Midwest Conservative Journal

MILLSTONES

Although I disagree with him on just about everything, I have to give Pennsylvania Episopal Bishop Charles "I know nothing! NOTHing!!" ~~Schultz~~ Bennison this much. Chuckie's brought his diocese together like few Episcopal bishops anywhere ever have:

Episcopal Bishop Charles E. Bennison Jr. is used to church conservatives’ denouncing him as a "false teacher" and a "heretic" because of his liberal views on gay clergy, gay marriage and Scripture.

Now moderates and fellow liberals in his five-county, 55,000-member Diocese of Pennsylvania are taking the gloves off, too.

Saying they are frustrated with his financial practices and "imperious" management style, some clergy and lay leaders are seeking to oust the 62-year-old bishop with evidence that he concealed his brother’s sexual abuse of a 14-year-old girl more than 30 years ago.

The abuse occurred under Bennison’s watch; his brother, John, served as youth director of the California parish where Charles Bennison was rector.

After learning of the abuse, Bennison never reported it to law enforcement or church officials. His brother went on to become a priest and have sexual relations with multiple parishioners before being defrocked this year.

Charles Bennison’s critics said they were spreading word of his past because they believe he has bungled his job as bishop here.

"We’re not out to injure the diocese," said Ray Kraftson, a Villanova-based lawyer and venture capitalist who is leading the charge.

"We’re trying to rescue it," Kraftson said in an mid-October interview and meeting he hosted at the Merion Cricket Club, where he is a member.

"After 10 years, all we have is chaos. There is no trust," said the Rev. Reed Brinkman, rector of St. James parish in Kingsessing.

Concerned Pennsylvania Episcopalians, an ad hoc group of diocesan laity and clergy formed about a year ago in response to Bennison’s parish closings, is conducting three "forums" on the apparent abuse cover-up next weekend.

The Rev. Judith Beck, cochair of CPE and moderator of the forums, said she hoped the revelations would compel the bishop to resign "on behalf of his victims."

Both John Bennison’s ex-wife and the mother of his teenage victim say they plan to participate in the forums.

Chuckie says he didn't know.

In two recent interviews, the bishop was emphatic that he learned of his brother’s sexual relationship with the teenager long after it was over.

"I had no consciousness of it until the mother of the girl told me," he said.

He said he was "shocked and stressed" and immediately confronted his brother, who, he said, denied the charges. "I told him to leave the parish," Bennison said.

But the victim, her mother, and a former member of the parish said in interviews that they believe Charles Bennison knew of the relationship while it was going on, and that he did nothing to halt it.

A claim the victim disputes.

The victim, now in her mid-40s and married with three grown children, said she and John Bennison were twice interrupted during sex by Charles Bennison’s arrival at his brother’s apartment.

"There was a mad dash to reassemble clothing, and then Chuck walked in to find us breathless and disheveled," she wrote in an e-mail to The Inquirer.

"If [Charles Bennison] says that he didn’t know anything... then he is either lying or very very stupid," she wrote.

A former member of one of Chuckie's vestries knew.

Ann Pottorff, who was a vestry member at St. Mark’s in the 1970s, said she approached Charles Bennison after being told about the relationship by her teenage son.

Bennison "didn’t seem to take it seriously, or wasn’t surprised," she said.

But that's Chuckie's story and he's sticking to it.

Asked in a recent interview if he had been aware of the relationship, Charles Bennison said no.

"Well, you don’t suspect your brother of sexual misconduct," he said with a shrug. "It was part of my naivete at the time."

Sort of.

In a handwritten letter composed after being confronted by the girl’s parents, Charles Bennison acknowledged having known of the relationship for "months" but said that "to tell you... was out of the question."

"By the time I found out about what John had done... they had broken up - as far as I knew. To have told you then would have been a case of drudging up dirty history..."

Not that his brother's sexual relationship with a minor did any harm or anything.

The victim was for many years bulimic, anorexic and suicidal, and abused alcohol, but has largely healed, according to her family. She declined to be interviewed directly, saying in an e-mail that talking about this time in her life was like "standing before a firing squad."

At this stage, it would probably be too much to ask for Charles Bennison to grow a conscience and resign. Any charges filed would probably end up being flushed down the TEC memory hole. So it's good that stories like this are being kept alive. TEC's moral rot can use all the attention it can get.

Props to Kendall.

Posted on 10/29/2006 1:38:25 PM , 8 comments

Submitted by The Archer of the Family at 10/29/2006 3:55:01 PM

The whole Bennison family is nuts, if you ask me. I know someone who knew his father, and they said it must run in the family.

Submitted by Jim McNeely+ at 10/30/2006 12:55:36 AM

If this whole mess (cover-up and financial mismangement) is not cause for a presentment against a bishop, I simply don't know what is. -Jim+

Submitted by J. Scott at 10/30/2006 4:45:44 AM

If this whole mess (cover-up and financial mismangement) is not cause for a presentment against a bishop, I simply don't know what is.

