Talk:Charles E. Bennison

Potential problem

This article has ~~reportedly~~ obviously been targeted for the removal of sourced, reliable, information.[1] Rklawton 22:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if the remover would be specific about what they think is completely wrong, perhaps point us towards some sources, we can fix the article up. It's possible some of what is in this article is untrue and libelous, but it looks sourced well-enough. I'll also point out that just because it's posted on the Bishop Accountability site does not mean they're the source, they're merely the republisher. They're hosting the material because such material would often otherwise fall down the rabbit hole. Chris Croy 23:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some main-stream media sources, too. In a case like this, though, the more sources, the better. The unfortunate challenge for the Bishop, is that in order for him to defend himself here, he's going to have to find published, reliable sources to do it. I suspect, however, that his attorneys are telling him not to talk to anyone (especially the press) about this. While this maximizes his chances in court, it does little to help him defend himself in the press. As a compromise, we need to be very careful not to rely on original sources (I see a few direct links to original sources in this article) and make clear who has made and is reporting these accusations. In short, we must not report these charges as historical fact but rather as a fact that these charges have been made. In the midst of this, we also have to contend with single-purpose accounts not familiar with our policies. Rklawton 23:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think rules against single purpose accounts are nonsense. If someone's only interested in helping create great articles about street lights and absolutely nothing else, I say more power to 'em. More on-topic, I agree the current form is probably too..factual, in the sense that it presents things too much as facts and not enough as charges. The first paragraph of Sexual Abuse definitely needs work, so I've made some changes. In fact, we might be able to delete that paragraph and not lose any information. Also, I'm strongly tempted to change all of the references to standard Cite Web because I HATE the current format, it makes reusing cites a pain in the ass. Any thoughts? Chris Croy 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with each of your points. Actually, I wasn't aware of any rules re: SPA's, other than that they raise a red flag – especially in XfD discussions. In this case, the "red flag" is that these SPA's aren't contributors so much as (primarily) POV deletionists. I have no preference for the direction this article takes – so long as all facts are properly sourced. Rklawton 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the material, and hope i didn't revert the Change to Chris' edits, sorry if I did. A couple things, the primary sources that are said to be "private" are not private - but are available all over the country in paper form- and a few places digitally. This doesn't seem to constitute a "poor source." As an author, having looked over the material, I think that it is well written in terms of indicating that the charges are alleged, etc., while providing sources that show why they were alleged. Admittedly I am an advocate for children who have suffered clergy sexual abuse, as well as for bishop accountability, and it is troubling that folks from Bennison's office and the Episcopal Church, with a clear conflict of interest when it comes to presenting the facts in his case, are deleting a record that is clearly so well done and well sourced. Revcjconner 00:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a personal interest in this matter, you might consider refraining from editing this article directly rather than risk an apparent conflict of interest. Your participation on this article's talk page, suggestions, new sources, etc., would be appreciated, of course. This isn't a request, but a suggestion based on my reading of your post above. Rklawton 01:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I just did a major overhaul, and offer the following comments. First of all, as is normal when we have controversies about biographies of living people, only high-quality sources are acceptable. For now I'm assuming that the Philadelphia Inquirer articles at bishop-accountability.org are accurately reproduced, in the absence of any contrary indications. However, the non-professional reports from virtueonline.org, given its obvious axes to grind over the state of the Episcopal Church, are highly flawed and should be avoided.

The only reason the sexual abuse issues surrounding his brother came up is because of the recent disputes in Philadelphia. Accordingly, it makes more sense to discuss the controversy in that context.

A strictly neutral presentation is also important, and until now the article was failing miserably. It cannot become a laundry list of evidence set up to "prove" that he mismanaged church finances or engaged in a coverup for his brother, which is where it was headed. The Standing Committee makes its case on its website, hence I've added it as an external link. In addition, it's not enough to simply provide a footnote to back up statements, they still have to match the source. Several claims made in the previous version were serious misreadings of what the source actually said. --Michael Snow 06:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Rklawton 13:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo to Michael for a well though out approach to this topic.

