The lawyer for the Rt. Rev. Charles E. Bennison Jr., the inhibited bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, has offered a preview of the defense’s case as the bishop prepares for his days in court.
 
Bishop Bennison goes on trial June 9 in Philadelphia before the Court for the Trial of a Bishop. Bishop Bennison faces two charges related to how he responded, in the mid-1970s, after learning that his younger brother, John, was involved in sexual relations with a female teenager. A presentment against Bishop Bennison charges him with “contemporaneous failure to respond appropriately” and “subsequent suppression of pertinent information.”
 
The teenager was 14 when the sexual relations began. At the time, Bishop Bennison was rector of St. Mark’s Church in Upland, Calif., and his brother, a married man attending Claremont School of Religion, was on staff.
 
Bishop Bennison has expressed remorse about how he responded. “My efforts to maintain confidentiality and prevent scandal were very misguided,” he wrote to his diocese in November 2006.
 
Nevertheless, says defense lawyer James A.A. Pabarue of Philadelphia, Bishop Bennison’s efforts were consistent with the church’s limited understanding at that time—and even into the early 1990s—of how to respond to sexual predation by clergy.
 
“The presentment offers a very narrow perspective on what this case was all about,” Pabarue said.
 
Pabarue said he is troubled by the presentment’s repeated references to the victim as “the 14-year-old girl” because she was 17 by the time Charles Bennison first heard about a rumor about the sexual relations. After hearing about the sexual relations, Bishop Bennison told his brother that his work at St. Mark’s would conclude with his seminary studies, which occurred about three weeks later, Mr. Pabarue said.
 
John Bennison, in a letter written in June 1979, said that after the sexual relations became more widely known after his ordination, Bishop Bennison threatened him with an ecclesiastical trial if he did not resign from the priesthood.
 
Mr. Pabarue argued that bishops who were aware of John Bennison’s sexual behavior either cooperated in Mr. Bennison’s reinstatement to the priesthood or did not use those facts to stop Bishop Bennison from being consecrated in 1997. For example:
 
• The Rt. Rev. David E. Richards, formerly of the Office of Pastoral Development, and the Rt. Rev. Robert C. Rusack, Bishop of Los Angeles from 1974 to 1986, both knew of John Bennison’s previous activities when Bishop Rusack reinstated him to the priesthood in 1979.
 
• The Rt. Rev. Frederick Borsch, Bishop of Los Angeles from 1988-2002, helped the victim’s family disclose the scandal to the members of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, and gave consent to Bishop Bennison’s consecration.
 
• The Most Rev. Edmond L. Browning, Presiding Bishop from 1986-1997 received a detailed letter from the victim in 1993 and four years later served as Bishop Bennison’s chief consecrator.
 
Mr. Pabarue said the case “should be of concern, not only to bishops but also to priests and deacons,” because it attempts to judge Bishop Bennison’s actions of 30 years ago by standards that developed in later decades.
 
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.