdict within 30 days and that a two-thirds majority is needed to find the defendant guilty. Bishop Bennison is charged with two offences that are independent from one another, he said. If a guilty verdict is reached, additional parties can make submissions before punishment is determined.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.