The lawyer for the Rt. Rev. Charles E. Bennison Jr. did not ask to treat two witnesses as hostile in the Court for the Trial of a Bishop on Wednesday, but neither witness proved eager to build a case that the Bishop of Pennsylvania is not guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy.
Bishop Bennison stands accused on two ecclesiastical charges: One is that he “reacted passively and self-protectively after he learned of his brother’s sexual misconduct with a young girl,” according to charges alleged in the presentment document; the other charge is that for more than 30 years he “deliberately and systematically” did not disclose what he knew about his brother’s misconduct in order “to contain the possibility of scandal.”
Bishop Bennison’s lawyer, James Pabarue, called the Rt. Rev. Harold Hopkins, former director of the Presiding Bishop’s Office of Pastoral Development, in an effort to establish how much several other bishops knew about the sexual misconduct scandal. He also called on Mr. Bennison’s ex-wife, Maggie Thompson, in an effort to establish that she was an important link in an information chain leading both to Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and to the Rt. Rev. Clay Matthews, the current director of the Office of Pastoral Development.
By mid-afternoon, Mr. Pabarue called Bishop Bennison as a witness for the rest of the day. Bishop Bennison accused Bishop Matthews of threatening his future as a bishop during an argument in February 2006.
Bishop Hopkins agreed with Mr. Pabarue that he discussed the Bennison matter with the Most Rev. Edmond L. Browning, the Presiding Bishop during Bishop Hopkins’ term as director of the Office of Pastoral Development.
Bishop Hopkins agreed with victim Martha Alexis’ description of one attempted intervention as a disaster, adding that he later met with the Rt. Rev. William Swing, Bishop of California, to ask that Bishop Swing consider removing Mr. Bennison from the priesthood.
“And one of the things [Bishop Swing] told me in our conversation was this was not my business and that I should get off his back, or words to that effect. And he was right,” Bishop Hopkins said.
Bishop Hopkins said that, given what he knows today about the sex scandal, he would not give consent to Bishop Bennison’s election as Bishop of Pennsylvania. “I think his handling or non-handling of the issues that came before him … regarding his brother, showed light -- not a very good light -- on his judgment,” Bishop Hopkins said.
Ms. Thompson, who was married to Mr. Bennison from 1969 to 1977, said she learned of his sexual relations with Ms. Alexis in August 1973.
Ms. Thompson said she and Mr. Bennison “discussed the good aspects of the philosophy of open marriage, which was that each person could be an individual within a marriage and have separate interests and that that would be a strength to the combined marriage.”
Eventually, however, she found that even the concept of open marriage could not take away the pain and confusion when she determined that Mr. Bennison had engaged in adultery with at least three women in Upland, Calif., and two in Santa Barbara.
“He had a constant litany of reasons for why it was okay,” she said about Mr. Bennison’s justifications for his sexual relations with Ms. Alexis. “He would always call it God’s special gift.”
Several years later, when Ms. Thompson had remarried, become a mother, and moved to Minneapolis, she attended a school-related meeting about the signs of sexual abuse. “And it wasn't until that night that I knew that what had happened was sexual abuse,” she said. “And that was a real turning point for me.”
In his testimony, Bishop Bennison said he always considered his response to the sexual scandal to be the best he could do, judging by cultural understandings of the mid-1970s and given that he received no seminary training in pastoral care, stopping sexual misconduct, or supervising church staff. Bishop Bennison said repeatedly that his choices to maintain silence over the years were in the interest of protecting Ms. Alexis’s confidentiality.
Regarding his argument with Bishop Matthews in February 2006, Bishop Bennison said it occurred after an e-mail never reached him and he showed up at a meeting that Bishop Matthews had told him not to attend. The meeting allowed Bishop Matthews to meet with Bishop Bennison’s opponents in the Diocese of Pennsylvania.
Bishop Bennison said Bishop Matthews and a consultant “told me that I should resign, that they thought that things were not reconcilable in the diocese. He warned me against being too tenacious, and I felt that he threatened me.”
At the end of the meeting, Bishop Bennison said, Bishop Matthews told a group of about 50 people that the standing committee “had a right to hire its own attorney at the diocesan expense in order to assert its rights with the bishop. And that did occur.”
Trial testimony is expected to conclude Thursday. The nine-judge Court for the Trial of a Bishop then has 30 days to render a judgment. If found guilty, Bishop Bennison could be removed as Bishop of Pennsylvania and deposed from the ordained ministry.
Douglas LeBlanc
We invite your response to this article through a Letter to the Editor. Email your letter to tlc@livingchurch.org. Please include your name, city and state.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Click here to start your subscription.