Need to split the two

The article looked great at the last edit, with the exception of some spelling. This most recent edit has a few problems with it. actually, the Bishop's response to his brother's sex abuse is in a different decade. It's not accurate to say that this is the 2006 crisis. This is biographical, not a news story, that is, if it weren't biographical, I could understand collapsing the two issues in the present tense, but we're looking over the past. Can we agree to separate the time lines at least? I think it really is not fair to the Bishop to lump the two together, because his current "crisis" has nothing at all to do with his response to sexual abuse, but rather only to a financial matter. lumping the two together innaccurately confuses the 2006 and 2007 issues, with the issues decades ago, in some respects innaccurately reporting the current controversy. Revcjconner 19:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John's removal from his post was in 2006. The forums held in Pennsylvania were in 2006. The convention and the calls for Charles's resignation were in 2006. All of this is the only reason we even have sources regarding the sexual abuse issues. It cannot be discussed sensibly without that context. It is far less disruptive to the chronology to reach back in time for the events from the past, in a setting already mentioned, than to leap forward for a discussion of things that haven't happened yet. --Michael Snow 19:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Michael, I understand what you are saying, *but* you have condensed two very separate issues and life events that have nothing to do with each other. The effect is indeed confusing, as opposed to what I'm proposing, which is biographical. I'm not necessarily objecting to the other large edits that you made, though I could probably find something I'd like to change. I'm just not sure what your bias is here, it seems that the changes that you made would not at all be lost, and the heart of what you are attemtping to accomplish editorally here would remain intact, but much more effective and accurate if not collapsed. Revcjconner 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you mean by "biographical" or why the current version fits that description any less than what you're proposing. With respect to the amount of separation, it's not clear that they are separate. Bennison's view, reflected at the end of the November 1 Inquirer story, seems to be that the sexual abuse issues were part and parcel of the power struggle. Still, the subjects are largely treated separately; after moving to the discussion of his brother, the article only revisits the financial questions for the incidental mention about the passage of the budget. --Michael Snow 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a brief, chronologically appropriate summary of the sex-abuse problem under a separate heading? In that way, the issue need not be introduced in the midst of the "2006 crisis" but simply referenced so that its affect on the 2006 crisis can then be explored without first taking the reader on a chronological tangent. Rklawton 23:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that's the solution. As Chris Croy points out above, there's a serious concern with things being presented too strongly as "facts" instead of claims, which improperly caters to the agenda-pushing that's been a problem here. And "introducing" the matter chronologically without reference to 2006 automatically tends the wrong way on that score, because the claims weren't introduced until 2006, at least as far as the public record is concerned. --Michael Snow 00:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Rklawton 00:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I'm thinking that we have a disagreement here in how the material is presented, and there should be no problem in reaching a compromise, as you have so aptly pointed out that my proposition is no less biographical than yours. You have completed a major edit of the text, and it would be a gesture of good will and willingness to cooperate with those who have worked on this long before you arrived if you were to simply accept the solution of a chronologically appropriate summary of the sex-abuse problem. As it stands, it sounds like Bennison is under presentment for a sexual abuse scandal, whereas the matter is in fact financial as a point of record. That Bennison thinks the two are connected, as you've asserted, can be stated when the two issues are separated, but it is opinion, not fact- which is to say how the article is outlined is really a matter of opinion, not an issue of fact. Also, the answer to your opinion that an agenda was being pushed in FredMarch's version of the document is not to push an agenda on the other side, whatever your bias. I'm simply suggesting that given your bias, and since your edit was quite extensive, it would be appropriate to merge the two versions (which would separate the two situations in question) to get a better balanced piece. I've read that "Michael Snow" is known for censorship on Wikipedia- I hope you're not that man- because if you are, I might be wasting my time in trying to persuade you to take a more moderate approach to your edit- it would be apparent that you will claim the final word on the matter as an administrator. Correct me if I'm wrong. Revcjconner 02:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we seem to be down to a matter of opinion primarily regarding organization, and you two are talking this over politely, and since SPA's have quieted down, I'm going to step back and let you two sort out a compromise. I appreciate the efforts you've both put in to improve this article. Don't hesitate to give me a shout if the SPAs pop back up again. Cheers - Rklawton 02:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Conner, kindly do not twist my words or insult my intelligence. I have not "pointed out that [your] proposition is no less biographical than [mine]", I have indicated that you need to explain what you mean by the term in the first place and identify why the current version is inadequate. Preaching to me about cooperation "with those who have worked on this long before [I] arrived" would also make more sense if your arrival to edit this article didn't predate mine by less than 8 hours (and then in part because I spent a few hours researching and drafting the revised version before I made the change).

