After the plaintiff reported the abuse in 1987, Parry was sent for three months of treatment at Servants of the Paraclete in New Mexico. Then he stayed in the Southwest, working at Lutheran and Catholic parishes.
In 2000, the lawsuit says, Parry underwent psychological testing because he was considering entering another Catholic monastery.
“The results of this testing revealed that Fr. Parry was a sexual abuser who had the proclivity to reoffend with minors,” the lawsuit says.
The results were provided to Conception Abbey, the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas and the Episcopal bishop for the Diocese of Nevada, the lawsuit says. Yet from 2000 until Thursday, Parry was employed by All Saints Episcopal Church in Las Vegas.
The information about the test comes from the plaintiff’s lawyer. I have read the suit. There are some statements of fact in the suit that contradict the lawyer’s statements both to the press and in the suit itself.
It is possible that when presented with the test results those who were given them decided to ask for further testing that might not have shown such damning results. They might also have decided weighed against the fact (regarding the 4 previous incidents) that there may have been no criminal conduct to hire Parry with certian provisions. There certainly were no criminal charges filed in either those incidents or this present case.
But Paula — let’s forget the test and just consider the actions.
Good heavens. Regardless of the test or whatever, what about the fact that he sexually whatevered with boys in the choir which he directed. And — though the story is muddled, it appears that he had sexual contact with boys not just in the choir in another set of instances. And . . . considering the nature of sexual predators I’m not very inclined to believe him when he says “all is now well” every several years either.
Everything that we read about sexual predators on the young says that they are *not* reformable. I can see not knowing this back in the 70s. But in the 80s? The 90s? The Aughts? It’s 2011 for heaven’s sake. People like this should not be allowed in positions of authority. And most likely the communities in which they work and play and worship probably should be informed. I’m all for forgiveness and grace — but with *information* for parents and guardians so that they can determine what should be done.
Sarah,
From all accounts the 4 incidents prior to the John Doe case involved young men over the age of 16 and in at least on incident over the age of 18. I don’t consider young men of those ages to be boys. So my response to this depends a lot on whether criminal activity actually took place. For incidents that happened while Parry was in position of authority over someone he had sexual contact with I have no doubt it was unethical and should have been grounds for dismissal from that position.
There is nothing to indicate that those former incidents were non consensual. There is also nothing that spells out what sexual contact consisted of. In most states if the contact was consensual you have two possible scenarios. In the case of the underage teens if contact included penetration it does not matter if it was consensual. It is still the crime of statutory rape. If it was non consensual it was sexual battery. I think if it was non consensual Parry would be sitting in a jail cell right now and the lawyer would not claim “he couldn’t help himselfâ€.
If however the sexual contact did not include penetration it would either be sexual assault if non consensual, or if consensual not a criminal offense at all. The incidents involving adults are either non consensual sexual assault or battery or non criminal consensual sexual contact.
I am not arguing that what Parry did was right. However if those prior incidents were consensual and/or did not rise to the legal definition of a crime the Abbot and KJS can not be faulted for treating those incidents as inappropriate sexual behavior rather than as crimes. The Abbot certainly did err in exposing vulnerable youth to Parry after knowing Parry had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior. I believe Parry’s employment within the Las Vegas diocese did not include contact with children.
As those incidents showed he cleary had no appreciation of boundaries. Since he was in a position of authority over choir youth it can reasonably argued that no sexual contact would be truly consensual but always carried with it underlying if not outright threat of coercion. So even if this was not a religious institution such contact would be highly irregular and out and out wrong.
I wonder too why sexually active homosexuals are so often lacking in the whole concept of boundaries. I’m sure this contributes to the high level of promiscuity in that culture. There, I’ve stepped in it now.
As icky as a 40 year old male pursuing a teenage boy is you better believe that there is a big school of thought that such relationships are examples of mentoring and a valid way for a teen with same sex attraction to be in a safe relationship. I imagine there is a whole body of queer literature for young adults that laud older adult and teen contact.
I am no fan of KJS but if the information about his actual behavior she had access to was only that Parry had inappropriate sexual contact in consensual relationships with young men 16 or older (The current John Doe case would not have been filed at that time)and if no record of further inappropriate behavior was shown after the 1987 incident I could understand her believing he did not pose a danger to young children and that he had learned appropriate boundaries with older teens and young adults.
As I stated above I don’t trust the lawyer’s statements as I found several lies. But in my opinion if the test was truly accurate I would certainly expect to see ongoing evidence of abuse. Yet as far as we know there have been no other incidents since 1987. Parry’s actions were certainly not benign, especially since a 40 year old is certainly able to manipulate a teenager especially when there is sexual attraction involved.
