They need to take this same transparent recitation of facts, desire for the well being of the whole church, and decisive tone in telling the PB to cut out her personal litigation campaign.

Hope Bennison listens to them; hope they develop the fortitude to apply these same standards to other egregious episcopal behaviors.

Therefore, we exhort Charles, our brother in Christ, in the strongest possible terms, to tender his immediate and unconditional resignation as the Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania.

And if he refuses?  Will they hold their collective breath until they all turn purple ... err ... blue?  Perhaps they should try something like:

We exhort the Diocese of Pennsylvania in the strongest possible terms to pay Charles, our brother in Christ, several millions of dollars to tender his immediate and unconditional resignation as the Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania.

Now that might work.  As it stands, the HoB just looks collectively weak.  Buying Bennison off will look craven, but at least it would get him to go away.  This paper exhortation is just grandstanding for the public.  It means nothing.

carl

This is a terrible story and my prayers go, most of all, to the victim and her loved ones.

Secondarily, pastoral relationships have clearly broken down in the diocese and I too hope that Bishop Bennison listens.

We apologize, out of the depths of God’s compassion for every human being, to the woman who has been victimized by Bishop Bennison’s lack of responsible action, and to all those who have in any way been hurt by our church. We are deeply sorry and we are committed to consistent discipline for those who bring shame upon the Body of Christ by sinful, demeaning, and selfish behavior that takes from another human being their God-given dignity.

I am not seeking to defend Bishop Bennison at all. His conduct was a gross failure and should have led, if others had not been negligent, to his being disciplined long ago. Instead I wish to point out what is clearly a canonical failing: that there is no canonical way to recognize a break down in pastoral relationship between bishop and diocese.

I note that Bishop Bennison, was not charged with sexual abuse, and the Court of Review took the view that he could not have been so charged under canon law. They took the view that he could have been charged with conduct unbecoming at an earlier stage. However despite the fact that several bishops came to know the details of the heartbreaking story, not one initiated “consistent discipline”. Thus several bishops, including former Presiding Bishop Browning, came to know the entire story of the abuse and some had met or corresponded with both victim and abuser. Thus several members of the House of Bishops knew the details of this terrible story when Bishop Bennison was elected. As I recall, the abuser had publicly to announce his actions to the parish he served in the 1990s. Most shockingly, he then continued to serve as a priest in good standing until the story became public news in 2006 at which point he resigned his orders. In other words, despite his admission, and the knowledge of several bishops the abuser was never subject to canonical trial. I note FWLIW too that the several bishops who had pastoral responsibility for the various parties during the decades this sad story unfolded but failed to undertake “consistent disciple” were not charged with “conduct unbecoming”.

In other words, if we take the commitment to “consistent discipline” seriously, as we ought to, the HOB might want to consider much more carefully the whole sequence of decisions by leaders of the church that have demonstrated a “lack of responsible action”.

Evidence that TECUSA is not hierarchical.

Rob+ makes a good point. Here is the autonomous diocese. This is what makes the polity of TEC different from other hierarchical systems. And this is also why people have been hard at work on Title IV revisions.
Incidentally, one wonders what the point of these statements is, beyond grandstanding. Bennison can and probably will ignore this, so is the point to ‘go on record’? To say, ‘we distance ourselves from this’—for PR reasons? To be outraged but impotent to change anything? And I suspect they know that Bennison will ignore this.

Here’s one possible solution.  The presiding bishop could release the following statement:

Grace and Peace, etc., etc.
I have, with the consent of my Council of Advice, chosen this day to accept Bishop Bennison’s voluntary renunciation of his Orders in the Episcopal Church and have removed and released him from our ordained ministry.
I have chosen to follow this course rather than seeking consent of the House of Bishops to Bishop Bennison’s deposition for abandonment of the Communion of this Church because I believe it to be a more pastoral response to Bishop Bennison’s clear expression of his desire not to be a part of the Episcopal Church at this time. I believe this course best expresses my hope and prayer that reconciliation in the future can be achieved by God’s love and grace.

KJS

#7—you’ve got it. Might as well send a copy of this to 815 and save them the bother of formulating their own. If the PB could do this kind of thing before Title IV revisions—using renunciation of orders—just think what it will look like in July 2011.

Maybe a strike is called for. No more communication with the Bishop, turn off the lights at diocesan house and folks who work there stay home - or work from some other place,  quit mentioning him in the Prayers of the People, and encourage the clergy at St. Clement’s and other places to repell him from communion as an evil liver.