This is not simply going to be a matter of merging the previous version and mine. The previous version was quite rightly flagged as seriously problematic given the policy on biographies of living persons, and my changes were designed in part to address those problems. As you seem to be new to editing Wikipedia, I would suggest familiarizing yourself with this and other key policies. So it's not merely my opinion that FredMarch's version pushed an agenda, nor is that the only agenda I was referring to. I am not trying to push my own agenda, I came to this article with no preconceptions about the subject, but I am trying to strike a balance between the competing camps.

I would like to know in what way the current version reads as if he "is under presentment for a sexual abuse scandal, whereas the matter is in fact financial as a point of record." The complaint from the Standing Committee is discussed, and the nature of its charges clearly described as financial, with no mention of sexual abuse. Meanwhile, there were calls for his resignation over the financial dispute, and additional calls for resignation over the sexual abuse issues. The latter came up while the first dispute was still ongoing, so I don't see how the complete separation you seek makes any sense. I did strive to use terminology precisely and follow the sources closely; if there are inaccuracies in that regard, I would appreciate them being pointed out. But for now the only way I see for someone to get the impression you suggest is by misinterpreting or failing to fully read the text. --Michael Snow 04:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not let me show you what my vision for it is, I'm sure once you see it you might change your mind, and if you don't, you can revert it or make additional changes. Revcjconner 05:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a try, then, sure. --Michael Snow 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revcjconner, you can show your vision at Talk:Charles Bennison/sandbox if you like. Use of subpages like this is standard for evaluating variations that shouldn't go immediately live for one reason or another. WAS 4.250 17:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portion of the Letter written to Charles Bennison

Just a little more discussion though first.. This quote was from a letter posted on VOL. VOL reaches 4 million people a year, and is considered a reliable source of information- though I understand it may be considered a partisan source...

This has been a terrible tragedy for two families - our family has lived with it a long time and the Bennison family is just beginning to do so. There are may be other people who could have stopped the abuse had they dared to face it. I myself carry the grief and sorrow that I did not protect my daughter. And I believe that when you acknowledge that you, after all, knew what was going on, even before John was ordained as deacon, you will too. Our family does not want to hurt you, we are not working to have you removed from your position. That is not for us to decide.
You state in the Philadelphia Inquirer of November 1 that "Money is power and this is a power struggle over power and money in the diocese". That may be so Chuck, but it is not our family's struggle. While it's true that money is power, we, as followers of Jesus Christ, are confident that there is an even greater power. We look to Psalm 18 and declare: "I love you, O Lord my strength, O Lord, my stronghold, my crag, and my haven. My God, my rock in whom I put my trust, my shield, the horn of my salvation, and my refuge".

Here is just one reason why it appears a bit dishonest to lump the two issues of the financial and sexual scandal together. While Charles Bennison would like to do that, objectively it is a dishonest narrative.

I understand that you have banned the sources that this information comes from for one reason or another... but I suppose you don't need to even quote the sources when simply the format of the article can strike a better balance. The change I would make is not in text, but simply two separate headings. Revcjconner 18:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't know how this illustrates the "dishonesty" of the narrative, or how it even has much to do with the editorial issues of writing an encyclopedia article about Bennison. There's no suggestion that the victim's mother was motivated by money or power, simply that the critics who brought her in and put on the forums did so against the backdrop of the financial dispute.

