Friday, November 14, 2008

Bennison Appeals Sentence

From the Diocese of Pennsylvania website:

by Jerry Hames

Bishop Charles Bennison’s defense counsel argued before an ecclesiastical court in downtown Philadelphia on Nov. 12 that its verdict and sentencing was flawed and that its recommendation that the bishop be deposed was too severe.

In his arguments, James A. Pabarue said the court had ignored the statute of limitations, arrived at conclusions contrary to the evidence given and appeared to punish the bishop for enacting his rights as outlined in the Episcopal Church’s canons on clergy discipline. Mr. Pabarue also said that the Office of the Presiding Bishop had shown bias by interfering in the case. “The evidence clearly shows that the Presiding Bishop’s office has been trying to force Bishop Bennison out of this diocese,” Mr. Pabarue said, stating that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori had “asked for his resignation several times before the presentment was issued.”

Bishop Bennison was found guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy after facing charges that, as rector of St. Mark’s, Upland, Calif., he had failed to respond properly when learning that his younger brother, John, a newly-ordained deacon whom he had hired as youth worker, was having sexual relations with a girl of minor age in his youth group. The bishop was also found guilty of suppressing that knowledge when his brother, who having once renounced his orders, was reinstated as a priest. John Bennison was deposed in 2006 by Bishop William Swing of the Diocese of California.

“Why is Bishop Bennison the only person to be charged in this offence,” Mr. Pabarue asked, naming other bishops in California and one then in the Presiding Bishop’s office who were involved in, and approved of, John Bennison’s reinstatement as a priest.

“Charles Bennison was not the perpetrator. He was cooperative… He said he did what he thought was best in the circumstances at that time and said he would never act today as he did in 1975. It is clear this sentence is simply wrong and not a just application of the canons,” Mr. Pabarue said.

At the trial, Bishop Bennison had testified that he confronted his brother over allegations he had heard, ordered his brother to leave as youth leader and told him never again to have contact with the victim. Despite that, John Bennison continued a pattern of sexual abuse with the teenager in the parish. The bishop admitted that he had not offered pastoral support to the girl or informed her parents until they learned about it years later, when their daughter, then a university student, sought psychiatric help for depression and was contemplating suicide.

In response to the judges’ conclusions, Mr. Pabarue said the ecclesiastical judicial process creates an adversarial atmosphere in the court that by its very nature limits his client’s freedom to apologize. An expectation of confession, or opportunity for reconciliation must be tempered by the adversarial nature of the process, he said. Bishop Bennison did not speak during the hearing.

Mr. Pabarue called four character witnesses on Bishop Bennison’s behalf, three from the diocese and Suffragan Bishop John L. Rabb of the Diocese of Maryland, who testified that he had known Charles Bennison for 20 years. “I have never had any reason to doubt his faithfulness … nor his ability to minister to those under his charge,” said Bishop Rabb, who said that during his episcopacy he had deposed two priests, suspended another and given admonitions — the mildest form of sentence — to two others under Title 4 of the Episcopal Church’s discipline canons. He said the clerics he deposed were perpetrators of sexual misconduct. “It is not my belief that this is the circumstance [in this case],” he said. “The sentence of deposition is given when someone can no longer be trusted in office.”

Nikki Wood, a member of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, a former Standing Committee member and diocesan deputy at five General Conventions, testified that Bishop Bennison has been “faithful, pious and certain about his call.” She called the court’s judgment “extreme and arbitrary” and said that if Bishop Bennison were deposed it would be a “profound loss to the church.”

The Rev. Martini Shaw, rector of the African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas, said he supports a modification of the sentence for Bishop Bennison. “His absence from ordained ministry would be a grave loss for this church,” he said. “He has taken full responsibility for his actions. I feel the punishment in this case is not at all commensurate with the crime.”

The most lengthy testimony came from the Rev. Robert Tate, rector of the Church of St. Martin in-the-Fields. In a six-page statement that he read aloud, copies of which were requested by the judges, he outlined a history of conflicts between diocesan governance bodies and Bishop Bennison and the bishop’s fractious relationship with the Presiding Bishop’s office and questioned both the court’s verdict and its judgment in imposing a sentence. “Your verdict and judgment indicate that you did not find Charles Bennison sufficiently remorseful and you are not sure that, to this day, he understands the seriousness of the charge against him.

“How does one judge ‘sufficient remorse,’” Mr. Tate asked. “As I review the record of Charles Bennison’s public and private statements of apology, I hear over and over again the words of a man who is profoundly sorry for his sins of commission and omission.… As to his not understanding the seriousness of the charges against him, I question your verdict and your judgment on that as well. There is a difference between Charles Bennison explaining his actions and Charles Bennison defending his actions over the past 35 years. Our understanding of sexual misconduct has changed dramatically in the last 35 years. Charles Bennison has said publicly that, knowing what he knows now about sexual abuse and sexual misconduct, he would make a different decision today.”

Prosecution addresses court

After a brief adjournment, Lawrence White, the prosecuting attorney acting for the Episcopal Church, sought repeatedly to convince the judges, using Bishop Bennison’s own testimony at the original trial, that he would act no differently today than he had in 1975 and in succeeding years. “In his trial testimony on June 12 he failed to demonstrate that he takes responsibility for the wrong he had committed and said he would act no differently now than he did in 1975,” said Mr. White, arguing that the sentence of deposition was appropriate. “His words and deeds reflect a sorry attempt to blame others.” Mr. White also quoted from another portion of the bishop’s testimony in which he said “I never thought my handling [of the matter] was inappropriate.”

He then called upon Martha Alexis, the teenaged victim of John Bennison’s abuse in 1975, and her mother, June Alexis. Each made a short statement. “At the trial we were reminded once more that we do not stand alone,” said June Alexis, recounting her three visits to the diocese since November 2006. “Today, I am here to thank you,” she told the judges, calling the sentence they imposed “courageous, just and commensurate with the harm done to my daughter and others.”

Martha Alexis, saying she was sorry to be back in court, said she carried a burden of sorrow and shame for decades. “At last this burden I bore [had been] placed where it belongs,” she said. “The sentence has righted a grievous wrong and given me an unexpected gift of spiritual healing.” She said the court’s decision and sentence have restored her dignity and worth, shown that the weak are protected and that the vows of holy orders are sacred.

Concluding, Mr. White said that of the three punishments the court could determine, the verdict of deposition was correct. Urging the court to keep its decision unchanged, Mr. White said that neither admonition nor suspension were commensurate with the gravity of the offence and argued that even a suspension of seven years, until the bishop reaches the mandatory age of retirement, would be insufficient in light of the seriousness of the offence and the bishop’s failure to demonstrate that he takes responsibility for the wrong he has committed.

No comments: