Breaking: Bennison Inhibited

Is this a spoof?

Has this been thoroughly investigated, David?

I am beyond shocked.

It’s direct from Episcopal Life Online. Looks genuine to me. All the links are episcopalchurch.org

Two questions tossed out there for anybody who can answer a Totally Stunned Episcopalian.

I’ve denounced what Bennison appeared to have done on this blog, and written numerous follow-up articles about him, along with deep regrets expressed for the Standing Committee [though revisionist] which has been In Hades for well over a year now, enduring unimaginable stress which I do not wish on anyone, revisionist or traditionalist.

But . . .

1) It has been 34 years.

34 years.  And it is something that has been known forever, hasn’t it?  So . . . now . . . it’s 34 years later. 

Does anybody know whether he committed any canonical violations for not reporting his brother?  Is it a violation of canons for “not preventing his brother’s ordination, or his ultimately successful application to be reinstated as a priest after having renounced his orders in 1977, or his desire to transfer from the Diocese of Los Angeles to the Diocese of California”?????

I mean . . . both the bishops of LA and California brokered this “transfer” . . . didn’t they? 

2) Is it canonically allowed for the PB to inhibit another bishop?

I’m clueless about that one too.

And since, as has been demonstrated so completely over the past four years, all that matters is the canons . . . other than being an unspeakable twerp, did Bishop Bennison actually “violate canons” back in 1973?

Again . . . just to reiterate . . . I am beyond stunned.

Stunned. Shocked.  Amazed.  Confused.  It would be as if Bishop Griswold suddenly announced that the plains beyond good and evil actually does contain Absolute Objective Truth!

I would immediately know it was a spoof.

Sarah, that was my immediate thought - this has direct implications upon how much power the PB actually has (although, that authority may be specifically limited to such instances - I don’t know).

The bigger question is why Bennison has not had the intergrity to resign long before now. When this whole thing came up the honourable man would have fallen on his sword.

Let’s also not forget the many injured parties in this. WHile the issuing of a presentment will be an encouragement to some it will also be a trigger to long-suppressed emotions for others.

There is a good bit more to it than “brother troubles” I’d BET on it.

It might have something to do with the fact that the Moyer case is FINALLY in court, and +Chuck stands to lose a bunch of money for himself/diocese/ and possibly TEC.

Wonder if perhaps the case isn’t going well, as soon as I hear from a reliable source, I’ll let everyone know.  Of course you all have your own sources, so lets get checking. 

Grannie Gloria

David, if we expected bishops to resign when they had done something dishonorable what on earth would happen to the HOB????

From my perspective, Bennison has done what so many many bishops do now—stubbornly refuse to resign until they get the “Jo Mo Doss payout.”

I’ll be honest.  Somebody could have hacked the Episcopal church’s web site.  I’m just shocked.

I don’t get it.

As much as Bennison has done . . . and as appallingly as he has behaved . . . appallingly . . . this whole “incident” is 34 years old.  And I’m not certain that he violated the canons in not reporting the brother.

I’m not trying to defend him—terrible terrible behavior with hideous consequences for a young girl along with her family . . . I’m just confused and stunned as to why now.

Sarah, I think that’s right. Grannie raises the right question; why Bennison and why only now? It could be any number of things:
1. GG’s suggestion that the Moyer case is too expensive.
2. A genuine desire to deal with this matter.
3. A need to been seen to be dealing with the matter.
I’m not sure what. I hesitate to suggest 1 or 3. I honestly think that 2 is the most likely and for that small mercy we should be thankful.

Color me confused. 
Financial irresponsibility - no inhibition?
Failure to act decisively when 2 (count ‘em) 2 druid priests were found in his Diocese - no inhibition?
Does this mean that it takes ECUSA 30 years to recognize when someone is violating their vows by their actions?
Yep, color me confused.

I’m no attorney, but I think knowing and doing nothing about this (these?) crime is itself felonious.  So, he’s culpable in a criminal sense, not to mention a spiritual and ecclesiastical sense.  If the PB hadn’t done something and someone else did blow the whistle in a way that would stick, it could be really ugly for TEC (not unlike the Catholic scandals).