Although I generally dislike going to too many layers of headings, I've added more subheadings to the 2006 crisis section. Since you're apparently not seeking any textual changes, I hope those will be a workable compromise. --Michael Snow 19:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subheadings look great. I would change the subheading on the Bishop's part in his brother's situation to "Mishandling" to more closely reflect Bishop Bennison's assertion that he mishandled the situation. I also still have a problem, on second blush, with some of the editing, but I guess I should be thankful that you haven't buried the facts altogether. In all truth, when I saw your extensive edit of material that was sourced and accurate, I wondered if you weren't an Episcopalian activist of some kind- given the sanitized version you offer. Here is an example of a passage you deleted that I think is a bit more factual than what you have left in your edit.

"Beginning at least as early as 2000, Bishop Bennison has repeatedly usurped the canonical prerogatives and authority of the Standing Committee ... and misappropriated and expended assets of the Diocese, without canonical authority ... to date in excess of $10 million of unrestricted net assets. ... Bishop Bennison has systematically dismantled independent controls and oversight of financial matters; has withheld important information from those having canonical responsibilities; and has refused to consult with others on major decisions which affect the welfare of the Diocese. ... The improper actions of Bishop Bennison ... have created a total breakdown of trust within the Diocese. The consequences of these improper actions threaten the present and future financial stability of all the ministries of the Diocese of Pennsylvania."

This text is directly from the diocese of Pennsylvania of the Episcopal Church... I would imagine that this, among other erased excerpts, comes from highly reliable sources...

^ Verified Complaint in Re: The Right Reverend Charles E. Bennison, Jr. Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. (http://www.diopastandingcommittee.org/2006_Bennison.pdf)

Tell me what you think, Michael. Revcjconner 04:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The passage is not factual, it's quotation. It is not directly from the diocese, it is from the Standing Committee, one of the bodies within that diocese involved in the dispute. As such it is argument and rhetoric that should not simply be repeated uncritically. I also feel that quotations loaded with ellipses create a poor impression because the reader does not know what or how much has been omitted. Summaries are a better solution in that case, and the present text based on the news report gives a roughly equal balance to the complaint's charges and Bennison's response thereto. That seems like an appropriately neutral presentation. --Michael Snow 04:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Good Michael. This was fun, and I learned quite a bit from our exchanges. Take Care. Revcjconner 02:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5/31 Rewrite, Comments

I think the contributions made by several members over the past week have significantly improved this article. I wanted to wait and see the consensus develop before adding my input. On the whole I think the review process has been sound. I am very disturbed, as I am sure everyone is, by the efforts of the Bishop's office to distort information on Wikipedia.

I have retained everything that the recent edits contributed, changed some language, and restored several references that were removed (based on my reading of the discussion, I would assume unintentionally). I have also added lots of new information. Some points relevant to my revisions in the child sexual abuse section:

1. John Bennison's sexual misconduct continued after he left St Mark's in Upland, and extended to several affairs that, while adulterous, were conducted with women who had reached the age of consent. Charles Bennison's role in the scandal only involved instances of child sexual abuse, and this article should not involve Bennison by implication in John's other misbehaviors. I am sure this was not the editor's intention, so I have clarified the entry to limit the degree to which Charles Bennison's name is used in connection with his brother.

2. The child sexual abuse that involved Charles Bennison's knowledge, definitionally statutory rape, is alleged to have taken place both on and off church property. It is important that this abuse was not disconnected from John Bennison's role as the youth minister, but resulted from it. Most cases of child abuse in institutional settings involve authority figures. Charles Bennison made this hiring decision and allegedly was aware of John's abuse of his position of trust. The article should not represent the abuse as being an outside event, and should present all availible information to the reader. The reader can then review all of the relevant facts and draw their own conclusions from them.