Also we don’t know if KJS ignored the test. We only have the plaintiff lawyer’s side of things. Because of confidentiality laws KJS can not even say “hey we made the guy take another test.” or “we had our own expert review the results and he disagreed with the findings.” It is impossible to truly defend oneself against an implication when such defense means breaking several laws.
The lawyer is hoping the public will draw an assumption based on incomplete facts he chooses to release. We are only given the information he wants us to have and that information may or may not give us the whole picture.
RE: “From all accounts the 4 incidents prior to the John Doe case involved young men over the age of 16 and in at least on incident over the age of 18.”
From the article: “Two of the encounters, he said, involved males ages 16 to 18.”
So first of all — not all were “over the age of 16” — and of course, those are just the ones we know of.
RE: “From all accounts the 4 incidents prior to the John Doe case . . . ”
I’m not sure you’re reading closely enough. There were incidents in the 80s with “five or six” members of the choir. Then there was this, from the 70s: “Parry confirmed to The Star his three relationships between 1973 and 1979 at Conception Abbey and one in 1981 in Minnesota. He said he reported those incidents to then-abbot Jerome Hanus at Conception Abbey and to the abbot at St. John’s Abbey in Minnesota.”
RE: “So my response to this depends a lot on whether criminal activity actually took place. . . . ”
The age of consent in Missouri is 17. So if *any* sexual contact occurred on a 16-year-old boy it was a criminal act.
RE: “I don’t consider young men of those ages to be boys.”
When I look at one of my close family relatives who is 17, I see that he is both a young man and a boy. He is *certainly* not mature enough to have a 38 or 39 year old man — or woman — approaching him for sex and the thought is repulsive, abusive, corrupt, and evil.
As it is, such an approach to a 17-year old would not be illegal — but live by the age of consent, die by the age of consent. Our society has determined — rightly — that youths are not capable of consenting to sex from adults. We have also recognized that there are varying stages/levels/speeds of maturity into adulthood and that it’s hard to define when “youth ends”, since every person is different. And therefore we have set hard and fast, state-wide, rigid ages of consent, regardless of whether our minds can conceive of a particular youth’s ability or inability to give consent. It’s possible that some under the age of consent are actually no longer “youths” in their maturity. And it’s possible that some over the age of consent are still “youths” in their maturity. But the age, in Missouri, is 17, and if he had sexual contact with a 16-year old — and in the 1980s for pete’s sake — the authorities needed to be promptly informed by the Abbot.
If he had sexual contact with a 16-year old boy he committed a crime. If he had sexual contact with a 17-year-old boy he merely committed a gross and repellent sin.
RE: “Abbot and KJS can not be faulted for treating those incidents as inappropriate sexual behavior rather than as crimes.”
Yes, the Abbot can. He certainly knew the age of consent in Missouri. And even were he that negligent and ignorant, he did not even treat those “incidents” as “inappropriate sexual behavior.”
Paula. That’s not “inappropriate sexual behavior” any more than Bill Clinton’s having sex with the intern is merely “inappropriate sexual behavior.” It is gross corruption and abuse of power. It is unbelievably abusive and evil to direct a choir and have sex with the boys in your choir. And yes, those are boys, no matter that they are growing into young men, and no matter which ones might be more mature than others.
As a friend of mine said about a girl who was abused by her father from the time that she was very young [who claimed that she had thrown herself at him]: “I don’t care if the daughter threw her naked body on him on the bed — there is no excuse and that is not the behavior of a father.”
RE: “But in my opinion if the test was truly accurate I would certainly expect to see ongoing evidence of abuse.”
Oh — I expect we’ll learn more, Paula. A guy had “inappropriate sexual contact” for two decades? In his 20s and 30s? And then stopped?
Oh yeh . . .
As to KJS — I have zero comment on her actions.
But even I have expectations of a Roman Catholic abbot who has a boys’ choir and in the 1980s.
If I sound steamed, it’s because I am. Not steamed at you, Paula — but . . . maybe steamed is too small a word.
Sarah,
I based my comments on the suit filed against the Abbot which claimed only 4 prior cases of abuse and on Parry’s earlier statements about the age of the victims.
Sarah,
I agree with you completely that since the contact was criminal the Abbot had a duty to report them to the police. In many States there is a distinction between what age one can consent to sexual intercourse and to other sexual contact. The MO law if taken without exception would mean that an 18 year old could not watch submarine races with his 16 year old girlfriend. Though I am not sure how the term “subject to” is interperted by the courts.
Since when has criminal conduct become the lodestar of morality and sin? To argue that an immoral and sinful act is somehow ok because it may not be a criminal act is an argument of willful deception.
It appears that as in the case of the RC we have a case of a predatory homosexual preying on boys and young men. The elephant in the room that gay apologists and others seem to ignore.
The Abbot in question is now the Archbishop of Dubuque, and KJS is now the PB.