What a hell this man must have lived in for over 30 years.  It must be somewhat of a relief to be found out and brought to account.  God have mercy on his soul.  And God bless and heal all the collateral victims this crime has wrought through the years.

Or +Bennison could be 815’s latest pawn in the battle to look “tough” on moral issues.  That would be pretty sick.

I’m with Sarah, this is wierd.  More to it than the scandal.  It smells like politics

Could this be a “set up”?  Schori inhibits a TEC partyline bishop and then will turn around and inhibit the Common Cause bishops.  Then she can say she’s being “nonpartisan”?

Why isn’t Swing included in the inhibition?  Wasn’t he involved in all this also?

Well . . . I’m not going to look a gift horse in the mouth I guess.  I can’t imagine what the motives are for going after Bennison’s behavior of 34 years ago.

But I’m glad.

Just confused.

So strange.

34 years.

What next?  An inhibition of Pike? 

Didn’t the bishops in California collaborate in the whole “transfer” thingy anyway? [I think they’re retired or something, so not the current ones.]

Yes, it’s mind-boggling.  “Behavior Unbecoming?”  Rule out doctrinal issues and you still have bishops shoving to be first in line for inhibition - +Andrus comes swashbuckling to mind, most recently.

Sarah asks,” 2) Is it canonically allowed for the PB to inhibit another bishop?”

Yes, with the consent of the Diocesan Standing Committee, which has in this case been trying to get rid of Bennison for years.

But the PB can’t canonically get rid of a bishop for wasting money and being an incompetent clown, which is why the SC wanted to can him.  So instead they dredged up these charges, which are canonically significant.  Someone on the SC has friends at 815.  Do that explain anything?

But no presentment for his statements about Jesus being forgiven of all of His sins?

Rev. Chuck Bennison (before he became known as ‘Charles’) was my rector in 1973. My family and I left that parish after an overly agressive ‘stewardship’ campaign during which we were told from the pulpit that if we were not tithing our full 10%, we were not members of the church. The rector wanted to increase the parish budget by some $100K (back when that was a lot of money) in large part so that the parish could hire a youth minister. That youth minister turned out to be the rector’s brother.

I had sometimes wondered about the corectness of our decision to leave, especially now that I understand more fully about tithing. Aside from being under a rector that preferred hiring and paying for help rather than encouraging and motivating volunteers, I had no quarrel with Chuck+, and in fact he was a great help to our family in time of critical need.

In retrospect, and in light of the revelations of what actually was going on in the hiring decision, and later behind closed doors, I no longer regret that decision.

...on leave from the Briar Patch,

Maybe it’s because he voted “No” at the HOB meeting.

Okay . . . other than our various spoof and April Fool’s articles concerning Bennison . . . here are the articles we’ve posted, I think, that I can discover quickly:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/209/

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1432/

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2054/

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2504/

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2717/

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2779/

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5858/

As for the inhibition being canonical, you can bet that 815 has scrubbed these options squeaky clean.

Schori is doing a lot of paperwork tonight.  Note this letter to Bp. Duncan (and others):

If your course does not change, I shall regrettably be compelled to see that appropriate canonical steps are promptly taken to consider whether you have abandoned the Communion of this Church—by actions and substantive statements, however they may be phrased—and whether you have committed canonical offences that warrant disciplinary action.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_91480_ENG_HTM.htm

Here’s what the PB gets for inhibiting Bennison:

1.  The appearance of being even-handed and fair, critical if she is going to hammer orthodox bishops, which undoubtedly she is getting ready to do. 

2.  Bona fides as one who takes sexual misconduct seriously, when ECUSA is being tarred for putting up with libertine and licentious behavior.  A nice contrast to the loving and committed monogamous relationship of VGR et al.  A contrast, too, to Roman Catholics, in taking seriously the charges against Bennison, despite the years that have passed.

3.  Ridding the HOB of someone who was an embarrassment at so many levels.  Gaining gratitude from bishops of all persuasions in the process.

4.  Giving the SC the ability to (possibly) save the diocese from bankruptcy and extinction.  Expect efforts to settle the Moyers case, for example.  Better financial shape means more money for 815.

5.  Reducing the chance that Bennison will be replaced by a moderate or orthodox bishop, since the SC and others will be beholden to KJS.