The HoB did not take action, the headline is misleading.  The HoB issued a statement to make themselves feel better and look better, INSTEAD of taking action that might be effective.  There were a variety of canonical resources available that they CHOSE not to use.  Or, as 7 points out, some commonly used non-canonical resources were also available. 
I think the powers that be in TEC want Bennison in his chair, it will make it much easier to get some truly draconian legislation through to make the removal of bishops a piece of cake for any standing committee that doesn’t like the bishop.  And Bonnie Anderson will then get about the business of straightening out her church.

Good points made in comments #5., #6. and #7.

Either ECUSA/TEC is a hierarchial national church in the episcopal tradition or it is not. 

For the House of Bishops to ‘waffle’ on this issue is disingenuous and hypocritical.

By this statement regarding +Bennison, the HOB has acknowledged that it lacks the authority, as the interim body governing between conventions, to take actions against a bishop in a situation of ‘clear wrongness’ not adequately provided for in ECUSA/TEC’s canons.

On the other hand, the HOB has permitted the Presiding Bishop to ‘rule’ as if she had the sole central authority of a pope in other matters involving bishops and priests.  For example, her action against a bishop consecrated in the Church of England.

What will happen when the revisionists decide to finally make their moves against the Dioceses of South Carolina and Albany?  Will it be an action asserting the primacy of the Presiding Bishop or an action asserting the primacy of the HOB?  Or will they deliberately ‘muddy the waters’ by making it a joint and collaborative move?

It is the ecclesiastical equivalent of the “strongly worded letter’ in the world of international diplomacy.  Dictators quake in their boots upon the delivery of “strongly worded letters”.  The HOB get to appear to be on the right side of the issue without having to actually doing anything.  Fudge at its finest!  They may have revealed the extent to which TEC is not absolutely hierarchal.

There is no defense of the record.

However, whenever I read such resolutions of the HoB, they appear unmoored - under what moral authority do they speak?  Such a resolution could just as well have been crafted by the panel of The View. 

...encourage the clergy at St. Clement’s and other places to repell him from communion as an evil liver…

On what basis? He maintains his innocence, and that he was unaware of what was going on. He has expressed regret for not being more aware. Further, the Trial Court denied him the opportunity to introduce a large amount of exculpatory evidence, thereby undermining the canonical process. So what makes him an “evil liver” for the purpose of refusing him Holy Communion?

And I would be surprised if Dr Bennison heeded the exhortation of the House of Bishops. No members stood by him in a pastoral capacity during his trial; now that the trial has ended we read of “Charles, our brother in Christ.” How gullible do they think he is?

And I wouldn’t count on a payoff either. The Diocese is short on funds to begin with, and Dr Bennison has some amount of family money, so I don’t think that would be much of an incentive.

#14 has it right in my view: Bennison will ignore this. He does not believe he has done anything wrong, and measured against the moral goofiness of the HOB, how could be believe that high-minded statements have any credibility. ‘In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.’ And that eye is now too short-sighted to do much good.  How does one work out the moral calculus on spending huge sums of money for ‘missional’ litigation; or declaring that X has renounced his orders, when this has not happened according the the canon’s plain sense; or ignoring the counsels of the Instruments; or whatever—measured against all this, how does one conclude that Bennison needs to step down and all others stay in place?

By the way, the letter in #7 is simply cut and pasted from 815’s Bishop Iker “renunciation” press release…

There is the story of +Bennison walking with intent over to +J-D Schofield during a lunch break at a HOB meeting (of course, prior to December of 2007), and the room of bishops fell silent as the intent of +Bennison’s destination became clear, as +Schofield was sitting by himself on the periphery of the room (the dialogue that took place for the context of this thread is beside the point, but it was about credal points including belief in a “physical” resurrection; +Schofield related that the two came to some measure of acceptance of each other’s understanding and belief).
The point is, the HOB’s obvious measure of latitude for ..... what?
The intellect no one could stand up to?  An ecclesiastical bully with no self-concept of any peer?  A manipulative aggressor who was pressingly persuasive?  What kind of bishop causes other bishops to cease talking in (fearful?) anticipation of what’s coming next?