I don’t think that KJS should have admitted this man to Holy Orders in TEC, and I think her having done so is potentially more serious than the ‘mistake’ in her CV. Certainly so if young men (or any parishioners) in Las Vegas were to come forward now, alleging sexual contact. I suppose it’s only a matter of time before the Church of England newsletter picks up on this. (Perhaps Pageantmaster might see to that.)
I don’t know how the TEC canons provide for investigation of the past actions of a Presiding Bishop.
The part of the story about her ‘checking the canons’ intrigues me. This fellow has no business being in parish ministry, given his background. It’s interesting, though, to see that the canons might have once meant something to her.
We read, “He said he has not had inappropriate sexual relations since the 1987 incident.†To understand this, we need a definition of the term, ‘inappropriate’. For example, is extramarital sex between a parish staff member (who is also a priest) and a parishioner ‘inappropriate’?
I don’t understand how a church organist and choir director could not have had opportunities for contact with adolescents in the Las Vegas parish. Furthermore, boys usually go to the adult choir when their voices change.
At the time, the Watergate break-in didn’t seem like a very big story.
Your post seems to crystallize the situation, or was it saga, quite well, Ralph, from what the articles tell us. You place all together most of the relevant and related factors.
Paula’s comments seem useful for reasons she may not intend. They frame the logic of a certain liberal mindset (maybe not her own). There is no particular record of the PB (then Bishop of Nevada) being ‘sloppy.’ She will presumably have ‘principled’ reasons for why having sex as choir director with those not under 16 passes some kind of threshhold. The mentor idea (as Sarah says, just using this language is repellant).
Maybe not. Maybe it was just some inadvertant OK’ing, somehow linked up with her broader attitude toward exRCs (herself being one).
In any case, we may find this case opening up all the sorts of logic that approve of Gay sexual practice and life. That thread could be very messy. The Bishop of Bethlehem is proGay but finds this inexcusable. Others will say otherwise. The PB may/will have to speak openly about her own logic in receiving this ex RC Priest.
A simple way out of this for ++KJS. Deny that she did not have direct knowledge of Parry’s past, then prove it. Failing that give a public statment on why she thought it appropriate to receive a priest who had sexual contact (of any nature) with a person under their authority, and/or under age. Then let the statment fall under scrutiny, as we might learn even more about her thought, or lack thereof, process.
More immediately, this goes to indict her faculties for making judgments. If this had been a mutual relationship between adults of nearly equal age, outside of the parish, with no parish involvement it would still be sin, but there could be a process for amendment of life.
There is/should be no valid reason to receive anyone into the priesthood who has had sexual contact with minors, or used their position to gain access to sexual contact. Both are abuse, and the likelihood of reoffending is quite good.
That does not mean that they are unredeemable, or even unforgiveable, but that offense should bar service as a priest due to it being a notorious sin, or in the words of the BCP it is “an impediment or crime because of which we should not proceed.”
I might even argue that this case would be different if the individual was not already a priest at the time of his offense. But, not quite yet.
Finally, any sexual relationship outside of marriage is sinful. Any sexual contact with a person over which you have a teaching, directing, pastoral, mentoring, or supervisory relationship regardless of age, gender, preference, or whatever is abuse. Simple. Period. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200. Fine. The End.
ps. And the person who made this decision and exhibited such a horribly frightening dearth of moral reasoning and judgment gets metropolicital powers of discipline in the new Title IV in just 5 days.
I tremble.
[blockquote] A former Benedictine monk who directed a boys choir at a northwest Missouri abbey in the 1980s admitted on Thursday that he had inappropriate sexual relations with several members of the group.[/blockquote] I hate this use of the word ‘inappropriate.’ It means ‘not befitting the context’ and it subtly shifts the judgment being rendered.
Consider the following and assume the age of consent is 17. If Bob (age 45) meets Ted (age 17, 10 months, brand new freshman in college and away from home for the first time) in the lobby of St. Revisionist Episcopal Church, and then Bob seduces Ted later that afternoon, Bob is neither abusive nor criminal. By modern standards, he has not even committed an immoral act. Yet if Bob and Ted meet because Bob is the choir director, and Ted joins the choir, then Bob has ‘inappropriately’ abused a power relationship. The inconsistency is maddening.
So what is really being protected here? We can’t be protecting a 17 year-old boy from being seduced by a 45 year-old man, because we have already said that such a seduction would be legal. No protection is therefore required. Instead we are protecting the integrity of the relationship between choir director and choir member. This is the context that drives the judgment of ‘inappropriate.’ It’s not that the sex is wrong per se. It’s that the sexual relationship gets mixed into a pre-existing authority relationship and that causes questions about whether consent was actually given. We aren’t guarding the integrity of sexual purity. We are guarding the integrity of sexual autonomy.
It’s ‘inappropriate’ for a counselor to have sex with his patient. It’s ‘inappropriate’ for a lawyer to have sex with his client. It’s ‘inappropriate’ for an employer to have sex with an employee. By analogy we are saying it’s ‘inappropriate’ for a choir director to have sex with a choir member. In each case we are asserting a prior authority relationship that obscures the possibility of true consent. But that is all that is being asserted. Nothing is being asserted about the moral character of the sexual relationship beyond the context of authority. And that is the problem.
carl
One newspaper account said that in 2000 the formal psychiatric report about this man was sent to the Diocese of Nevada.
http://revjph.blogspot.com/2011/06/bishop-of-bethlehem-calls-for-no-more.html
I completely agree the behavior was immoral. By current law the sexual contact with a 16 year was also illegal. I don’t know what the laws were at the time regarding the 4 incidents that were made known to the Abbot. The 5 or 6 incidents that Parry admits to between 1982-1987 are not mentioned in the law suit.
This is what is claimed in the suit:
“Between 1973 and 1979, while Bede Parry was a monk at
the Abbey, but before Bede Parry was an ordained priest, Bede Parry reported to Abbot Hanus that he had been involved in three inappropriate sexual relationships. In 1981, Bede Pany, while
attending classes at St. John’s School of Theology in Collegeville, Minnesota, had sexual contact with a St. John’s student. Bede Pany admitted to the sexual misconduct to both St. John’s Abbot
aJ Jerome Theisen and two other monks at St. John’s as well as Abbot Hanus at the Abbey. Bede Pary was allowed to remain at St. John’s until he graduated in 1982 but at the insistence of
Abbot Hanus and as a condition of remaining at St. John’s, Bede Parry was required to receive psychological treatment.”
Parry became involved with the choir in from 1978-1979. Since the first 3 incidents reported occured between 1973 -1979 some of them at least did not involve choir students. Most likely they involved other members of Conception Abbey. We can assume that at least two of the incidents after 1978 involved a youth of 16-17.
As I wrote before we only have the information that the lawyer chooses us to have. We are lacking some very important pieces of information that we need in order to fully judge the Abbey’s response. 1. We do not know whether the Abbot informed any of minor’s parents of what had happened. If he did not it is indefensible. But he may have and the parents might have decided no further action was desired. It does happen. 2. The suit says Parry was sent for psychiatric treatment. We do not know what the Abbot was told about Parry’s risk to others when that treatment was completed. It is quite possible he was told that Parry no longer posed a danger to young men.
The suit itself makes no claim of abuse between 1982 -1987. I think from Parry’s statement there certainly was (if we are talking about adults) inapproriate sexual contact.) but the suit is not concerned with that time period.
Now to the 1987 abuse. “Immediæely after Plaintiff reported the sexual abuse by Fr. Parcy in 1987, Fr. Parry was sent for sexual offender treatment at the Servants of the Paracletes facilþ in Jemez Springs, New Mexico, where Fr. Pany resided from August 1987 through October of 1987.”
Did the Abbot err in simply resending Parry to treatment? Honestly if only one case was brought to his attention after a period of 5 years I understand his thinking treatment would be an adequate response. Especially if the victim was over the age of consent at the time and/or his parents declined to report the abuse to law enforcement. Remember they knew what had happened to their son. I don’t know what the reporting laws were at the time and if the Abbot was obligated under law to report then yes he is at fault for failing to do so. Morally I think he should have reported it.
After 1987 Parry left the Abbey and was employed at various churches throughout the South West. We have no reports of any other abuse during those years. This does not mean nothing happened it just means that anyone doing a background check would see the last incident of any problems was in 1987. They might not even have seen that since (especially when minors are involved) it may have been confidential. I can not imagine the information about psychiatric treatment being on record for anyone to access.
I would really like an excuse to rain condemnation down on KJS head but since we do not know just how much of Parry’s former behavior was revealed in any background check and we do know that such a check would at best show the last report of abuse against him was 13 years ago with no law enforcement involvement I just can not paint her as being grossly negligent in this matter. Especially since Parry was not assigned to work with children.
Remember too the suit never claims that Diocese of Nevada had information regarding the 1973-1979, 1981 and 1987 incidents. We only know she was given the results of a 2000 psychological test. We do not know her response to that test. The lawsuit wants us to assume the test results were just ignored. But as I wrote in another test that is not necessarily true.
Remember too that if the Diocese of Nevada had started some kind of proceedings against Parry based on those test results he would have been accored the right to a defense and the presumption of innocence under Canon law (at least I presume this is so.)