6.  Precedent (with likely little complaint) for a broad view of what constitutes misconduct, useful in future in future charges against bishops.

I think that Craig has this one down correctly.  Bennison has become a liability to 815 for several reasons, including not playing along in New Orleans (remember he was the lone clear “no” vote); bringing his diocese of near financial ruin; seriously alienating and angering his LIBERAL standing committee to the point of diocesan civil war; and badly mishandling the Roseberry case.

815 wanted him gone.  I think the old charge was just the means to the end.  I am quite sure that if Bennison had played according to 815’s game plan, the charges would have been dismissed.

This also has the added effect of demonstrating openly to orthodox bishops what will happen to them if 815 wants to get rid of them also.  Just think of it - nobody can reasonably object to this inhibition.  Folks will be shocked that 815 is doing this, but nobody will feel sorry for Bennison.  KJS is showing that she has what it takes to dish out the heavy discipline against those she chooses to exercise it against.

Two birds with one stone.  Get rid of a political liability and use it to intimidate your oppositon.  Masterful political strategy.

On the contrary, Sarah, I am not shocked or surprised at this.

The same 21st century American popular culture that has made sodomy, pornography and fornication itsy, bitsy, virtually insignificant events that shouldn’t trouble anybody up-to-date has, at the same time, become far, far more prudish and unforgiving about child molestation. . . and smoking.  Go figure.  Maybe society just intuitively seeks out something immoral for everybody to be enraged about. 

We can be thankful, anyway, for increased vigilance toward this sort of crime.  We can be thankful that the 70’s attitude of some that molestation was “educational” for the children has been soundly smacked down.  Not every cultural trend is negative.

I have no doubt that KJS is entirely straightforward here and that there’s no “set-up” or other nefarious plot.  She’s doing her duty on an issue over which there should be no debate.  Imagine how enraged she’d be if we all started arguing that we needed to “dialogue” over this behavior for a few decades while we let it slide until “the conversation” yields up the truth of the matter.

Occasionally, TEC’s default position of “follow the culture” proves worthwhile.

If the PB hadn’t done something and someone else did blow the whistle in a way that would stick, it could be really ugly for TEC (not unlike the Catholic scandals).

Like Sarah, I find it passing strange that the PB would do something about this 34 years after the fact. But there is a network of people aggressively pursuing Catholic priests who have committed sexual offenses - and the hierarchy that permitted/abetted/didn’t stop it. I’ve been getting press releases from an organization like this in my state - maybe they have also put pressure on the PB? Bennison needs to be out of there for so many reasons that the pretext almost doesn’t matter. Almost.

It would seem that Bp Bennison is an obvious scapegoat (not to mention liability for the liberals) and will allow for the appearance of even-handedness.  Politics, politics, politics.

With the letter to Bob Duncan it’s pretty clear now that the Bennison inhibition is little more than an effort to shield her from claims of unfairness as she prepares to smash him, Bishop Iker, and the other orthodox bishops.  They are now in full combat mode.  This also signals, I suspect, that she believes either a) the ABC will not withdraw Lambeth invitations, so that she can act with impunity or b) she now believes there is not chance he won’t withdraw the invitations, so there’s no incentive to be nice anymore.

Mark McCall’s link is VERY important.  +Duncan is next to be inhibited, within the week.

Better wrap up in your shawls dear bishops!  God bless bishop Duncan.

The +Duncan letter and its cover article should be a separate thread here, maybe two. There is a lot of Beers thinking to consider.

This is not the first time that disclosure was made outside the family. The first time was in 1993 when my daughter, with my support and presence, sought justice through the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church. There were numerous meetings with bishops and other clergy. At that time Bishop Swing, contrary to his statement, was fully participatory and informed of every sordid detail. It was deeply disappointing that based on what he knew as fact he did not call for John Bennison’s resignation 13 years ago.

From here.
So explain why Swing is not included in this.

James Manley wrote:

Mark McCall’s link is VERY important.  +Duncan is next to be inhibited, within the week.

The headline for the piece attached to KJS’s letter to +Duncan is priceless:  Presiding Bishop reaches out to bishops attempting to withdraw dioceses

The question is what is in the hand she is reaching out with!?

These developments will be received warmly by the ABC and primates, considering everything else that is going on over here.

Jackie,
  Your point is well taken. Since July 22, when Bishop Swing was replaced as the bishop with jurisdiction in DioCal, it has not been necessary for the PB to gain approval of the Standing Committee to issue an inhibition. On the other hand, the canons say that such action should be taken only for urgent reasons which involve danger of harm to the body of the church.
  Perhaps the reason is politic? Inhibition of +Bennison gains friends for the PB, while inhibition of +Swing would gain enemies for her?

...on leave from the Briar Patch,

I’ve just caught up to Mark McCall’s link. It seems our PB is bent on destruction. The Common Cause bishops are to be “reconciled.” I wonder if she realizes - or cares - how this will affect people who are trying to stay with the church. I hope the good bishops have their plans made. It’s hardly disputable that there schism in TEC - how will the courts look at that? What does that do to an ecclesial (?) hierarchy if there is open rebellion against it, not of one or two churches but of whole dioceses and numerous individual congregations?

While 34 years in the coming, it is a good thing BUT if silence and failure to act are punishable there are lots here that need to be included.  Like say - Griswold.  He knew all this and did - nothing.

This is absolutely fascinating…......

The Presiding Bishop on a holiday that for her is undoubtedly more All Hallow’s Eve than Reformation Day goes after our own Martin Luther.  God give Bishop Duncan strength as he refuses to go against conscience, knowing that is neither right nor safe to do.  And God support him as here he stands, knowing he can do no other.  What an apt day and night to sing:

And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us;
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph through us.

Jackie said: So explain why Swing is not included in this.
His presentment would yield no political leverage, perhaps?  Or maybe his letter is in the mail, with +Duncan’s, +Iker’s, +Ackerman’s, +Schofield’s, +Stanton’s, +Howe’s. etc, etc..

Now that I have been able to pick my lower jaw up off of my keyboard and have gotten my mind to stop reeling for a moment, I, like everyone am SHOCKED!  34 Years later and why didn’t Griswold deal with this if it is cause for presentment? Or the PB before him? What, is Schori the executioner all of a sudden. It appears there have been more legal wranglings coming from her since she took office then there were before she became PB.
Outrageous!

The Common Cause bishops are to be “reconciled.”

Kind of like how the Communist Chinese “re-educate” dissidents?

Hmmmm ... I know should not be such a skeptic but I can help thinking this plays into a larger strategy of this mess and not out of the goodness of doing the right thing, as an expendable liberal to set up a precedent for the real meat of DioPitt, DioFW DioSJ. Would such an honorable act of bringing discipline 34 late in any way be helpful in these other battles?

I am intrigued by the financial angle.  If I were a plaintiff’s attorney, pursuing a claim against the church with potentially large damages, I would be pleased with 815’s assertion of ownership and control of all real property.  With a judgment against the church for, just hypothetically, grossly negligent failure to supervise its bishops and clergy, why would it not be possible to execute upon the real property of every parish in the country?

1) Very little is done at the top levels in any organization without political forethought or even impetus.
2) Given the PB’s history of course it’s Machiavellian.

We just don’t know why yet.

Thirty four years—-in Episcopal time that would be about two weeks.  Pretty swift.  Also, his real sin is first, embarressing TEC (pretty hard to do!) and second, he has destroyed the money (it’s always about the money isn’t it?).  Also, he is all used up and not of much use anymore.  However, I just came from the emergency meeting of the IRD Conspiracy Committee and it was revealed that this was set up by 815 and Bennison.  He would be the sacrificial lamb so KJS could get to exercise the heirarchial precept of TEC being uber alles.  Bennison will be financially taken care of and after all the litigation is over, maybe be restored with back pay.  Sounds reasonable to me.

I’m not sure I buy the political angle, at least not yet.  All Bob Duncan and the other Common Cause bishops have done so far is to have a meeting, hardly an actionable offense.  As for these matters taking place 34 years ago, I would hope that there would not be a statute of limitations on offenses of this particular kind. 

The fact that Chuckie’s own Standing Committee has wanted him out for a year or so and the fact that throwing Bennison under the bus would stabilize an important TEC diocese may have figured in to the Presiding Bishop’s thinking.  But until I see evidence to the contrary, I’m entirely willing to believe that Jefferts Schori was genuinely shocked by what went on out in California and wanted Chuckie to account for it.