In TEC where refusing to acknowledge a heretical anti-bishop's "authority" is against canon law? Let's see... Homophobia, islamophobia, misogyny, investing in Israel—those might get a "bishop" busted in the Egregious Cult. That and disagreeing with giving ~~unholy orders~~ a pointy hat to Queen Vic.

Submitted by Jim McNeely+ at 10/30/2006 6:31:39 AM

J.Scott, I hear you. But it is one thing to exclaim gay rights or liberal theology. It is quite another to abscond money and shield pedophiles. The former is okay under Loon Left orthodoxy. The latter is decidedly not! -Jim+

Submitted by Jim McNeely+ at 10/30/2006 6:33:22 AM

Submitted by Dr. Mabuse at 10/30/2006 8:17:24 AM

Jim McNeely: You're right, those crimes are not things that any decent Leftist would advocate. But when push comes to shove, loyalty to the tribe can end up clouding people's judgment. Just as feminists are SUPPOSED to be stalwart foes of sexual abuse of women, but can somehow end up defending a Bill Clinton because he's "one of us", so I can see Episcopalians on the Left deciding that, because Bennison is on their side when it comes to the sexy issues, it's a case of "He's an SOB, but he's *our* SOB."

Submitted by Allen Lewis at 10/30/2006 12:29:43 PM

All of this is very sad. There are consequences to apostasy, heresy, and failing to follow God's precepts. It is a shame that the people of the Diocese of Pennsylvania cannot rid themselves of this bishop except by reminding an abuse victim of the pain and shame of what happened many years ago. Surely, there must be a better way to do this, but I confess that I cannot think of it.

Let us remember the victims of the Bennisons' abuses (all of them) in our prayers.

Submitted by Philip G at 10/30/2006 7:03:41 PM

I know nothing about Bennison the Senior, but both Bennisons the Lesser, seem to be real pieces of work, to me. Allen is right, we need to pray that their victims win healing in spite of the abuse they had to endure, inflicted by the Bennisons. As for the DioPA, I haven't a clue as to what they have as options on their plate.

	Fr. J.
	From Bonnie: "Right now the how of coming to the truth is as important as getting to the truth. Right now, the way in which the Anglican Communion goes about the search for the elusive truth is as important as the truth itself." I went to seminary in Berkeley, CA, so I get this. Back in the 60's the cultural revolution, which started in Berkeley, phrased everything in terms of power. In part, this is because a young generation wanted to change everything though it did not have the status, titles, jobs to make those changes. To sidestep people who had such status, titles, etc. there was a shift in emphasis for them from WHO makes a decision to HOW a decision was made. This was expressed in a variety of ways. Remember the old catch phrase, "the medium is the message?" It became all about process. The process bug was all about manipulating those with authority through various processes until you get what you want. Feminists became the experts at process. Every thought and feeling of every person even tangentially involved must be expressed, recorded, reported, validated, affirmed and become part of the "data" upon which a decision is made. "OK now, let's break down in small groups and report back to the big group later. OK, every small group needs to have a facilitator of your process and a recorder/ reporter." etc. Catholic women religious were famous for this processing the process. These nuns became self appointed process cops in every organization they worked in. This spelt misery for every pastor who hired them. The process thing is pretty much over in the CC. The liberal sisters communities are retirement societies now and are irrelevant. The Catechism has abbreviated all conversations on Church teaching. Pelosi just learned that. Liturgy also is no longer endlessly processed except in L.A. But, TEC is the embodiment of the process illness. Masters of process know one single fact that every police investigator knows. If you force someone to talk long enough, you can get them to say what you want You can wear them down, break their resolve, and thereby achieve "concensus." By the 80's most CC parishes had parish TEAMS with weekly TEAM mettings. A Team mtg. is process lingo meaning everyone gets to comment and opine about everyone else's area. This mostly meant that those least competent in their own job would waste the most time opining about everyone else's area. I know a liberal pastor who was a famous master of process. In the first year his Team meetings went from 90 mins/wk to an entire day per week. This was because he never wanted to make a decision without concensus for he wasn't a "clerical priest." By his second year his meetings were back to 90 mins because the Team suddenly realized that he was willing to talk as long as it took to get everyone to see things his way. That is, the Team realized that they were really a staff. Where things were really bad was in parishes/ organizations when the boss wanted to work by concensus but wasn't the local master of concensus. Soon he found himself working 80 hours a week doing everything some part-time temporary receptionist who was a process master thought should be done. For some reason the local process master always seemed to be the one with the least responsibility, the least pay and who was only tangentially involved. There was a YouTube vid by Greg from SF about 2 years ago where Bonnie says angrily into the camera--"The only thing we ever threatened to do was stay!" As a process queen, just by staying, Bonnie wins and it would not even matter what he agenda was, LGBTQ or Mass Murder. So, this is what Ms. Bonnie Know-It-All means by "the HOW" of Truth being as important as "the WHAT" of Truth.
	8/28/2008 6:11:55 AM