I want to be clear I think what Parry did violated moral laws even when it did not violate secular law. But I differ in what others think in that I believe Parry should be the one held accountable for his actions. That the responsibility for the harm done to the victims lies mostly with him. I think that even if nothing turned up to alarm KJS on a background check he (and he may have) should have given her a full disclosure of any sexual conduct of the past and how such conduct was dealt with by former superiors. I don’t buy the argument “he could not help himself.” It is not my intent in any way to defend his gross behavior. It is only my intent to show that we do not have all the information and without all the information we should not be so hasty to judge the actions or inactions of KJS.
There is one thing that occurs to me perhaps Parry presented himself as a persecuted gay man fleeing the homophobia of the RCC.
The current lawsuit alleges that the results of psychological testing in 2000 showed that Parry was a “sexual abuser who had the proclivity to reoffend with minors.” The results were provided to Catholic and Episcopal church leaders in Nevada, the lawsuit said.
#17 sounds plausible, as speculation goes. My comment in #18 should be in quotes as it is from the newspaper account. I don’t see how it fits with the logic of #16 re: what the Bishop of Nevada knew at the time.
I want to make one correction based on the timeline of Parry entering the Episcopal pristhood. Since KJS knew of the one incident before accepting him into the priesthood he would not be protected under canon law for proceedings against clergy. She could have just refused him entry or required more evaluation.
CSeitz. He was a sleaze and morally repugnant that I agree 100%. But based on the facts presented in the suit I don’t think we can use the test results alone in judging KJS’s response.
I just do not consider a youth 16 or older in the same category as children. Granted they are not fully adult in their capacity to make judgment or in their ability to resist coercion and manipulation by adults. But neither are they completely incapable of making autonomous moral decisions. If they aren’t no one under 18 should ever be tried as an adult in criminal court.
I think being pro gay agenda means you have to close your eyes to a lot of truth about gay subculture. Like not admitting the defense of teen and older adult male sexual relationships. Like failing to acknowledge that monogamy is not usually a central theme of gay relationships. Like asking how come so many gay men just do not understand the concept of boundaries. In my opinion as much as those who support the agenda would like us to believe that gay relationships are just the same as heterosexual relationships with the exception of the sex act itself that just is not true in many cases. They are driven by whole different engine.
You can expect to see in the future the claim that our understanding of sexual boundaries is based on heterosexual behavior and norms and as such are heterosexism that is prejudiced against the gay community.
Paula, a gentleman named Bill Countryman has been asserting for years that boundaries defined by heterosexuals do not apply to homosexual relationships.
See:
http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm
The post from #15 is breath-taking. In it, a bishop courageously asserts that 815 “lawyers threaten and cajole diocesan bishops not to reveal multiple sex-abuse cover-ups at the highest level lest former leaders be embarrassed.”
This could blow to bits over the next few days.
Ralph, hasn’t what the RCC did taught other churches anything? I hope everyone understands I am not at all quibbling about the gross wrongness of Parry’s behavior or the responsibility of Church leaders to validate, validate and validate what happened in any claims of sexual abuse or even inpropriety. I am not defending any non action by Schori, I am just saying we don’t fully know that actions she took. At the very least she should have asked for further pscyhiatric evaluation (should be a given for priesthood candidates). There was no compelling reason to accept Parry’s application without a more thorough investigation of his past.
But encouraging cover ups to save embarassement of former leaders. Yes the truth may be very hard to bear and it may say things about people we trust that we never, ever suspected. It may cause great scandal. It may have long reaching repercussions. It may and should bring us to our knees.
But we are Christians we must never fear the truth. It may sweep through like a firestorm but in the end it cleanses and makes room for new and healthier growth. When we side with lies we, as well intentioned as we are, side with the devil. That can never, ever be good or what God desires for us.
Ralph, Things “blowing to bits”….I imagine just imploding. A few (dozen) more lawsuits, this time not over real estate and trying to keep people from leaving, would not do well in this economy. Theology is never going to be the downfall of PECUSA. That fell many years ago. All they have left is endowments; dead peoples money. Something tangible for plaintiffs.
“I am just saying we don’t fully know that actions she took.”
Amen to that! The question now is whether we need to know. I think we do.
Is there a mechanism for calling a sitting Presiding Bishop to accountability?
1. Did she call the abbot (now archbishop), and did he fill her in, or keep quiet? (If she didn’t contact the abbot, one must accuse her of foolishness.)
2. Did she actually know everything, or only about one case? Even if she only knew about one case, how could she have allowed him to transfer Holy Orders to TEC? How could she have allowed him to have employment in a TEC parish?
I also think we need a detailed accounting of how TEC leadership might have covered up other scandals. Are there others besides the Bennison-Swing-Browning matter?
This story began quietly, in the manner of the story of the Watergate break-in. It’s now rapidly expanding.
In this post-Watergate era, I don’t think that cover-ups are still possible.
I agree totally, Ralph. It will be interesting too to find out what his other employers knew.