Perhaps these or other personality traits are some of the things people liked enough in Pennsylvania to get him elected in the first place?  Complicity abounds.
I see him in the mold of +James Pike, which had been, at least for some time, maybe not so much in consequence, as the quintessential Episcopal prelate.  We have placed a high premium on high IQ intellect and wit to prove our place in the Christian world.  We have also found repeatedly that “the flesh” infects the intellect, and when it becomes obvious or revealed, then we are quick to trash it, thinking it should have had some self-cleaning diagnostic.
Why hasn’t he stepped down?  Perhaps his personal devastations have burned enough bridges that nobody wants him—is it possible that no bishop has said to him, “Give it up there, Chuck, and come work for me.”  And then what guarantee is there that PA wouldn’t elect someone just like +Chuck?
On the one hand, it WOULD be better for PA and the wider Church for +Bennison to simply resign, still claiming vindication.  On the other hand, it might be better from the point of view of causal consequences for him to stay and the Presiding Bishop to resign.  Or maybe just push RESET.
But at this point, the normal ways of getting rid of troublesome bishops - personal private threat of public revelation by the PB, or a pay off - are both unavailable: one has been played out, and PA has nothing to pay out (not that he would even abide).

#16 and 17—More evidenec that TEC is a sect.  Being an orthodox Christian is a crime but enanbling the sexual abuse of a minor is not.

When I held commands in the Navy, I mulled over my absolute obligation to my country and its people, my reporting seniors and my men to make my commands as ready to carry out their assigned missions as I could.

I can remember concluding to myself, that if anything from within me (physically, mentally, behaviorally), anything directly related to me (such a family crisis) or anything impugned against me (true or false) ever made it impossible for me to devote my full and continuous attention to my command responsibilities or would cause a loss of confidence in me by those whom I was commanding; then I would have no recourse in good conscience and loyalty but to surrender my command to another person.

Bishop Bennison has not only reached that point, he has passed that point and there is no way that he can ‘turn the clock back’ and once again be a leader in which his diocese has confidence.

Its time for him to do what’s best for his diocese and its mission as a part of the Body of Christ.

Am I the only one who thinks it passing strange that this comes up from the Bishops’ on the appeals panel reinstating Bennison just in time to become a cause celebre for the desperate need for the PB to have metropolitical powers over bishops?  This wonderful vindication of the provisions revolutionizing clergy and episcopal discipline in Title IV “just happens?”  Come on!!!  You can only believe that if you think Stephen Hawking is a great theologian.

#5. I am not quite sure why this should be seen as evidence of TEC not being hierarchical - Perhaps you might explain?

Surely the process so far of courts and courts of review sound very much like a bishop under authority and subject to discipline - it is not necessary to have a Metropolitical structure to create a hierarchy.

And surely this is an apt and proper letter in Catholic tradition - seeking the bishop to take the necessary action so that any threat of schism might be avoided?

And is this not the proper FIRST step from TEC’s HOB and from the Primate in respect of this bishop - bearing in mind that recent unchallenged and established precedent demonstrates that the Primate and House of Bishops have the authority to depose the bishop if he should refuse?

No members stood by him in a pastoral capacity during his trial; now that the trial has ended we read of “Charles, our brother in Christ.”

If this is true, then it makes me very, very sad, both for Bp. Bennison and for the leadership of the church.  In a much more fundamental way, it says that we’re not willing to do the basics of Christian practice.  What Bp. Bennison did was sinful, and I think the Bishops’ statement draws attention to that, but to completely abandon him in the midst of this reflects much negatively on the HoB and its internal dynamics than any depositions. 

I recall Bp. Whalon writing a piece a couple of years back for AnglicansOnline about the fundamental interpersonal dysfunction of the HoB since Bp. Pike.  I can’t seem to find it, but it’d be interesting to reread it in light of the Bennison Affair.

FIRST step? Well, we shall see. Will the PB use ‘renunciation’ logic on Bennison? I rather doubt it. But who knows in this nightmarish canonical prodigal season? I guess one could call that a ‘hierarchy’...of the present TEC 815 kind. Who knows what form that will take?

It’s not often that the House of Bishops and I agree on something.

I believe this is the piece you mean, Isaac:

http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/TheologyBishops.html

A good read, to be sure.

Bennison has replied and said No. Will the PB use her famous renunciation strategy with +PA? It didn’t fit the circumstances and was ‘bent’ in the cases prior to this one (esp with Scriven), so does that mean it will be ‘bent’ to deal with this one? It is hard to see what other route she has. My hunch is that the HOB statement was decorative, and effort to distance itself, but as such, also an admission of powerlessness. And so Bennison has judged it. He is sixty-six and intends to stay on until 72.