Court Dismisses Fraud Charges Against Episcopal Bishop

The judge ruled that because of the first amendment Moyer had to show fraud in the process before the jury could consider the case.

NORRISTOWN, PA (Virtue on Line) - The verdict came in less than three hours after the jury recessed to consider the case of fraud brought against Charles E. Bennison, the deposed Bishop of Pennsylvania, by Fr. David L. Moyer, rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, PA
There were five charges. On the charge of fraud - the false termination of employment of Fr. Moyer by Bennison - the gatekeeper charge - the jury simply said no. The vote was 10 no, 2 yes.

The judge ruled that because of the first amendment Moyer had to show fraud in the process before the jury could consider the case and that Lewis had to prove it by clear and convincing evidence. The four other charges were then considered null and void.The defeat took everyone by surprise. Bennison turned and kissed his counsel Mary Kohart on the cheek. Fr. Moyer and his wife Rita hugged each other. She was in tears.

John H. Lewis Jr., told VirtueOnline, "We shall continue to fight the good fight." The five day trial is over.

It's been a long six years for Fr. David L. Moyer, said his attorney John H. Lewis Jr., in his closing argument (summation) at the end of the five-day trial that saw an array of witnesses argue that the Bishop of Pennsylvania fraudulently deposed the traditionalist priest. Bennison's attorney Mary Kohart argued that the Bishop and the Church followed the canons of the Episcopal Church and that he was within his right to depose the priest without a trial.

"All he ever wanted was a church trial so he could talk about his ordination vows, say who Jesus Christ is, uphold holy marriage and to say all this to his fellow priests. But he was denied that right," said Lewis.

Bishop Bennison was not satisfied. He had to be sure to get rid of Fr. Moyer. He admits it was "between David and me" and he crossed the line and deceived Moyer, said Lewis. "He can't hide behind the canons. No canon allows the bishop to be untruthful or conceal evidence. We are here because a bishop is not above the law."

Lewis cited one example of Bennison not telling the truth. "Bennison said to Moyer that there was only one subject being considered by the Standing Committee and that it was blocking his episcopal visitation which would have been addressed in a church trial. That was untrue. Bennison never disclosed to Moyer that his real intention was to '"slam dunk him'" under Canon 10 (abandonment of communion) which did not allow for a trial."

"This is not a trial about money. It has never been about money. He is in this court for two reasons - to clear his good name and to protect his relationship with his congregation."

Lewis said that Bennison was an innocent bystander to what the standing committee did. To say that the Standing Committee did everything doesn't make sense. Bishop Bennison has admitted that whatever the Standing Committee did, they could not hurt that man till that man did something. When he wrote a letter to Fr Moyer about the train coming down the tracks, it was based not on anything the Standing Committee did, but on Bennison wanting to hurt Moyer.

The Standing Committee means nothing till Bennison decides. It is his response to what happens to Moyer, not the Standing Committee. There has never been an inhibition and deposition unless that man (Moyer) had decided to abandon the Communion of the church. Bennison cannot lay it off on the Standing Committee. The only brake man, judge, jury and executioner was Bennison.

"Once Bennison got them to do his part, nothing could stop him. Bennison was so bold he even sent out a letter to the clergy that the charges against Moyer were incontrovertible. Dr. Pam Darling, an Episcopal historian described this as a set up."

In Bennison's defense, Kohart said that no fraud had been committed. Bennison had two paths in dealing with Fr. Moyer and he simply chose one over the other. It was his right as a bishop to do that. She also said the high charge of fraud was not reached and invoked the separation of church and state in her case.She said Moyer refused to allow four local bishops to come to his church to perform sacerdotal duties because they would not discipline or separate themselves from Bennison's teaching.

"You can't enforce a contract if you can't carry out your end of the deal," she said. "So Fr. Moyer instead of using lawful means to accomplish his ends chose an archbishop who shared his views - Archbishop Maurice Sinclair of the Southern Cone - to meet his own needs." Kohart said Moyer wouldn't budge and could show no good cause why (his actions) were not an open renunciation of the discipline of the church.

"Moyer showed utter contempt for canons, the totality of all this was unacceptable. He brought pain and suffering upon himself. Moyer filed multiple lawsuits when he was still a priest in The Episcopal Church. He showed contempt for the canons of the church. He took an oath to respect the canons and constitution of The Episcopal Church." She said it simply was not useful for a priest to comply with the rules when he feels like it. She also said the issue of who owned the church property was not the issue.

Enjoy Daily Readings? Pay it Forward

She said the church gave every chance to keep this living within the structure of the church. There was no good guy or bad guy.

Appealing to the documents of the Founding Fathers of America, Kohart said this community (Pennsylvania) was formed by William Penn who believed the state should stay out of the affairs of the church. "It is a bed rock issue that the government does not belong anywhere near The Episcopal Church or who shall stand in the pulpit."

It apparently won the jury over.

---

Virtue Online, edited by David W. Virtue, is the Voice for global orthodox Anglicanism.