What type of turnover is the norm in Church employment? Does his employment record send up any red flags amonst those of you who may be familiar with such things?
And how many more like him are still below the radar because no one lowers the dish to look? As with the RCs, we REALLY need to search out the answer. Larry
#23. I do not understand your comment/logic. A pyschiatrist report said the proclivity to offend again was there. This report went to Nevada Diocese. By what logic should he have been priested and given authority in the Episcopal Church.
I said nothing about sleeze etc and so you are not agreeing with me on that account. I have been speaking about facts in the record.
I’ve been reading about this case with some bewilderment. #27, cseitz, your comment should read, “Plaintiff’s attorney says that a psychiatric report indicating a proclivity to offend” was given to the Diocese of Nevada. Was it? What did it actually say? We have only hearsay on that at this point.
What seems to be clear, at least from a statement by Parry himself, is that he told Jefferts Schori of at least once instance of sexual contact between himself and someone much younger to whom he was a figure of authority and respect. An investigation of what she knew and why she conferred priesthood on someone with this in his background is called for. Pending further information, it looks like a very bad and careless decision.
#27. I have no idea of KJS thinking process so what would have been logical to her would probaly escape me. I am only maintainng that we do not have all the information and she may KJS have obtained another psych evaluations that reached a different conclusion than the report we are told was given to her.
We also don’t know how thorough a back ground check she required. We don’t know if she had access to all the pertinent information. We do know there are serious gaps in her knowledge if all she had was Parry’s self report and the 2000 test. Gaps she should have made every effort to fill in before considering him as a candidate for the priesthood.
But I am not going fully condemn her actions based on what the plaintiff’s lawyer has decided to reveal to us. I would rather wait until she gives a full statement on her decision.
Another part of this has to do with what the Rector, wardens, vestry and chancellor of this parish knew about their organist – choir director – priest’s past (he’s been there for 10 years), what they’ve learned in the past few days, and how they’re responding to the news reports.
The website of All Saints’ Episcopal Church in Las Vegas appears to be down. Google offers up a cached letter from the senior warden.
Again, the direct confession to +KJS, if it truly occured should have barred this man from the priesthood.
However, a background check would, if canons were followed, have been ordered. The problem with the standard background check is that it only goes back 10 years. If he kept his nose clean then it would look like a one off incident.
Still inexcusable, but +KJS has plausible deniability, “I ordered the background check, and it came back clean.” “I followed the letter of the law”.
The irony is that the one who makes the canons read however she wants can now cover herself with those same canons.
#27 Paula
[blockquote] I am not defending any non action by Schori, I am just saying we don’t fully know that actions she took. At the very least she should have asked for further pscyhiatric evaluation (should be a given for priesthood candidates). There was no compelling reason to accept Parry’s application without a more thorough investigation of his past.[/blockquote]
I think that prima facae a question arises if the following information is correct from the article:
[blockquote] In 2000, the lawsuit says, Parry underwent psychological testing because he was considering entering another Catholic monastery.
“The results of this testing revealed that Fr. Parry was a sexual abuser who had the proclivity to reoffend with minors,†the lawsuit says.
The results were provided to Conception Abbey, the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas and the Episcopal bishop for the Diocese of Nevada, the lawsuit says. Yet from 2000 until Thursday, Parry was employed by All Saints Episcopal Church in Las Vegas.[/blockquote]
If there was such a psychological report, if prior inappropriate behaviour had been reported, and if this information was passed to the Episcopal Diocese of Nevada, I don’t think there is any obligation to commission further reports. On just that information, there is enough to determine that this is someone who is not safe to be employed in a position of trust with younsters whether under 16 or 16 to 18, or indeed older, whether male or female. I certainly do not understand why it could be suggested that +Nevada should have had to investigate whether she was bound by a one strike and you are out policy.
It is safety of vulnerable people we are talking about, and prior abuse and a report on the likelyhood of further abuse, not a conviction for speeding.
If these reports are correct, it seems to me that there are indeed questions to respond to.
Pagaent Master. I do understand where you are coming from and if I was 100% sure that the lawyer was being fully truthful about the test results I would agree 100% with you.
Let me ask you if Parry was confronted with the test results and he claimed he did not think the results were valid do you think it would be unreasonable for KJS to ask for further evaluation?
#34 Paula Loughlin
[blockquote]if I was 100% sure that the lawyer was being fully truthful about the test results I would agree 100% with you[/blockquote]
Well, I am not a US lawyer, but I would have thought that it would be a very serious matter for one to misinform the Court about the existence, results and distribution of a psychological report.
