Bishop Bennison guilty, but time ran out.

The Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop has rendered its verdict. 

Its conclusions are these:

"CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, we find that Appellant committed conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. Because the statute of limitations has run on that offense, we have no choice under the canons of the Church but to reverse the judgment of the Trial Court finding that
Appellant is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy under the First Offense.
 

Prosecution is bared by the applicable statute of limitations and, for that reason, alone, we are compelled to order and we hereby order that the judgment of the Trial Cour is reversed and judgment is rendered here in favor of the Appellant on the First Offense.

The Judgment ofthe Trial Court finding that Appellant is gulty of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy under the Second Offense is reversed and judgment is rendered here in favor of the Appellant on the Second Offense."

The Court of Review states quite clearly that "we find that the Appellant committed conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy."  The Court of Review made this stinging comment, 

"The tragedy of this conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy is exacerbated by the fact that, during the trial of the case, Appellant testified that, upon reflection on his failure to act, he concludes that his actions were "just about right." They were not just about right. They were totally wrong. Appellant's testimony on this subject revealed impaired judgment with regard to the conduct that is the subject of the First Offense and that is clearly and unequivocally conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy."

 On the second offense there were problems and the Court of Review dismissed the findings of the Trial Court. 

"The record establishes that each party to whom the Church contends Appellant should have disclosed his knowledge already had that knowledge. The failure to disclose that which is already known, under the circumstances of this case, does not constitute conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. The Trial Court was clearly erroneous in finding Appellant was guilty of the Second Offense of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. The Judgment of guilt of the Second Offense must be reversed."

The problem is that the Trial Court applied that verdict to actions of the Appellant (Bishop Bennison) that took place some years ago.  Most charges must be made within a specified period of time following the actions taken by the accused, (the statute of limitations). An exception is that there is no limitation on charges of sexual abuse against a minor. The Trial Court apparently applied the unlimited time rule to this case. The Court of Review ruled that that was out of order and that the statue of limitations had run out. 

In its findings the Court of Review also opined that "The Sexual Abuse Exception Cannot Be Used To Solve Other Problems."  

 D. The Sexual Abuse Exception Cannot Be Used To Solve Other Problems

The sexual abuse exception to the statute of limitations, if improperly applied, can wrongfully label a Respondent a sexual abuser. Title IV cours must guard against allowing that exception to be used without proof of actual sexual abuse. This is especially true under circumstances where the exception is invoked not so much to deal with sexual abuse but, rather, as an effort to use events in the distant past when the Respondent was a priest to remove a bishop during current times of strife within the diocese. To allow Title IV and the sexual abuse exception to the statute of limitations to be used in this maner diminishes the monumental efforts of the Church to address, punish and remove incidents of actual clergy sexual abuse. It runs the risk of labeling a bishop as a sexual abuser when the origin of the charges is based upon the individual's alleged poor performance as a bishop and not upon the individual's being a sexual abuser. For that reason Title IV courts must be vigilant when confronted with charges against a bishop of sexual abuse based upon conduct as a priest many years earlier.

Thus Bishop Bennison's argument that those bringing charges against him were doing so for reasons other than the content of the charges seems to have made some impression on the Court of Review.  

The Court of Review agreed with the lower court that Bishop Bennison was guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy.  But time had run out.

So apparently Bishop Bennison is reinstated, the inhibitions against him lifted and no court determined punishment against him.  But the stinging condemnation remains:  The Court of Review found that he had indeed engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy and that he had impaired judgment.

We can only hope that Bishop Bennison will now take the opportunity to retire so that the Diocese of Pennsylvania can move on.