3. Child sexual abuse may a type of "relationship," but this term is too sanitized to be descriptive and may be inappropriate to describe the sexual manipulation of a 14 year old by an adult authority figure, particularly a minister. The nature of statutory rape is such that the victim is unable to consent; a "relationship" implies some degree of parity between a man and a woman that is not present in these types of cases.

4. I understand the editors' concerns about the presentation of primary source material in an encyclopedia entry as direct quotation. I have followed their advice to tread lightly, and restored some of the internet links to primary sources as references, allowing the reader to evaluate the material themselves rather than interpreting it for them (even in cases where the conclusions are not complex).

5. Bennison has acknowledged his mistakes in the past, and the article should represent this contrition. It is inaccurate to present the view that Bennison has not apologized for his role in enabling his brother's abuse, and his remorse is important to understand as it gives a fuller understanding of him as a leader.

I would add that a review of the edit history for the article shows that I included references for each of these aspects of the story incrementally. When my edits would be vandalized, I would think about why the vandals might want to remove this information (they never explained anything, but I was trying to guess what concerns they could have). Was it because it had been worded to implicate Charles in John's later misconduct? Was it because the abuse happened independently of John's being the parish youth minister and wasn't relevant to Charles' role as the vicar? Etc. Each of these times I concluded that this information was needed to clarify ambiguities in the presentation, and it remains relevant, even with the excellent rewrite.

It is not accurate to say that the child sexual abuse scandal belongs entirely in the context of the recent financial crisis. As one of the editors has pointed out, this is a rhetorical position of Bishop Bennison's, which has been invoked to minimize the seriousness of his role in supressing information about his brother's abuse and his own conduct in the 1970's. (Which, judging from the behavior of the Bishop's office on this very page, seems to be continuing in new ways as technology evolves.) So there is some editorial perspective involved in presenting the information this way. I do not think a thematic organization is necessarily a problem so long as the issue is not discussed in a biased way.

However, the organization of the article presents other problems in telling the biography intelligibly. Bishop Bennison's personal letters reveal that the scandal played a role in his "involuntary termination" from the rectory of St Luke's Episcopal Church in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1991 - long before he came to Pennsylvania. My earlier version of this article presented the information chronologically, so this made sense as the events unfolded. I noticed that all references to Bennison's four years as rector of St Luke's have been removed from the article, which is probably unintentional but problematic.

To respect the contributions of other editors, I have restored this information with a "see below" reference. I am not satisfied with this, as I think it reads poorly and is not encyclopedic. I would suggest reordering all of the information chronologically, but would like to hear the feedback of others before doing so, since this looks to be a bone of contention.

Some points about the new information I have added:

1. I agree with some of the commentators that editorial articles from VirtueOnline.org should not be cited in discussions of controversial aspects of Bennison's episcopacy. However, David Virtue resides in the Diocese of Pennsylvania and his website contains much information that is relevant and not controversial, particularly with regard to the internal politics of the conservative churches in that diocese. Since VirtueOnline.org acts as a mouthpiece for these views, there is no conflict in citing his website to discuss the position of conservatives, so long as the perspective is clear.

2. In the same way, I have used information from the Episcopal organization Integrity, which advocates for gay and lesbian issues, to explain some of Bennison's opinions with respect to GLBT persons.

3. Bennison's theological argument for the reformation of the marriage rite does not suggest that an inclusive ritual should follow the social understanding of marriage, although this is important to understanding the issue. His argument is that if the purpose of marriage is to be a model of the church, any family that establishes this model should have access to the sacrament. I have clarified this position and also provided links to the full text of the Bishop's article in Anglican Theological Review.

4. The Philadelphia Cathedral is the episcopal seat of the Bishop of Pennsylvania, contains information about Bishop Bennison, and is a relevant external link.

