PERFECT STORM

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

It’s not often that I feel sorry for Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Episcopal Organization but as far as the Charles Bennison case is concerned, I actually do. Because this case could not have possibly have gone any worse.

As the ruling indicates, Bennison, accused of covering for his pedophile brother, got the conduct-unbecoming charge and his deposition overturned by what was, in effect, an Episcopal court of appeals simply because his offenses took place outside the range of the statute of limitations. This is what the court had to say:

The actions and the objects of those actions are enumerated in paragraph 48 of the Presentment: (a) failure to fire or suspend his brother immediately, (b) failure to investigate his brother’s conduct, (c) and failure to discharge his pastoral obligations to (i) a 14 year old parishioner, (ii) the members of her family, and (iii) the members of the parish youth group. Those actions having consequences for the members of the victim’s family and the parish youth group are not actions of which the minor female was the object. While they may be sufficient to be conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy, they are not actions that constitute sexual abuse of a victim as is defined in Canon iv. 15. To the extent the Trial Court relied upon those findings to apply the sexual abuse exception and allow a guilty verdict against Appellant, the Trial Court was clearly erroneous.

There remains only the issue of whether Appellant’s inaction with regard to John Bennison’s conduct - even when he had only suspicions about the conduct - constitutes sexual abuse of the minor female by Appellant. We cannot engage in any speculation to conclude that, had Appellant - even without actual knowledge - only confronted John Bennison in 1973 or even in 1975, or had investigated or had taken steps to separate the minor female and John Bennison the sexual abuse by John Bennison would have stopped or would have been less adverse to the minor female. Any adverse effect upon the minor female by Appellant’s inaction would not involve the direct, physical action by Appellant upon the minor female that is required to apply the sexual abuse exception of the statute of limitations.

In other words, since Chuckie didn’t actually drill the kid his ownself, the sexual abuse canon didn’t apply in this case. Now I’m not a canon lawyer, I just play one on the Internet. But I see a major problem here.

The canons state quite clearly that in any case of conduct-unbecoming involving sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, the statute of limitations does not come into play.

The time limits of this Section shall not apply to Offenses the specifications of which include physical violence, sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, if the acts occurred when the alleged Victim was a Minor.

But click here and then search for the terms “sexual abuse” or “sexual exploitation.” I can find no instance in which either term is clearly defined. So this court seems to have relied on its own interpretation of what “sexual abuse” means and that interpretation seems to have required that Chuckie personally boinked the kid his ownself.

Might the court have adopted a more expansive meaning for “sexual abuse,” namely that knowledge of and refusal to do anything about someone else’s sexual abuse is, in and of itself, a form of sexual abuse? I don’t see anything in the canons that forbids the court from adopting such an interpretation.

But the court didn’t so the question is an academic one. Which leaves Chuckie free to resume his role as a bishop in a church that clearly doesn’t want him. Pennsylvania’s Standing Committee is clearly unenthusiastic about Chuckie’s return.

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 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.

And while Chuckie might consider himself vindicated.

Through three years of a pastoral inhibition, pretrial discovery, court testimony, a guilty verdict and a sentence of deposition, the Rt. Rev. Charles E. Bennison, Jr., never lost faith that church canons would prevail.

“I’m very gratified by the decision of the court. I’ve always believed that the charges were without merit,” he said.

The court’s ruling said over and over that Bennison was basically a piece of crap who got over on a technicality.

In a lively 39-page ruling, dated July 28, the review court agreed with the trial court that Charles Bennison was guilty — while rector of the parish — of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. But the court also upheld a statute of limitations that can only be disregarded if a member of the clergy is directly responsible for sexual abuse, rather than “once removed” from such sexual abuse.

That being the case, Chuck, you really might want to steer clear of statements like this.

“I think I have shared in Christ’s crucifixion,” Bennison said. “I don’t know what it will mean to walk in newness of life.”

The Episcopal left knows what a liability Chuckie is. When the Jimi Naughton Experience wonders if TEO’s definition of “sexual abuse” is too narrow and when both Elizabeth Kaeton(previous link, very last comment) andMark Harris think that Chuck ought to resign, you can be reasonably assured that when Chuck resumes his position in the TEO’s House of Bishops, he’s not going to be among friends.

Having won the point, will Chuckie step down? He doesn’t sound like he wants to.

Bennison said in a teleconference call from Michigan, where he is vacationing, that he will return to his duties as bishop on August 16.

“I hope I am a changed person,” he said, and that he had no immediate goals other than to listen to the men and women who have led the diocese since he was suspended in October, 2007.

This much is clear: Bennison intends to return to his work as Bishop of Pennsylvania on Aug. 16. Indeed, Bennison said he has heard from the Presiding Bishop’s office that his inhibition is lifted.

Bennison said he could return to the diocese immediately, if he chose, but he is on a family break in Michigan and trusts the diocese’s standing committee and the work of the Rt. Rev. Rodney R. Michel, who has been serving as assisting bishop during Bennison’s absence.

Which means what? I guess the Episcopal Organization’s definition of “sexual abuse” and “sexual exploitation” will be greatly expanded first chance TEO gets. Someone could come up with new charges to file against the guy. And I can see some kind of motion of censure at the next House of Bishops meeting.

Aside from that, your guess is as good as mine. Bennison might realize that the remainder of his tenure is going to be an awfully lonely one; he’s not going to be any sort of public face for TEO if Mrs. Schori can help it. But I doubt that any of that’s going to matter to Chuckie very much.