Sarah,
I didn’t see anywhere in the article where the persons who FILED THE PRESENTMENT REQUEST are mentioned.  Except for a Temporary Inhibition due to charges filed, or if convicted already, the PB can only inhibit AFTER the Title IV REVIEW committee has received a request (charges filed) for presentment, and the Committee has concurred and issued a formal presentment.

For instance, against Bp Schofield, you will remember, 4 California bishops filed a presentment request for the Title !V review committee.  They were identified immediately due to existing documents made available through SF and T19.  Title IV turned them down.  No presentment concurred; no inhibition.
Also the article has old information about San Joaquin regarding the already existing accession clause.  This article was put together hastily with bits and pieces.  We may not know all the details for a couple of days.

Here are the applicable Canons from Title IV, Canon 3:

(C) Of a Bishop Charged with Other Offenses
Sec. 22. In the case of a Bishop convicted in a criminal Court of Record in a cause involving immorality, or against whom a judgment has been entered in a civil Court of Record in a cause involving immorality, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to institute an inquiry into the matter. If the conviction or judgment be established, the Presiding Bishop shall cause the Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop to prepare a Presentment, which the Presiding Bishop shall sign and issue against the Bishop for Trial. The Bishop shall notify the Presiding Bishop, in writing, of such conviction or entry of judgment, within thirty days thereof, whether or not any time for appeal has expired. The time periods specified in Canon IV.14.4 shall be tolled until the Bishop provides the required notification to the Presiding Bishop. Nothing in this section shall prevent Charges from being filed against the Bishop based on the conviction, judgment, or underlying acts pursuant to Section 23(a).

Sec. 23 (a) A Bishop may be charged with any one or more of the Offenses other than Offenses specified in Canon IV.3.21(c) by
(1) three Bishops; or
(2) ten or more Priests, Deacons, or adult communicants of
this Church in good standing, of whom at least two shall
be Priests. One Priest and not less than six Lay Persons
shall be of the Diocese of which the Respondent is
canonically resident; or
(3) in a case when the Offense alleged is the Offense of Crime,
Immorality or Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the
Clergy, as specified in (1) or (2) or by any adult who is (i)
the alleged Victim, or (ii) a parent or guardian of an alleged
minor Victim or of an alleged Victim who is under a
disability, or (iii) the spouse or adult child of an alleged
Victim.
23.(b) Whenever the Presiding Bishop has sufficient reason to believe that any Bishop has committed an Offense and the interests and good order and discipline of the Church require investigation by the Review Committee, the Presiding Bishop shall concisely and clearly inform the Review Committee in writing as to the nature and facts surrounding each alleged Offense but without judgment or comment upon the allegations, and the Review Committee shall proceed as if a Charge had been filed.
23(c) A Bishop who shall have reason to believe that there are in circulation rumors, reports, or allegations affecting such Bishop’s personal or official character, may, acting in conformity with the written advice and consent of any two Bishops of this Church, demand in writing of the Presiding Bishop that investigation of said rumors, reports, and allegations be made. It shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to cause the matter to be investigated and report the results to the requesting Bishop.

Sec. 24. A Charge against a Bishop shall be in writing, verified and addressed to the Presiding Bishop, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Title. It shall concisely and clearly inform as to the nature of and facts surrounding each alleged Offense.

Sec. 25. If a complaint or accusation is brought to the Presiding Bishop by any adult who is (i) the alleged Victim, or (ii) a parent or guardian of an alleged minor Victim or of an alleged Victim who is under a disability, or (iii) the spouse or adult child of an alleged Victim, of an Offense of Crime, Immorality or Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy, the Presiding Bishop, after consulting with the alleged Victim, the alleged Victim’s spouse or adult child, or the alleged Victim’s parent or guardian, may appoint an Advocate to assist those persons in understanding and participating in the disciplinary processes of this Church, to obtain assistance to formulate and submit an appropriate Charge and in obtaining assistance in spiritual matters, if the alleged Victim, spouse, adult child, parent or guardian so choose.
Any alleged Victim or Complainant shall also be entitled to the counsel of an attorney and/or Advocate of their choice.

Sec. 26. Any Charge against a Bishop shall be filed with the Presiding Bishop who shall promptly communicate the same to the Respondent.
The Presiding Bishop shall forward the Charge to the Review
Committee at such time as the Presiding Bishop shall determine or
when requested in writing by the Complainant or Respondent after 90
days of receipt of the charge by the Presiding Bishop.

Sec. 27. thru 37 on the makeup and membership of the Review Committee

Sec. 38. Prior to the issuance of a Presentment or a determination not to issue a Presentment, as the case may be, the matter shall be confidential, except as may be determined to be pastorally appropriate by the Presiding Bishop.
Sec. 39. Not less than five of the Review Committee members of whom at least two shall be Bishops shall constitute a quorum, but any lesser number may adjourn the Review Committee from time to time.
Sec. 40. Within sixty days after receiving a Charge, the Review Committee shall convene to consider the Charge. If after such consideration the Review Committee determines that an Offense may have occurred if the facts alleged be true, the Review Committee shall prepare a written general statement of the Charge and the facts alleged to support the Charge and transmit the same to the Church Attorney.
(Further sections describe details of voting, etc.)

The Common Cause bishops are to be “reconciled.”
Kind of like how the Communist Chinese “re-educate” dissidents?

Now that PB Pol Pot has re-educated me on men marrying men and women marrying women and and has neutered the Cross on Calvary and endorsed Islamic priestesses and denied the existance of sin and has made lawsuits the new liturigical I am no longer in need of neither my brain nor my soul. I am Borg.
Intercessor

Sarah,
I was thinking/typing too fast in the first paragraph of my message above and caused my points to be way too cryptic.
On your first question, Section 23 of Title IV Canon 3 specifies that all it takes is a Victim or their Parent who lodges a complaint of some sort against a bishop to the Presiding Bishop to get a Charge submitted to the Review Committee.  In this case, as I read through the presentment, there is an overwhelming amount of material related to the statements and accusations of the parents of brother John’s victim.  Charles could have stopped John’s dysfunctional behavior (or at least stopped it from being within the confines of the Church), and didn’t, thus implicating himself in further victimization.  What’s in the Canons is that the Review Committee has latitude to agree and call it Conduct Unbecoming.  BTW, during the inhibition Charles must make a reply.
The press release gives the subtle impression that the Presiding Bishop simply went out and inhibited Bp Bennison, willy-nilly.  I think what happened is that because it was probably the victim or mother who made the charge, ENS is providing confidential cover for them.  Only in the case of a criminal charge or conviction (not evident here) can the PB order a Temporary Inhibition in order to neutralize a bad situation.
Second, which you’ve probably already figured out, Title IV Canon 3 specifically states that it is the Presiding Bishop who receives the judgment of the Review Committee and then can inhibit a bishop (as President of the House of Bishops - there’s no one else to do it).

On another thought submitted above, I don’t think this is politically motivated.  The Bennison thing got started January, 2007.  The diocesan accession amendments are just coming to a head.  This is coincidental—from a natural perspective. 
However, not a firm believer in coincidences, we must take a look at what is GOD’s timing in all this.  Therefore we must be watchful and in prayer for what God is doing with this teapot.
There is a refining coming.

This is the old, “Run it up the flag pole and see who salutes.”

If this action is supported by all the (so called) orthodox, the the other edge of the sword will be used against these (so called) orthodox who have been thumbing their noses at TEC.

Another old saying that comes to mind is, “Throw it against the wall and see what sticks.”

The Mudd fight hath begun.

Hey, +KJS!

Wanna be consistent?

Inhibit +Bruno for lying!

During a recent conversation, my bishop told me that in the near future,  we would see a lot more accountability and self-discipline in the HOB. This may be too crazy to hope for, but maybe they don’t have ulterior motives…maybe this is about self-correction.

Shumanbean, I wonder if it’s something to be hoped for in the first place? I expect the discipline we’re going to be seeing from this lot will be enforcement of the New Thing.

Rob Eaton+, Sarah,
  Read the Presentment. ( go to the ENS article and click on it ) It gives the chronology of the process. Been going on a while, butseems, at first glance to be in order, timeliness-wise.