	Katherine
	Fr. J., just a small quibble. Covenants before God which were binding were common in medieval times; they underlaid the feudal system. But of course the use of this language in the church, as if people make a deal with God when they are baptized, is new. And the '79 baptismal service, which I don't care for, is misused as you point out. Poor seminary training is undoubtedly a big part of the problem.
	8/28/2008 6:02:38 AM

	The Pilgrim
	Ken "Is it, however, accurate to say that Orthodox do share with Catholics (and Anglo-catholics) a sacramental view of baptism, which is to say that it actually has a saving effect?" Yes. It's in the Nicene Creed: "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin". Also, as Mark said, for infants and unbaptised catechumens, chrismation is subsumed into the baptism ceremony, and is not done at a later date. Also, ommunion is administered to the newly baptised at the next liturgy; infants as well as adults. Jurisdictions differ, but in the Antiochean church the baby is not baptized until after being "churched," which happens forty days after birth, unless death is imminent.
	8/28/2008 5:42:40 AM

	Fr. J.
	Wow, lots of questions here tonight. Yes, Catholic converts used to be baptized conditionally. Today there are a few "Christian" churches whose baptisms the CC does not recognize: Mormons, JW's, and some others. These are not conditionally baptized but simply baptized. Conditional baptism is done today only in cases where it is unknown whether one has been baptized before, as with folks whose parents have died and whose church did not keep records--which is a lot of churches! About Baptismal Covenant, it is pretty hokey. For Catholics and Orthodox there is one and only one new covenant in the blood of Christ and it is everlasting as is stated in the Eucharistic prayer's words of institution over the cup. "Cup of my blood, blood of the new and everlasting covenant." It is Calvin who gets us all messed up here. He wrote in his Institutes that a group of baptized Christians can gather and declare a covenant before God that is binding upon them. This is absolutely unknown in Catholic/Orthodox theology. It is how a Calvinistic church is founded. The group that declares covenant becomes the elders or vestry and they select a preacher. The preacher has no sacramental role and even the two ordinances, baptism and communion, are extensions of his role as preacher of the word. There is no sacramental ordination in Calvin. Of course denominations evolved with ordination and there is almost no pure Calvinist church. Anyway, it is Calvin who gives us this very non-Catholic concept of declaring a covenant. You will notice that it is only the evangelicals generally who speak of creating covenants. Even the use of the term covenant for the new Anglican Communion constitution is really improper from a Catholic point of view. I would prefer they use the term constitution or rule or just about anything else but covenant. So, where do baptism and Eucharist fit in? Baptism is the doorway into the covenant for a Christian. One enters into the one covenant of Christ by the dying and rising of baptism. The eternal sign of this covenant is him crucified (hence crucifixes in CC churches). In baptism we die with Christ to rise with him. The Eucharist is the renewal of Christ's covenant for all the baptized present who, being properly disposed through absolution as necessary, receive Him in the Body and the Blood. Note we only see Christ's body and blood in three places: The Cross, the Eucharist and the Circumcision. All three are covenantal. Circucision is the sign of the covenant of Abraham, the Cross is the sign of the new Covenant and the Eucharist is the only way to renew the new covenant--passover sacrifice being the way to renew the old covenant. So, to speak of a Baptismal covenant as something extra that TEC members commit themselves to that other Christians do not just simply makes no sense in Sacramental Theology. I have said again and again that TEC's theological problems begin with poor seminary training. There is not nearly enough systematic theology taught, so little pet ideas get blown up into whole new teachings without anybody to say "wait a minute, that's not right." Or TEC is perhaps just not a Catholic church. The ancient concept of Baptism cannot be added to or subtracted from without making it not baptism. So, either this baptismal covenant is a redundancy or it is alien. If it is a redundancy, then it is meaningless and harmless, though confusing. If it is alien to the Gospel, then it is an initiation into a new religion. I am opting for the first interpretation. While I do think that the Baptismal Covenant is rather ridiculous I do not think it alien. Though, if TEC is another religion, which there are some good arguments for, I would wonder if getting the theology of Baptism screwed up isn't at least in part to blame. Signs of this "new religion" aspect of the Baptismal Covenant are the way people make arguments based on it. Nothing in the Baptismal Covenant text says that all the baptized are absolutely equal and the same before God. Still, the Baptismal Covenant is used as the reason for WO, Gay Ordination, SSB, the House of Deputies and the coveted TEC polity. But, I dont see any of this in the text of the "BC." Look for yourself: Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers? Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord? Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ? Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being? I dont really see any justification for using the BC as a basis for any of these new errors. However, if the intention of the minister of baptism is to do something different from what the Church has always intended by baptism, that is, if the intention is to do something really new, then this clearly a false teaching from the point of view of the CC, if I may say so.
	8/28/2008 5:19:57 AM

THE MCJ

MILLSTONES