[blockquote]Let me ask you if Parry was confronted with the test results and he claimed he did not think the results were valid do you think it would be unreasonable for KJS to ask for further evaluation?[/blockquote]
Provided the report was from an accredited professional [rather than say a dean of a theological college] I would not see any grounds for anyone to ask for a further evaluation, or for taking a risk on such an individual. Once such a red flag has been raised, one can’t afford to take risks and if one does, it is foolhardy and negligent as if there is subsequent abuse, one would be opening one’s self and one’s institution to rightful criticism and damages. This is something churches have to be absolutely clear on, and some have had to learn the hard way. Unfortunately other people will pay the price of anything less than an absolute commitment to child safety.
I do agree with you Pagaent Master. I gotta admit though I am curious about a sequence of events. In 2000 Parry seeks admission to another Monastary. He gets shown the door presumbly at least in part because of the psych test results. Next thing that happens he is on the doorstep of the Episcopal Diocese of Nevada. As far as we know there is no time of contemplation. No effort to get in depth treatment for the problems noted in the test. No little check your hat moment where he realizes ministry just may not be right for him. I’m enough of a cynic to believe he might have sought out a place where he would find acceptance if he couched his problems in terms of sexual identity and repression of it by himself and others. I bet there is even a victimology for it.
Parry would have been 58 years old in 2000. Does anyone else think his actions show a startingly lack of self awareness and maturity for somebody of that age? He admits now his actions caused harm. How could he not have known they were harmful 11 years ago?
#36 Paula Loughlin
Indeed, some interesting speculation on what was going through the mind of the individual. However the allegation is that:
[blockquote]“The results of this testing revealed that Fr. Parry was a sexual abuser who had the proclivity to reoffend with minors,â€[/blockquote]
We know that seriel abusers actively seek out positions where they have access to victims, and that is what the report is said to have defined Fr Parry as. Who knows what warped processes go through such individuals’ minds; some seem to see nothing wrong in what they do, or even persuade themselves that is it is to the benefit and growth of their victims.
Nevertheless, when recruiting, the emphasis must be on the suitability of an individual for a position, not how to try to shoehorn an individual into a position if at all possible. When you think about it, this is the way it must be. All institutions where young and vulnerable people attend are attractive to abusers, and they are adept at and cunning about gaining access to them. The only way for these institutions to protet the people in their care is to adopt a zero tolerance approach to the background of candidates and if anything in the background flags up, immediate rejection is the only way to ensure the safety of their people.
The awful thought remains in the background, that if the report on the character of this abuser is correct, then what it is saying is that the abuse was unlikely to have ended when Fr Parry changed churches. We need to pray for the people of All Saints at this time.
I agree with you. Which is why I want to know if Schori had any reason for not using Parry’s admission and the test to reject his candidacy. To me the only reason would be further testing and/or psych evaluation which contradicted the first test’s result and steps to make sure he did not have contact with children while under her employment. Just ignoring those two items would not be acceptable.
I will be really torqued if the argument used for accepting his application is along the lines off “the test was done by RC psychologist to detemine suitability to enter into a Catholic monastary and is designed to screen out homosexual candidates so any homosexual contact or attraction is flagged as being a potential for abuse. Especially since the crisis.”
PS. When I say further testing I also include showing that any underlying reasons for former abuse are no longer a factor. Those could be drug or alcohol addictions or they could be a psychiatric diagnosis which is now controlled by meds. But there better be a compelling reason backed by evidence and medical expertise.
#38/39 Paula
I am sorry, anyone who has abused even one youngster and given such a psychological report should not be hired by a church in any capacity – no ifs, buts or other reports needed. The safety of the vulnerable must be paramount.
PM, Psych tests are not infallible and if there is compelling evidence that other evaluations and testing shows the person does not pose a danger than I don’t think such results should be ignored in deciding whether to hire somebody. I would not say this if the past history involved children below the age of 16. But taken the ages of the persons involved most of whom were over 18, yes I can understand KJS would make a judgment based on further evaluations.
If no such further evaluations took place the point is of course moot. I know I am going against the majority here but I just do not view inappropriate sexual contact with a 16 or 17 year old the same way I would view it with a 12 year old. I do not think it is right. I do not think it is moral. I do think those who target teens of that age are not by medical definition pedophiles. So I don’t think you are going to see the same pathology in those perpetrators as you would in true pedophiles. A true pedophile is incurable, they are going to very likely have multiple victims, they will always pose a danger to children. That is why I want to know how the test defines children. If the test defines children to include everyone under the age of 18 and if further evaluation shows he is no longer a danger to younger and older children both , then sorry I do think it would be valid for KJS to include those results in weighing any hiring decisions.
