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.
On the evening of Aug. 4, Bennison’s attorney, James A.A. Pabarue of Philadelphia, received word that church law had indeed prevailed in favor of his client. The Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop had reversed a trial court’s verdict that Bishop Bennison, Bishop of Pennsylvania since 1998, should be punished more than 30 years later for what the trial court ruled was conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy.
The case involved charges that Bennison, while rector of St. Mark’s Church in Upland, Calif., had failed to protect a teenage girl from sexual abuse by Bennison’s younger brother, John. As a first-time rector in the mid-1970s, Charles Bennison hired his brother to lead the parish’s youth group while he completed studies at Claremont School of Theology.
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.
“The sexual abuse exception to the statute of limitations, if improperly applied, can wrongfully label a Respondent a sexual abuser,” eight bishops of the court wrote in their unanimous ruling. A ninth member of the court, the Rt. Rev. Wayne P. Wright, Bishop of Delaware, recused himself for personal reasons.
“Title IV courts must guard against allowing that exception to be used without proof of actual sexual abuse,” the ruling added. “This is especially true under circumstances where the exception is invoked not so much to deal with sexual abuse but, rather, as an effort to use events in the distant past when the Respondent was a priest to remove a bishop during current times of strife within the diocese. To allow Title IV and the sexual abuse exception to the statute of limitations to be used in this manner diminishes the monumental efforts of the Church to address, punish and remove incidents of actual clergy sexual abuse.”
Pabarue said in a conference call Thursday that he was disappointed the review court considered his client guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy, but he was thankful for its ultimate decision.
Bishop Bennison joined his attorney in discussing the case.
“I’m very gratified by the decision of the court. I’ve always believed that the charges were without merit,” he said.
Bennison said Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told him four times that his troubles would go away if he would resign as Bishop of Pennsylvania.
“This has been a kind of death experience for me,” Bennison said. “I had to be willing to be deposed.”
Neva Rae Fox, the Episcopal Church’s public affairs officer, said Thursday that the Presiding Bishop has not commented on any developments in Bennison’s three-year legal battle and is unlikely to begin commenting now.
“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.”
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.
“I think they’ve done a great job. I think Bishop Michel’s done a great job,” he said. “We all pray for reconciliation and healing.”
The standing committee, which has often been at odds with Bishop Bennison, issued a brief statement Aug. 5 in response to the court’s decision.
“This evening, the Standing Committee will be meeting with the executive leadership of Diocesan Council,” the statement said in part. “We will be communicating with you after our meeting. Please keep Bishop Bennison and the diocese in your prayers and thoughts.”
Douglas LeBlanc
4 Comments
How sad that a legal technicality of an immoral statute of limitations prevails over justice. As a forensic psychologist and priest, expert in sexual abuse cases, I am appalled at this result. Are we becoming like the RC hierarchy who protect molesters and who hide behind and rejoice in this statute and who lobby to prevent its extension?
Bp. Bennison may or may not be a nice guy, or an effective bishop. But he like everyone else is entitled to the Rule of Law . . . all of it. Not like the way TEC handles things when it wants to "get" somebody.
The foregoing comment by psychologist Mr. Hands brings to mind that great scene in A Man for All Seasons, when Roper wants a guy arrested because he is "evil," and Roper would knock down all the laws in order to get Satan.
Thomas More turns on Roper and asks him where he'd be if, all the laws laid flat, Satan turned on him.
The fact of the matter remains that the Bishop did a terrible thing many years ago that hurt individuals and continues to harm his diocese and the church as a whole. Hiding behind the statute of limitations, and then approving of a decision that returns him to authority over clergy and people is a scandal.
OK, the statute rules and he gets off on a technicality. First, he should resign immediately, then the GC should fix the statute. If this were a secular matter, the outcry would force a change to the law, and the perpetrator would be marked for life (and certainly removed from any position of authority).
BTW, quoting a work of fiction which puts words that they never said into the mouths of historical figures is not a convincing form of argument.
The Bishop, clearly, has not handled his conflict with the Diocese in a manner that is calculated to come to any resolution without what we have seen thus far.
Everyone has been seduced into believing that his failure to report his brother's abuse is the reason for the uproar. Rather, this was a search for ANY reason to sever him from his work in the Diocese and that they had to reach back so far indicates how deeply the fissure was between the Standing Committee and the Bishop.
The em-PHA-sis was on the wrong syl-A-ble.