So a good question which a -good- reporter SHOULD have addressed was asked
but this is Al-Press so as we all know their is no good reporting being done there.
Robinson was Bishop Douglas Theuner's top assistant for years and was elected to replace the retiring Theuner in 2003 by clergy and lay people in the diocese. He was confirmed by the national church, causing an upheaval not only in the Episcopal Church, but the worldwide Anglican Communion of which it is part. U.S. conservatives formed a national network to rally dissenters and many Anglican churches overseas broke normal ties with the American denomination.
"Why now? Why didn't we know this (then)? What happened to the discernment process?" said David Virtue, who fervently opposed Robinson's election. Virtue runs an online news service he describes as a global voice for orthodox Anglicans.
Jones, who co-chaired the search committee for bishop in 2003, said thorough background checks were performed on all the candidates for bishop, including criminal checks and interviews with former employers and others. Finalists were asked if there was anything in their past that would embarrass them or the diocese if it came to light. Jones said Robinson did not say he was an alcoholic then.
"For all I know, at that point, he didn't have a problem," Jones said.
Virtue didn't buy it. "Everything about this man that we learn shows him to be fraudulent," he said.
Ooh Ooh Teacher can I answer that Question?
Elite leaders of the Episcopal church here in the U.S of A decided they wanted a gay bishop. They wanted to continue their history of progressive outreach on issues of Homosexuality.
Robinson had been a dioscese insider... was gay...perfect choice.
If something wasn't adequately examined its because they felt their mission to reach out to homosexuals was more important.
And that really is the crux of the wound that Bishop Robinson represents. A church that is lead from above but does not -lead- those bellow