Now keep in mind the above is all based on what KJS may or may not have done and it only addresses that situation. Obviously she could not do what I think really should have been done. A gay male with past history of inappropriate homosexual contact wants to become a priest. I don’t care how many tests there are or aren’t in his favor. We know such abusive relationships were the majority of cases in the Catholic Church. We know older male-younger male relationships are often viewed favorably by gays. We know young adults are being pressured in many ways to accept same sex attraction and even explore them. Those factors alone should be enough to bar homosexual candidates with a past history such as Parry’s from the priesthood or certain other minsitries.
But if you are a Bishop in a church that is inclusive and that gives its blessing to homosexual relationships you can’t very well give those reasons for refusing to hire somebody. You can also not refuse to hire somebody if it looks like your reasons are prejudicial against homosexuals. “My test was designed to screen out homosexuals.” It is no secret that part of psych testing for entering a monastary is to do just that. So you are a Bishop of an inclusive church with somebody who claims his test is really about his homosexuality. What do you do?
#41 Paula
I think you are getting confused about things for some reason. This is not about the rights of gay candidates [we have no evidence that Fr Parry presented himself as that] or the appropriate procederes for such candidates. It is about the disclosure, not of a prior ‘inappropriate relationship’, but a case of abuse of a vulnerable person. Moreover it is about a report supplied which said that he was a danger to other vulnerable people.
I do not get where you are coming from at all.
PM, No I am not confused. Where I am coming from is very simple. You write “it is not about the rights of gay candidates … but a case of abuse of a vulnerable person” I believe those two things can not truly be separated.
We know the majority of abuse cases in the Catholic Church involved homosexuals preying on post pubescent males. We know the incidents of such abuse are disproportianate to the same type of abuse amongst heterosexuals. So the only way to make sure the vulnerable population (re Parry) is safe from him and others is to ban gay men of certain category from the priesthood. I think the policy should follow the RCC policy: “the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”
I don’t by any means think all gay man pose a danger to teens or children. However looking at the stats from the abuse crisis in the RCC I think such a ban is valid for the protection of certain vulnerable populations. Think of it like an insurance company not writing policies to cover bites by certain breeds of dog. It is not fair to all those cuddle rotties but the insurance company looks at the stats and figure the risk is just not worth it.
The sad thing is if Conception Abbey had observed the 1961 “Religiosorum institutio on Chastity, those to be excluded .”
Parry would not have been accepted into the Monastary.
As far as not having evidence that Parry presented himself as a gay candidate. I was being serious when I wrote that one of the purposes of the pscyh evaluation to enter a monastary is to screen out homosexuals (at least for RCC monastaries.) So yes the test would have revealed if Parry was homosexual.
But let’s be honest the TEC is never, ever going to adopt a policy based on potential risk. So guys like Parry will continue to be hired. I don’t think they should be but if you have a policy that is open to challenge it will be challenged. I’m assuming there is a means by which to challenge current policy in TEC by the remark “The Episcopal Church does not have a one strike you’re out policy.”
Bottom line I don’t know why KJS hired the guy. I am just speculating about her possible reasoning for ignoring what she knew about Parry. I am also trying to show the one thing that probably was not a factor in her decision, his homosexual behavior, should have been enough reason to reject his application. Based on known risks for committing abuse of teenage males.
I hope you and others do not think I agree with what KJS did. I don’t. I just disagree that she could not have found reasons for doing so. Obviously she did.
Well I have written all I plan to. I appreciate every one being so civil during what could have been a very heated discussion. I pray other churches have learned something from the crisis in the Catholic Church and don’t compromise the safety of youth for any reason.
#43 Paula – I am not saying that there is no answer to what KJS did. What I am saying is that there would appear on what has been published to suggest that there is a prima facae case for her to reply to. Whether she will or not, I have no idea, any more than I know whether there are any men or women left in The Episcopal Church who will stand up for their children.
I suspect there is a clear policy in The Episcopal Church much as there is in the Church of England amd was in 2000. Our latest policy dates from 1995 and replaces earlier guidance.
But the usual suspects in TEC appear to be ignoring this and instead knawing their knuckles to the bone about a junior CofE official turning up to see what was going on at the ACNA conference. The men of TEC seem to have had their gonads removed along with their spines.
PM, You are making me break my promise but your wonderful statement “The men of TEC seem to have had their gonads removed along with their spines.”
Just has got to be applauded. Consider it done.
I love when people use their alleged confusion re: their sexuality as a crutch for why they abuse or perform deviant acts. Parry doesn’t do that here, I don’t think, but I’ve seen it done. There are plenty of people out there who do not work out their “confusion”(on any subject) through deviance and abuse.
I am also sick of seeing dioceses viewing the word “NO” as “mean”. Some people should not be ordained and/or work in the Church. “NO” is not mean; it protects the innocent.
And the Church is not an environment where “second chances” on this score should apply. If someone needs a “second chance” at employment with this history, he/she can go work in a supermarket, bookstore, dry cleaners, etc. Someplace where children are scarce…