Pardon me, but that doesn't make any sense. Why would a Council of Conciliation be called because Bishop Bennison hasn't visited congregations in three years when he had been prevented from doing so by inhibition? Perhaps those more versed in canon law than I can shed light on this.

I will agree, Tom, that the meaning of three years is open to interpretation. Your question is quite reasonable.

The healing that has taken place within the Diocese of PA over the last few years has been largely due to the ministry of our Assisting Bishop Rodney Michel. The Standing Committee is viewed by many as a part of the greater problem and not as the solution they see themselves to be.

Shared with permission - another letter about Bennison:
Open Letter to the House of Bishops from
The Reverend Joy Mills
2103 Quail Ridge Drive Paoli, Pennsylvania 19301

September 5, 2010
Dear Members of the House of Bishops,
When the Church lives out Jesus’ call to be a dynamic agent of peace and justice in the world, it will continually attend to the vulnerable among us by tackling crisis after crisis. As you well know, this is a time of crisis for the Church: in the Anglican Communion, in the Episcopal Church and in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. The Chinese character for crisis includes the character for both danger and opportunity. Here I address the danger and opportunity in the Diocese
of PA, in the prayerful hope that the Spirit we call Holy will break through as you attend to this crisis at your Arizona meeting.
I was ordained priest in 1988 by The Rt Rev. Allen L Bartlett. Now receiving my pension, I continue to practice my vocation as a pastoral psychotherapist and certified Fellow of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors. I am completing my term as President of the
Diocesan Review Committee. I am an active member of Anglican Women’s
Empowerment which focuses its spiritual and intellectual energy on the work of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in relation to the Millennium Development Goals.
Having read the report of the Review Court, I comprehend the eight Bishops’ reasoning regarding the case of The Rt Rev. Charles Bennison. Their report seems to put an end to the legal process and, therefore, opens the way for the pastoral process by which we may all have an
opportunity to heal. The necessity for that healing is spelled out clearly in the bold and prayerful Open Letter of the Bennison Trial Witnesses and the courageous and forthright response of Bonnie Anderson. The necessity is apparent in the letters of The Rev. Tim Safford and of The Rectors and the Vestries of St David’s Church
(Radnor), St Thomas, Whitemarsh, and St Christopher’s, Gladwyne, to Bennison requesting his resignation. It is manifest in the September 2 Resolution from the Merion Deanery to the November Diocesan
Convention. I expect it is evident as well in other letters received by many of you. Perhaps most significantly, your call for Charles Bennison‘s resignation presents an opportunity to further live out the Church’s commitment to work toward to the MDG #3: to promote gender equality and empower women. These courageous and faithful responses are indications of the broad and deep and pervasive suffering, silencing, fear, and alienation
experienced by clergy and laity during Charles’ administration as Bishop. My personal experiences of Charles, particularly his disengaged and impersonal behavior during the time my husband (an
ordained priest for 40 years) was dying, are but echoes of others who have been seriously threatened and intimidated by Charles’ erratic, grandiose and contemptuous behavior and now re-traumatized by his return.
Because the priests and laity have no court of appeal as Charles has had, we are depending on your responding to our cries for assistance, comfort and relief. You, as members of the House of Bishops, have the opportunity to address this issue pastorally. Two issues require your pastoral attention.
First, I call upon the House of Bishops to recognize and make right the apparent pastoral irresponsibility of the four bishops named in the report who knew of the charges and Charles’ unrepentant complicity. None of them informed our diocesan search committee of Charles’ behavior when he became a nominee for the Bishop of the Church. Their doing so would have eliminated him from being nominated.
They owe us an explanation and apology as well as requesting his resignation to forestall further spiritual and emotional damage to all concerned.
At the same time, I want to commend Katharine Jefferts Schori for her sensitive, immediate and consistent awareness of and response to the victim’s rights and distress. She apparently met with Charles several times. Perhaps if he had responded with appropriate apologies and asked for forgiveness, we would not have arrived at this crisis. It is Charles’ inability to do so that leads into the second issue.
Secondly, I call upon the Bishops to address Charles Bennison directly. Even after 35 years and the Church’s collective awareness of the devastating mind-body-spirit impact of sexual abuse on the victim,
Charles stated without remorse that he got it “just about right” when he decided to do nothing about what he first saw and later knew. His inability to recognize and acknowledge his culpability indicates a
deep moral failure. This failure corresponds to his lack of compassion, empathy, generosity and wisdom in his tenure as Bishop of Pennsylvania. It demonstrates his unwillingness to listen and to learn. Now is the time for the House of Bishops to censure one of your
own.
The door is open. You have the opportunity to act with pastoral
integrity by ending his tenure as an active Bishop in this Diocese. If you choose not to do so, you implicitly condone and participate in his obliviousness to the damage he has caused to the victim, her family, and to our Diocese. Ending Charles’ tenure as Bishop of Pennsylvania
would also offer Charles another opportunity to evaluate his destructive behavior, which has pervaded his entire episcopate, outweighing the good he has done. Perhaps this would become an opportunity to repent and turn to live a renewed life in Christ. I believe the people of the Diocese have been working steadfastly toward such a renewed life. Your actions taken in love could encourage us in our desire to live more fully into Christ’s ministry.
“Feed my sheep,” Jesus commanded us. I invite you to feed your people.
Faithfully,
The Reverend Joy Anna Marie Mills
Cc: The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Bonnie Anderson, President, House of Deputies
The Standing Committee and Diocesan Council, Diocese of PA
Clergy of the Diocese of PA
The Trial Witnesses

There is no doubt that this is a tricky issue. On the one hand, +Bennison is not guilty of abuse or complicity with abuse. I read the whole judgement. He was found essentially to be negligent in not investigating when he should have, and not ministering to the family of the victim when he did know. But this is not in itself criminal. And it was thirty years ago, and there is nothing in that to say he is not a better pastor or would not be more vigilant now.

I still wonder, like the court, whether this is not a red herring. The diocese wanted to get rid of him for some other reason—they were having problems with him, it is said. And so they latched onto this thing when it came up and say, aha! We have you!

I’m not saying he’s an exemplary bishop; I don’t know anything about him beyond what I have read in the court’s decision. But I think everyone is entitled to a fair shake, and it seems he’s not being given one. He’s been condemned for a crime the court says he didn’t commit; then sentenced with inhibition, and because the dioceses has moved on, they don’t want him back. So they are condemning him all over again. But they have to do better than say there’s too much water under the bridge; we can’t work with him.

I don’t know the answer, but I don’t think what is going on in PA is it either.