By Mary Frances Schjonberg
Episcopal Life
May 5, 2010
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81803_122037_ENG_HTM.htm
Attorneys for the Episcopal Church and for Diocese of Pennsylvania Bishop Charles Bennison argued before an ecclesiastical appeals court here May 4 about whether the bishop should have been tried and convicted on charges stemming from his response to his priest brother's sexual misconduct some 35 years ago.
Among the issues facing the eight-bishop Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop after three hours of oral arguments are questions of whether the evidence presented at Bennison's trial supported his conviction, 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 engage in the sexual abuse.
The hearing took place at Trinity Episcopal Church in Wilmington, Delaware. Bennison, the alleged victim and her mother were present for the hearing, along with nearly 45 other people, including officials from the Diocese of Pennsylvania.
In June 2008, the church's Court for the Trial of a Bishop tried Bennison on two counts of engaging in conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy and found in February 2009 that Bennison should be deposed or removed from the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church.
 |
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.
Charles Bennison has been inhibited or barred from exercising his ordained ministry by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori since October 2007, when he was first "presented" or ordered to stand trial. A chronology of the case is available in this Sept. 25, 2009 ENS story.
At the end of his argument to the court May 4, Church Attorney Lawrence White listed the ways in which he said the bishop acted in a manner unbecoming a member of the clergy. Summarizing, he said that Bennison communicated to the victim and her family "the exact opposite of what a pastor should be telling his flock: that he feared scandal, that he was too busy and that he thought the victim was a sinner."
The bishop "has made and perpetuated serious and grievous mistakes for which he should be held responsible," White said, adding that Bennison's characterization of himself as a "secondary violator" shows that "he doesn't comprehend the gravity of what he has done and doesn't belong in the company of the spiritual leaders of the church."
Earlier, his colleague Ralph Jacobs had described to the court how Bennison failed to minister to the people harmed by his brother's conduct, including showing "no concern whatever" for 30 years about the victim's physical, emotional or spiritual well-being and how he "actively vouched" for his brother at the time of his ordination as a priest by their father, Bishop Charles Bennison, Sr., of the Diocese of Western Michigan, after leaving St. Mark's.
"He knew the toxicity of secrecy and yet he continued to pull a curtain of secrecy tightly around him," Jacobs told the court.
In contrast, the bishop's attorney James Pabarue said that "holding Charles Bennison solely responsible for the harm that occurred in this case is wrong."
"While it may satisfy some who have other reasons to see him removed from his position, while it may be good public relations for the church to appear to have taken action in a case involving sexual misconduct with a minor, the clear and convincing proof is that this is an erroneous verdict and a violation of the canons," he said.
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.
Pabarue told the court earlier in his argument that John Bennison, his then-wife and the alleged victim "lied to everyone," including Charles Bennison, "in order to escape detection." Pabarue also claimed that many other officials in the church knew about John Bennison's actions and his brother's response, and did not act to punish either of them.
Bennison's attorney also claimed that the church canons' statute of limitations, which has been amended more than once since the offenses in question, precludes prosecuting the bishop. Pabarue argued that the exception to the statue for offenses involving sexual abuse of a minor did not apply to the bishop because he himself did not perpetrate the sexual abuse. Therefore, he contended that the 2007 charges came well after the general time limit set in the canon.
White countered that the statute of limitations spelled out in the canons does not pertain only to the perpetrators of abuse and that therefore the exception applied to Bennison's actions.
The canons that pertain "do not focus on the parties," White said. "They focus on the harm."
He also argued that the second count in the 2007 complaint was filed within the time limit because Bennison did not publicly disclose what he knew about his brother's activities until 2006.
According to Canon IV.6.18-19 the court of review may affirm or reverse the trial court's judgment, and may enter a final judgment or remand the case to the trial court for a new trial or other proceedings. If the court of review affirms the judgment, it may also modify the sentence issued by the trial court.
If the sentence is upheld, Canon IV.13.1 provides that a majority of the House of Bishops may "remit and terminate" or modify that sentence.
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, president), Duncan Gray (Mississippi), Mary Gray-Reeves (El Camino Real), Don Johnson (West Tennessee), Chilton Knudsen (Maine, retired), 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.
The court adjourned the hearing without issuing a decision.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.