5. This article contains information dealing with sex scandals, child abuse, sexual abuse, and religious scandals. It is demonstrable if not undeniable that almost all of the interest in this article, and indeed in this Bishop, is its content regarding (and his involvement in) scandals. These are accurate categories and I have restored them. Fredmarch 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Perhaps a very brief chronology in the form of a time-line would help put these sections into perspective without adding too much redundancy.Rklawton 03:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FredMarch - I'm so glad you gave attention to this bio. You filled it in again very well, much better work than Michael Snow or myself... thank you. Good balance between using sources from the GLBT community, and the Episcopal news outlets. Good resources of Bishop Bennison's writing too. You say that you restored some categories, but I don't recognize the difference. Where you able to finish that? Well Done. Revcjconner 02:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification Edits

Without addressing the content of the article, I have added several internal links and footnoted materal. I think they will be helpful to the non-Episcopalian reader to understand certain terms -- deacon, priest, etc. -- and to provide links to planned articles in the ongoing Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism. If you take out any such links, please inform us all why those links are not useful. Also, internal links within the article (using "href" tags) might be helpful to reduce the length and redendancy of the article. (Apologies to all the editors insulted by this.) Bearian 22:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not fair-and-balanced

"5. This article contains information dealing with sex scandals, child abuse, sexual abuse, and religious scandals. It is demonstrable if not undeniable that almost all of the interest in this article, and indeed in this Bishop, is its content regarding (and his involvement in) scandals. These are accurate categories and I have restored them. Fredmarch 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)"

I'm just a passerby... But it seems to me there is a very knotty problem at the core of this article. On the one hand, most readers come to this article because of an interest in the disputes and scandals associated with this person. On the other hand, such are actually a very small part of the total life of this person, which is what the article purports to be about. So, right now, the article serves readers well (being mostly D&S), but is unfair to the subject. If it were made fair to the subject, it would serve readers poorly. The only way I can think of to be fair to both interests would be to remove all the D&S stuff to a separate linked article, leaving just a very brief summary (no more than 10% of the real content) in the main article. -69.87.203.132 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be unfair to readers if we expanded the article to include more of this person's life and achievements. We've got a table of contents at the top of the article that will help readers quickly navigate to the information the find of interest. Rklawton 19:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the subject's reinstatement and the findings of the Appeal Court, this issue may be reopened: while he was under the cloud of deposition, the controversies surrounding his conduct and the allegations against him could rightly be regarded as a very significant part of his biography. In the present situation, it seems appropriate either 1. to focus more strongly on his positive accomplishments or 2. to shorten the section on his brother's sexual misconduct and the consequent accusations against the bishop. I'm not suggesting deleting the section, as it will be a permanent part of his record, but it should no longer loom so large as he returns to his duties. Finn Froding (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, short of being the biggest embarrassment ECUSA has ever had on the East coast, there's nothing impressive about Bishop Bennison. His morals are detestable (even to the already compromised EC viewpoint) and controversy seems to be the only thing this man is capable of bringing into the world. Bio policy states that you talk about what the subject is known for. Bennison is known far and wide for being a corrupt, malicious bully. 156.12.190.83 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new article

You may wish to link to the new William Melnyk article. Dawud (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More information

This has also developed recently, and probably needs to be included. I don't think I should do it; I knew Charles quite a long time ago and would find it hard to be objective. All the individuals involved are in my prayers.Dellaroux (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/bishops/house_of_bishops_final_report.html

I see what you mean, but a blog is not a suitable source. The Office of Public Affairs has posted the text of the resolution:

  http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Bennison_resolution_9-21-10%281%29.pdf

Finn Froding (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. John The Evangelist of Huntingdon Valley Controversy

Along with the other churches already mentioned, the Bishop killed this one too. Actually, the parishioners funded and constructed the church, so his confiscation of it would be considered, well, theft, in many minds. It contributes to the overall theme of Bennison retaliating against any church that challenges him by taking their building. Here are some sources.

http://articles.philly.com/2001-05-22/news/25302293_1_episcopal-church-usa-episcopal-diocese-diocesan-bishop

http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/ENS/ENSpress_release.pl?pr_number=2001-145

I hear the 10 people that show up every week to the current Episcopal Church where St. Johns was enjoy the building.156.12.190.83 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles E. Bennison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Charles E. Bennison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]