And in the ongoing battle within ECUSA

DOCUMENTS CONCEALED BY BENNISON AND GRISWOLD REVEAL DECEPTION OF PA BISHOP AND MORAL COWARDICE OF GRISWOLD

Parishioners at The Church of the Good Shepherd have made available to Virtuosity copies of a letter that their Rector, Father David L. Moyer, recently sent to them. That letter, based on documents that Bennison fought so hard to keep from Father Moyer, demonstrates that Bennison's persecution of this Godly priest included deception, lies and even concealment of important information from his own Standing Committee and his "Reconciliation Team".

What is even more troubling is what the same documents reveal about Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. He told Bennison that what he planned to do was evil and wrong. After Bennison rejected that admonition from Griswold, the Presiding Bishop then demanded that Bennison withdraw his proceedings against Father Moyer.

Griswold made a commitment to the Archbishop of Canterbury (and to Bennison) that if Bennison did not withdraw his planned "deposition" of Father Moyer, that Griswold would make a public statement condemning Bennison. When Bennison refused to do so (and concealed Griswold's letter from his Standing Committee and his "Reconciliation Team"), Griswold not only failed to make a statement condemning Bennison's actions - he also concealed his letter from everyone, including Father Moyer.

The moral culpability of one who recognizes evil and does nothing is greater than the culpability of one who does not even distinguish between good and evil.

Such misconduct by Bennison should cause the Standing Committee to finally take action to remove him and should cause the ECUSA bishops to file a presentment for Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy.

As for Griswold, the other Primates should remember that he cannot be trusted to follow through on any commitment to protect orthodox priests or parishes in ECUSA.

Grace and peace be unto you in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. This is a very important letter. I ask that you please give it a careful reading.

On July 10 of last year, Bishop Bennison mailed to each of you a letter in which he made statements about me in an attempt to justify my "inhibition", and on July 22, the Bishop mailed a similar "Pastoral Letter" to all clergy in the diocese with instructions to have the letter read at a Sunday service in August. These two letters were part of a massive public relations campaign against me by Bishop Bennison. I believed that many of the statements in those two letters were false and that Bishop Bennison had concealed important facts from you and from others in the Diocese, but, until recently, I had been denied any access to the documents held by the Bishop.

Since the Bishop refused to grant me a church trial, I had to institute secular court proceedings against the Bishop. As a fundamental part of those proceedings and to prove the claims stated in my complaint, my attorneys requested a number of important documents from the Bishop. However, the Bishop resisted these proper requests, and the Court had to enter an Order requiring the Bishop to produce the documents. Even then, the Bishop did not want me to inform you about the documents, so my attorneys had to obtain a second Court Order to allow me to reveal the truth as to the false and misleading statements made by Bishop Bennison to you, to the clergy and congregations of the Diocese, and to the entire Anglican Communion.

It now appears from these documents that Bishop Bennison first decided to use canon 10 (the "abandonment of communion" Canon) against me in 2001. On July 6, 2001, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold wrote to Bishop Bennison warning him not to proceed against me. At some point, Bishop Bennison shared this letter with the Standing Committee. The letter included the following statements:

"I think that declaring the clergy who have refused to allow you to visit their congregations as having "abandoned the communion of this church" is a drastic step that would have far reaching effects across the Communion. Most primates would be unsympathetic to your reasoning and would simply view you and the Standing Committee as heavy-handed, autocratic and monumentally unpastoral."

*** "I therefore ask you and the Standing Committee in the strongest possible terms not to proceed in such a direction."

*** "My question here would be: are you seeking to find a way through this situation, or are you looking to prevail at all costs? Gerry Wolf, for example, goes to Evensong at one of her congregations and attends a reception following the service. This she sees as her visitation, while Keith Ackerman on another occasion, making it altogether plain that he is representing the Bishop of Rhode Island, performs the sacramental ministries." *** "The perception on the part of those who disagree with you that unless they fall into line they will be threatened with canonical action works against the spirit in which Public Conversations does its work."