Bishop Bennison stands accused on two ecclesiastical charges: One is that he “reacted passively and self-protectively after he learned of his brother’s sexual misconduct with a young girl,” according to charges alleged in the presentment document; the other charge is that for more than 30 years he “deliberately and systematically” did not disclose what he knew about his brother’s misconduct in order “to contain the possibility of scandal.”
Bishop Bennison’s lawyer, James Pabarue, called the Rt. Rev. Harold Hopkins, former director of the Presiding Bishop’s Office of Pastoral Development, in an effort to establish how much several other bishops knew about the sexual misconduct scandal. He also called on Mr. Bennison’s ex-wife, Maggie Thompson, in an effort to establish that she was an important link in an information chain leading both to Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and to the Rt. Rev. Clay Matthews, the current director of the Office of Pastoral Development.
By mid-afternoon, Mr. Pabarue called Bishop Bennison as a witness for the rest of the day. Bishop Bennison accused Bishop Matthews of threatening his future as a bishop during an argument in February 2006.
Bishop Hopkins agreed with Mr. Pabarue that he discussed the Bennison matter with the Most Rev. Edmond L. Browning, the Presiding Bishop during Bishop Hopkins’ term as director of the Office of Pastoral Development.
Bishop Hopkins agreed with victim Martha Alexis’ description of one attempted intervention as a disaster, adding that he later met with the Rt. Rev. William Swing, Bishop of California, to ask that Bishop Swing consider removing Mr. Bennison from the priesthood.
“And one of the things [Bishop Swing] told me in our conversation was this was not my business and that I should get off his back, or words to that effect. And he was right,” Bishop Hopkins said.
Bishop Hopkins said that, given what he knows today about the sex scandal, he would not give consent to Bishop Bennison’s election as Bishop of Pennsylvania. “I think his handling or non-handling of the issues that came before him … regarding his brother, showed light -- not a very good light -- on his judgment,” Bishop Hopkins said.
Ms. Thompson, who was married to Mr. Bennison from 1969 to 1977, said she learned of his sexual relations with Ms. Alexis in August 1973.
Ms. Thompson said she and Mr. Bennison “discussed the good aspects of the philosophy of open marriage, which was that each person could be an individual within a marriage and have separate interests and that that would be a strength to the combined marriage.”
Eventually, however, she found that even the concept of open marriage could not take away the pain and confusion when she determined that Mr. Bennison had engaged in adultery with at least three women in Upland, Calif., and two in Santa Barbara.
“He had a constant litany of reasons for why it was okay,” she said about Mr. Bennison’s justifications for his sexual relations with Ms. Alexis. “He would always call it God’s special gift.”
Several years later, when Ms. Thompson had remarried, become a mother, and moved to Minneapolis, she attended a school-related meeting about the signs of sexual abuse. “And it wasn't until that night that I knew that what had happened was sexual abuse,” she said. “And that was a real turning point for me.”
In his testimony, Bishop Bennison said he always considered his response to the sexual scandal to be the best he could do, judging by cultural understandings of the mid-1970s and given that he received no seminary training in pastoral care, stopping sexual misconduct, or supervising church staff. Bishop Bennison said repeatedly that his choices to maintain silence over the years were in the interest of protecting Ms. Alexis’s confidentiality.
Regarding his argument with Bishop Matthews in February 2006, Bishop Bennison said it occurred after an e-mail never reached him and he showed up at a meeting that Bishop Matthews had told him not to attend. The meeting allowed Bishop Matthews to meet with Bishop Bennison’s opponents in the Diocese of Pennsylvania.
Bishop Bennison said Bishop Matthews and a consultant “told me that I should resign, that they thought that things were not reconcilable in the diocese. He warned me against being too tenacious, and I felt that he threatened me.”
At the end of the meeting, Bishop Bennison said, Bishop Matthews told a group of about 50 people that the standing committee “had a right to hire its own attorney at the diocesan expense in order to assert its rights with the bishop. And that did occur.”
Trial testimony is expected to conclude Thursday. The nine-judge Court for the Trial of a Bishop then has 30 days to render a judgment. If found guilty, Bishop Bennison could be removed as Bishop of Pennsylvania and deposed from the ordained ministry.
Douglas LeBlanc
We invite your response to this article through a Letter to the Editor. Email your letter to tlc@livingchurch.org. Please include your name, city and state.
To find more news, feature articles, and commentary about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion not available online, read The Living Church magazine each week. Click here to start your subscription.
No Comments
There are no comments on this post. Be the first: