Pennsylvania Bishop Charles Bennison Faces 155 Charges in Civil Court Action
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
2/26/2008
PHILADELPHIA - When the inhibited Bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles E. Bennison, goes to court in May in Philadelphia, he will face 155 charges which were brought against him by Fr. David L. Moyer. Bennison, and those who assisted him, will be confronted by hard questions that he can no longer hide from or spin. A jury of his peers will then determine his guilt or innocence.
The vacuous smile that plays so easily on Charles Bennison's face will vanish in the harsh light of a courtroom drama that will play out his ecclesiastical life. The outcome could see the revisionist bishop forced to pay millions of dollars for behavior so egregious, that only his present inhibition by the church's Presiding Bishop for failing to stop his brother (a former priest), from engaging in sex with a minor, can top it.
The days of playing blind, deaf and dumb for Charles Bennison are over. In addition, Bennison faces a second charge, brought by the Diocesan Standing Committee, for his financial oversight of the diocese that saw millions of dollars squandered on property for youth in the State of Maryland. As a bishop, his days are seemingly numbered.
If he is found guilty, the fantasy that has been Bennison's life as a bishop of America's premier Protestant denomination will come to a grinding halt, his status reduced in church and society. His life will be subject to public scorn and ridicule as a sociopath incapable of feeling either guilt or shame for the sins he has committed.
Among the charges he faces are fraud, collusion, concealment, bad faith, denial of a church trial for Fr. Moyer despite protests by the Anglo-Catholic priest, his congregation, numerous bishops throughout the U.S., Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Archbishops from the Anglican Communion, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the Anglican Communion. Bennison was personally rebuffed by four overseas Archbishops when they visited Philadelphia. Bennison's detractors read like a Who's
Who of global Anglicanism.
Even as Bennison sought to deprive Moyer of his chosen profession, he joked about it and had his picture taken while signing the "Sentence of Deposition" against the priest. In addition, others who assisted Bennison also told jokes about Fr. Moyer as the persecution of the orthodox priest continued.
When all attempts to get the bishop to back down and rescind the inhibition were exhausted, Moyer fired back with a lawsuit in April 2002, charging the bishop with "wrongful acts", fraud and bad faith.
Undaunted, Bennison "deposed" Moyer from the ministry in Sept. 2002, and told the priest he was terminated as rector of Church of the Good Shepherd on Philadelphia's historic main line.
Then Moyer turned the tables on Bennison suing him for extreme physical and emotional distress.
Bennison's outrageous behavior knew no boundaries. He reneged on promises he made during his campaign, when he ran for Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, that he would allow other bishops to preside at services at the Church of the Good Shepherd.
The promises made to the "seven sisters", a group of orthodox Anglo-Catholic parishes, that they could have a flying bishop in place of the more liberal diocesan bishop was abruptly terminated by Bennison.
(The irony here should not be missed. Bishop Allen Bartlett, who gave the priests the right to have a flying bishop, has now returned as the bishop pro tempore in place of the inhibited Bennison).
There was also a spiteful edge to Bennison. He pushed himself on Moyer's parish, demanding he be allowed to preside at services while at the same time admitting he could not affirm some of the most basic doctrines of
the Christian Faith.
Bennison was apparently motivated by personal animus towards Moyer. He began a fraudulent and collusive scheme to remove Moyer by deposing him from the priesthood. When challenged, Bennison said "this is between David and me."
Bennison's refusal to give Moyer a public trial for his "crimes" arose from the fact that he could not control the outcome and also because he would have to testify. Moreover, he believed the outcome would be unfavorable to him.
It was the essence of Bennison's plan that he "convict" and
"sentence" Moyer without a church or civil trial. As detailed in the document filed by Father Moyer's attorneys, Bennison was assisted in his scheme by others. That assistance, according to the document, included providing
false testimony and affidavits, concealing information from Fr. Moyer, and destroying important evidence.
Bennison began to look elsewhere for an alternative route to get rid of Moyer. He used Canon IV.10 ("Canon 10") "Abandonment of the Communion of the Church by a Priest" - a canon used only for priests who have left The Episcopal Church for another denomination - to try and rid himself of
Moyer's presence in the diocese. That, too, failed to oust Moyer from his parish, even though six months later Moyer was automatically "deposed". Bennison admitted that the use of Canon 10 was "novel."
To cover his tracks, Bennison set about using others, a website, and a public and media relations campaign to besmirch Moyer using diocesan funds and staff resources to focus on Moyer even as the diocese got more heavily into debt.
By using Canon 10 and quietly deposing Moyer, Bennison had hoped to divert attention away from his fund–raising efforts to keep the diocese afloat and to pay for programs that had little chance of succeeding. That, too, failed. Bennison failed to raise the necessary millions he
needed to run the diocese.
Ironically, some of Bennison's biggest supporters on the Standing Committee began to turn on him, with three of them saying they had been manipulated by Bennison and that the Standing Committee should seek independent legal counsel.
Now Bennison faces his day in the court of public opinion. He will no longer be able to hide behind the robes of his office or his own self-righteousness. He has been inhibited by his own church leaders for his brother's sexual abuse of a minor - his days as a bishop seemingly over.
It will be an ignominious end for an unbelieving, pathological bishop whose beliefs and actions stand to bring him down. He deserves it.
For the full statement of the evidence against Bennison and those who assisted him as filed in the court records click here: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/content/second_amended_pretrial_statement_.pdf
***
GJ - A note for the language-impaired: the headline is a play on words. I want to save several people from posting outraged, misspelled comments.
Someone did not read my note and posted another misfired. We all know him as Rev. Mouse, always anonymous, always nasty.
The point of my headline is - "Lutherans should follow this lawsuit, because it is an important break in Episcopal tradition."
Church officials are above the law in most jurisdictions. They destroy church finances and ruin lives without fear. The system gives them the benefit of the doubt. When a Catholic bishop in Phoenix ran down an Indian carpenter, killing the bloke, he skipped and pretended he did not know about the accident. He got off with community service. Two radio hosts gushed, "Why his whole life has been one of service." The same bishop transferred gay predator priersts into Mexican parishes and...lied about it.
Civil suits are a good remedy when the criminal justice system fails. It worked for OJ and may work for Natalie Holloway. The low state of the Episcopal denomination is proven by the need for a civil suit.
Conservative Lutherans still want to know: Where did all the Schwan loot go?