Sadly, Bishop Bennison rejected this admonition. Even more sadly, after I was "inhibited", the Presiding Bishop never reminded him of this letter and never even informed me of its existence! Of course, Bishop Bennison never informed you of this letter when he wrote to you last July. To the contrary, the letter claimed his use of Canon 10 against me showed the "patience" of Bishop Bennison against me. When the Bishop said that, he knew that the Presiding Bishop had told him that the use of Canon 10 would be "heavy-handed, autocratic and monumentally unpastoral."

After Bishop Bennison "inhibited " me in March, he began to make statements that the Standing Committee had voted unanimously against me. That came to the attention of one Standing committee member, who wrote: "This is incorrect and (if intentional) dishonest."

Apparently, the Standing Committee finally decided to stand up to the Bishop. Minutes of an executive session in April reveal the following:

"It was noted that Bishop shared (possibly at a meeting with the Deans) that the vote taken by Standing committee to declare that David Moyer had abandoned the communion of the Church was a unanimous vote with one abstention. This is incorrect and will be brought up with the Bishop during his time with us today."

I do not know whether it was "brought up" with the Bishop, but I do know that his letter to you in July implied that the vote was unanimous.

The letter to each of you was dated July 10. I now know that just two weeks earlier, on June 24, Bishop Bennison received another letter from the Presiding Bishop. It was very difficult to get a copy of this letter from Bishop Bennison, who at first denied that he or anyone else over whom he had control had the letter. His lawyers wrote to my attorneys and said: "My client [the Bishop] does not appear to have kept a copy of the June 24, 2002 letter and, thus, cannot produce it to you." Only after my attorneys threatened to subpoena the files of Bishop Bennison's attorneys was the letter produced.

"Thank you for your letter following our conversation with our chancellors. Since then I have had a communication from the Archbishop of Canterbury, which included a proposed statement that he was about to release commenting on the impasse between you and the diocese and the Church of the Good Shepherd. I spoke to him by telephone and asked him to withhold his statement for the time being. He made it absolutely clear to me that he regards the situation as very serious in the life of the Communion. He also said that your stance serves to justify the actions of Rwanda and Singapore in the eyes of many around the Communion.

To be sure there are many conflicts and anomalies in our provinces but forces in our own church and on the other side of the Atlantic have managed to make the Pennsylvania affair the test case proving that those who hold traditional theological perspectives--particularly with regard to sexuality and the ordination of women--are being persecuted and essentially driven out of ECUSA. Moreover, these forces seek to prove to the world that "supplemental pastoral care"--which our House of Bishops promised and which the Covenant of Texas delineated--are nothing more than empty words.

Whether or not these forces are fair or accurate in their expressed views about the impasse in your diocese, what we have before us is a serious international problem that demands some graceful solution. It is incumbent upon us who bear Episcopal responsibility to go out of our way to take a step forward that can be perceived as honoring the diverse perspectives and sensibilities that constitutes out Anglican reality.

Given all of the above circumstances, I am not in a position to take "no" for an answer. I stand by the recommendations I made when you were here on May 29. You must find a way to visit the Church of the Good shepherd that, at the outset, does not require that you preach or celebrate the Eucharist, but that offer committed Episcopalians in that place, caring pastoral oversight on your part, as well as your commitment to send then another bishop for "supplemental pastoral care." I ask that you send me within the next ten days a proposal of what such a visit would look like. I am prepared to take this to the Church of the Good Shepherd and see what might be negotiated. Perhaps our chancellors might be of assistance here.

Failing this next step toward resolution on your part, I will have no recourse but to make a public statement in which, sadly, I shall not be able to defend your action and position on this matter.

I deeply regret having to write this letter as I have respect and affection for you but I do not wish to see either you or ECUSA portrayed as unyielding and insensitive.

Of course, Bishop Bennison rejected this directive from the Presiding Bishop. Even worse, he concealed this letter from you, from his Standing Committee and from his "Reconciliation Team". Just two weeks after receiving this letter telling him that he was defying both the national church and the Anglican Communion, the Bishop then wrote a latter to you saying that it was our parish (rather than himself) who was "painfully alienated" from the Anglican Communion.

What is even more troubling to me is that the Presiding Bishop did not keep his promise and commitment. He did not make a "public statement" condemning the "inhibition" and "deposition". Rather, he, like Bishop Bennison, kept the letter secret from me and everyone else concerned.