Putting political speculations aside, for the moment, I am struck by the use of the word “affair” in the ENS press release.  A married adult lay youth leader does not have an “affair” with a 14 year old girl in his youth group.  I am pretty sure it was not considered an “affair” even 34 years ago.  I bet the Sexual Misconduct Policy of the Episcopal Church has a different word for that situation.

Rob Eaton+ and Sarah’
  BTW, The vote to make the presentment was on October 19, 2007. The presentment was issued Oct. 28 and the inhibition issued almost immediately. The president if the Review Committee was +Dorsey Henderson.

“of”, not “if”.

As for these matters taking place 34 years ago, I would hope that there would not be a statute of limitations on offenses of this particular kind.

I certainly hope not. My amazement is that it took 34 years for them to get around to it. Instead of At Once.

Rob Eaton+ quotes canon law:

Sec. 23 (a) A Bishop may be charged with any one or more of the Offenses other than Offenses specified in Canon IV.3.21(c) by
(1) three Bishops; or
(2) ten or more Priests, Deacons, or adult communicants of
this Church in good standing

I have read this in the past and wondered whether there aren’t 3 bishops or 10 or more priests, adult communicants who won’t charge KJS for deviating from the faith once delivered.

I am an adult communicant in good standing. Are there nine others willing to join me?

Mmmpf. <a >Accountability</a>.  <a >Genuinely shocked</a>.  Mmmpf again.  Chris, your blood cynicism level is falling dangerously low.  Have you been at the <a >laughing gas</a> again?

It does seem odd that they use a 34 year-old morals charge to inhibit him (not to minimize the gravity of it), while ignoring all of the much more recent financial shenanigans that have been the main reason the Diocese has been so unhappy with him.  It is as though they are digging up what they have long ignored and using it against him because it is easier than inhibiting a bishop for financial mismanagement.  after all who knows where that might lead.

And I also tend to agree with bb to a degree.  The inhibition, the letter to Duncan, the fright of 815 at the ABC’s letter to Howe, and the panicked effort at partial walk-back the next day - all are trying to save 815’s bacon in the secular courts.  Though not just against the Virginia parishes.

This heretic should have been inhibited because he is not a Christian. Anyone who says: ” The Bible was written by men….....it can be rewritten ” does not deserve to be a chief pastor in God’s Holy Church.
That is only ONE of numerous reasons why Chuck Bennison should have been booted out of the Church long ago. Good riddances….......

As a member of the Dio of PA I have been to a number of meetings of where members of the Standing Committee have made presentations about the situation in the Diocese.  The bottom line is - it is all about politics and money.  The Dio of PA is in terrible financial shape is not able to pay the full assessment to 815 (see recent Living Church Article).  815 as reported from the recent Executive Council meeting is behind the 8-ball 1+ million with contributions dropping off from dioceses in trouble.  Now the Standing Committee will be beholden to 815 and from the last meeting the treasure of the Standing Committee indicated one of the top priorities would be to try and restore the funding back to 815. 

From the political side KJS needs some cover to go after Duncan, Iker, Ackerman and Schofield and this fits the bill nicely.  It also looks good to show that KJS is standing up against child-abusers.  Bottom line this is nothing more than political expediency to push Charles under the bus and move toward restoring the money and loyalty to 815.

Charles has been a disaster here but nothing would ever have been done if it weren’t about the money and politics.  The sad thing is what he should have been disciplined for… his gross theological hersey and lunacy don’t weigh at all in this presentment.

I would like to think this is all about doing the right thing, even after 30+ years. But, I’m afraid that when you look behind the curtain, the real motivation is based on $.

While Bennison had become both a financial liability and was drawing too much fire on the morality issues of his brother’s case, it’s the $ that got him in the end.

Follow the $. 

Laytone

<blockquote>I am an adult communicant in good standing. Are there nine others willing to join me?/blockquote>

I’m with ya robroy! If anyone is deserving of presentment charges it is KJS, Bruno, Andrus, VGR, Susan Russell, and quite a few more IMHO. So, why not start a the top. Sign me up!

The presentment document displays “ID: Macaulay & Burtch” at the bottom of every page.  Dorsey Henderson signed as “President of the Review Committee.”  However, he is in South Carolina.  The presentment deals with the Bishop of Pennsyvania regarding accusations that are alleged to have occurred in California in or about 1973.  The Macaulay & Burtch law firm is located in Richmond, Virginia.  I tend to view this as an attempt to bolster the perceived authority of TEC’s “Canons of the General Convention” while the Virginia cases proceed.

“I’m just confused and stunned as to why now”.

Sarah, you’re not giving credit to your own intellect.  You seem to know better than most that many politicians only tend to do things because they look good at the time.  This little hoo-ha is no different. 

And, on the Duncan score, “what hand is she reaching out with”? 

Well, the one that has a dagger in it.

“As for these matters taking place 34 years ago, I would hope that there would not be a statute of limitations on offenses of this particular kind.

I certainly hope not. My amazement is that it took 34 years for them to get around to it. Instead of At Once. “

Civil statutes of limitations don’t mean anything here.  This is not a secular proceeding.

Apparently time doesn’t mean anything here, either, Ed the Roman. How old is his brother’s victim now? Nearly 50?

Two issues I’d like to discuss

First, in 1980, our youth ministries priest (married with a child) seduced a 15-year old parishioner at a youth conference.  He resigned, hung out a shingle as a counselor.  He divorced his wife, and eventually married the child, at which time he was given his own parish.  They eventually had a child and then divorced.  I’ve lost track of him; believe he still has a parish.  The Bishop knew, the head priest knew, the choir knew, the sexton new, the old lady across the street knew….  I’m not sure just what that all proves, but certainly this is not a new issue.  However, the priests in the parish were not brothers.

Next, I don’t know Bishop Bennison, but I do know David Moyer.  I grew up with him.  He has wanted to be a priest for as long as I’ve been aware of such things.  This is almost half century ago, now.  David loved the Episcopal church intensely.  For him to make the decisions he has (he was a quiet, thoughtful kid and young man) he must have had very good reason.  I will pray for the Bishop in this time of trial.  Sometimes we have to hit the bottom before we really look up.

<blockquote>”As for these matters taking place 34 years ago, I would hope that there would not be a statute of limitations on offenses of this particular kind.”  I’ve read through the entire Rule Book from Genesis through Revelation, and I can’t find a reference to “statute of limitations.”  Truth be told, if you are a child molester and a priest, or cover up such a crime and are a bishop, you should read your Dante.  I really don’t think the secular consequences are what you should worry about.
As much as I would like to assign ulterior motives to KJS, this is a case where she has done the right thing, and probably primarily for the right reason.  Now, why her predecessor and apparently 75% of the bishops of TEC gave this guy a free ride is beyond me.  I may not like her theology, but I doubt she has much sympathy for child molesters or other predatory criminals.
TJ

Would this mean that neighboring Bishop Bob Duncan will be invited to pay episcopal visits to the diocese of Pennsylvania?

Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

I’m not saying it’s timely.  I’m saying the fact that Bennison frère can no longer be imprisoned doesn’t restrain TEC.

Once again, jamesw nails it.

Very smart in all respects:

1.  Good legal move, given the undeniable facts, relating to any lawsuits resulting from the brother’s activities.
2.  Although Bennison is a revisionist, so are those calling for his resignation in Pennsylvania. Schori loses no allies.
3.  It strengthens the appearance and practice of church authority over Diocesan Bishops, at the very time that she seeks to exercise it over Duncan and others.
4.  It’s the right moral move, for once.

All in all, a very smart thing to do.

It’s interesting that the article as now posted at ENS has changed the word “affair” to “sexual relationship” - someone must have told them that sex by an adult with a 14-year-olds is really child rape. I don’t think sexual relationship is correct either - it’s sexual exploitation.

Yes Branford and what would you call exposing any child to the SF parade?  It was endorsed by ECUSA.

Lee. Is “SF” Stand Firm or San Francisco!    Put your mouse over it above.

I agree, Lee. I would call that child abuse and cannot understand how any parent could do that to their child. And I, too, was a little concerned when I first saw “SF” - I was thinking, when did Stand Firm have a parade? And why weren’t any pictures posted? 

San Francisco of course but maybe its time for Stand Firm to have its own parade.  LOL.

It appears that the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania has now gained control of the diocesan website . . .

http://www.diopa.org

David+