What you have read is certainly indicative of a crisis of leadership in the Church, that has had a direct effect upon us and the larger Church. We must all pray and work hard for renewal and reformation. Such egregious actions can be viewed as the fruit of widespread complacency throughout the Church, and failure of Christians at all levels to live holy lives.

NOTE: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest biblically orthodox Episcopal/Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe FREE by going to: www.virtuosityonline.org. VIRTUOSITY is read by more than 80,000 readers in 41 countries. This story is copyrighted but may be forwarded electronically with reference to VIRTUOSITY and the author. No changes are permitted in the text.

FOLLOWING ARE THE TEXTS OF THE GRISWOLD LETTERS TO BISHOP BENNISON

Submitted by David W. Virtue

FROM: The Rt. Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church

July 6, 2001

The Rt. Rev. Charles E. Bennison Church House 240 South 4th Street Philadelphia, PA 19106

After our telephone conversation I continued to reflect upon the issues you raised. I think that declaring the clergy who have refused to allow you to visit their congregations as having "abandoned the communion of this church" is a drastic step that would have far reaching effects across the Communion. Most primates would be unsympathetic to your reasoning and would simply view you and the Standing Committee as heavy-handed, autocratic and monumentally unpastoral. Indeed, I think many of our brother and sister bishops (regardless of their points of view) and their chancellors as well, would seriously question such an action. I therefore ask you and the Standing Committee in the strong possible terms not to proceed in such a direction. Are there not other avenues of admonition or discipline that could be used instead?

With regard to the question of visitation, while indeed it is the prerogative of the bishop when he or she visits to preside at the liturgy and preach, there are other ways in which one can visit that do not require the exercise of
sacramental ministry. My question here would be: are you seeking to find a way through this situation, or are you looking to prevail at all costs? Gerry Wolf, for example, goes to Evensong at one of her congregations and attends a
reception following the service. This she sees as her visitation, while Keith Ackerman on another occasion, making it altogether plain that he is representing
the Bishop of Rhode Island, performs the sacramental ministries.

On the matter of the blessing of a same-sex relationship, such an action cannot be construed as a formal action of the church. Our church is clearly not of a mind on this matter as was made plain at the General Convention in Denver with the passage of D039 which is descriptive rather than proscriptive. At best such a blessing must be looked upon as a form of pastoral care within the context of a particular congregation."

Shortly after talking to you I had a conversation with Laura Chasin and Bob Stains regarding the third of the international conversations on sexuality to take place this coming December. Toward the end of our time they mentioned their possible work in the Diocese of Pennsylvania and their concern about our being perceived as your agents rather than neutral facilitators whose only
concern is to establish honest and trustful conversation between those of conflicting points of view. The perception on the part of those who disagree with you
that unless they fall into line they will be threatened with canonical action works against the spirit in with Public Conversations does its work.

It is out of my respect and affection for you, and my concern for your own pastoral ministry and the health of your episcopate that I have put these matters before you in writing for your further thought and consideration.

This comes as always with my prayers and good wishes.

Yours ever,

The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop

SECOND LETTER

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
The Most. Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate

June 24, 2002

The Rt. Rev. Charles E. Bennison, Jr.
Bishop
Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania
Church House
240 South 4th Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106

Dear Charles:

Thank you for your letter following our conversation with our chancellors. Since then I have had a communications from the Archbishop of Canterbury, which included a proposed statement that he was about to release commenting on the impasse between you and the diocese and the Church of the Good Shepherd. I spoke to him by telephone and asked him to withhold his statement for the time
being. He made it absolutely clear to me that he regards the situation as very serious in the life of the Communion. He also said that your stance serves to
justify the actions of Rwanda and Singapore in the eyes of many around the Communion.

To be sure there are many conflicts and anomalies in our provinces but forces in our own church and on the other side of the Atlantic have managed to make the Pennsylvania affair the test case proving that those who hold traditional theological perspectives - particularly with regard to sexuality and the ordination of women - are being persecuted and essentially driven out of ECUSA.
Moreover, these forces seek to prove to the world that "supplemental pastoral care"- which our House of Bishops promised and which the Covenant in Texas
delineated - are nothing more than empty words.

Whether or not these forces are fair or accurate in their expressed views about the impasse in your diocese, what we have before us is a serious international problem that demands some graceful solution. It is incumbent upon us who bear episcopal responsibility to go out of our way to take steps forward that can be perceived as honoring the diverse perspectives and sensibilities that constitute our Anglican reality.

Given all of the above circumstances, I am not in a position to take "no" for an answer. I stand by the recommendations I made when you were here on May
29. You must find a way to visit the Church of the Good Shepherd that, at the outset, does not require that you preach or celebrate the Eucharist, but that offer committed Episcopalians in that place, caring pastoral oversight on your part, as well as your commitment to send them another bishop for "supplemental pastoral care." I ask that you send me within the next ten days a proposal of what such a visit would look like. I am prepared to take this to the Church of the Good Shepherd and see what might be negotiated. Perhaps our chancellors might be of assistance here.

Failing this next step toward resolution on your part, I will have no recourse but to make a public statement in which, sadly, I shall not be able to defend your action and position in this matter.

I deeply regret having to write this letter as I have respect and affection for you but I do not wish to see either you or ECUSA portrayed as unyielding and insensitive.

Yours in Christ,

Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop

Griswold and company are running scared. You see all of these heretics have fallen for the same lie as the leftists who refer to themselves as 'progressives' - in other words they think they're leading the way, which everyone else will follow after they become enlightened...thus from their perspective it's only a small group of ignorant fundamentalist Evangelicals, along with some Anglo-Catholics, and horrible Charismatics [the heretics are really, REALLY afraid of us Charismatics :-)] who are making all the noise and they can just be ignored...except now of course we can't be ignored and we aren't following along after them and not only that, but they aren't able to bribe the African and Asian provinces either (you would not believe the racist attitudes among the heretics - all in the name of political correctness mind you).

Remember what is now happening with confronting the heretics is supposed to be completely impossible from the fantasy worldview of the heretics. Ol' Griswold is panicking, but largely unable to do much other than try to sound pastoral (something he's really not good at) or theological (something he's even worse at) - I have it on fairly good authority that Grizzy's bit of "theology" which he wrote to try to scare the other primates away before the General Convention was seen by said primates as demeaning, insulting, and laughable.

The only real difference (other than pay scale and Grizzy's fancy office in NYC) between Grizwold and Bennison is that Griswold realizes the jig is up, while Bennison is so far out in apostate la-la land as to be incapable of comprehending the current situation at all.

You wrote: "Anglo-Catholic I'm familiar with, as my own parish is such (we called it "high church" when I was a kid). What's Charismatic?"

gee whiz Ron, you've got to quit throwing me these softball questions! :-) Hmm, this is one of those things that people spend hours trying to define. Let me try it like this (and hope I don't terminally offend too many folks in the process):

The two theological polar extremes within *orthodox* Anglicanism are Anglo-Catholic (A-C's tend toward theology much closer to that of our Roman cousins - in some circles referred to as reformed Catholic) at one end and Evangelical at the other (Evangelical theology tends toward some blend of Calvinism and Lutheranism sometimes including at least some elements of reformed Catholicism, but not always by any means).

There is a second dimensiion here on a scale between High Church [Roman vestments, bells, smells, sung liturgy, etc, etc] and Low Church [minimal or no vestments, no bells, no incense, spoken liturgy, and so forth]. Yes more AC parishes tend to be high church, than not but there are exceptions; and Evangelical parishes can be anywhere on the spectrum.

Now given these two dimensions: Charismatics in very general terms are those of us who believe that all of the Charisms the Holy Spirit poured out on Pentecost are still functional in the Body of Christ today. Beyond that, many Charismatics tend to be a bit more toward the Evangelical part of the spectrum, though that is not always the case. Also, while perhaps only rarely as high church as some of our AC brethren, sung liturgies, and the use of banners, bells, incense and the like are somewhat more common among Charismatics than among our non-Charismatic Evangelical brethren.

Did that help at all, or did I just stir the mud up more than before?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.