The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has declined to respond to questions concerning her ordination to the priesthood of a paedophile. Her silence has prompted questions from liberals and conservatives in the church about what she knew of the Rev. Bede Parry’s confessed abuse of boys, and when she knew it.
The lawsuit says, “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.” Three months treatment to deal with many years of sexual misconduct? Touching faith in psychological treatment – but not uncommon at the time.
The language in the heading might seem to imply that the current PB was “charged” with something in this lawsuit. The suit is directed at the Roman Catholic organization that dealt with Bede Parry in the years when he sexually molested the then-minor plaintiff. To the extent this realtes to the Presiding Bishop of the TEC, the narrative of the complaint recites, presumably for context of what happened to Parry in later years, that he was ordained in the Episcopal Diocese of Nevada and that the then Bishop was aware of his past and his predilections. That is a matter worth inquiry, no doubt, but not because it is an element of this lawsuit. The charge in the complaint would be the same regardless of Parry’s subsequent employment history and regardless of whether the procedures and execution of those procedures at the Diocesan level in Nevada were adequate and appropriate.
Bishop Marshall’s remarks say it all! Nothing will come of this. The Pee Bee will slide through. One only needs to compare the treatment of Bp Steven Plummer of Navaholand and Bp Ci Jones of Montana. Plummer gets off with a handslap for sexually abusing his teenage nephew and Jones gets defrocked for an extramarital affair he was engaged in as a priest 20 years prior to the charges being leveled. One bishop was a liberal and one was a conservative. I’ll bet you can guess which bishop was which.
Sooner or later, even the most “progressive” bishops are going to tire of their Church…..and their reputations…..being dragged through the mud because of the shenanigans of the past few years. What do you suppose will happen then? I’m not as sanguine as you are, David, and even though I’m no longer an Episcopalian (thank God!), I still have friends in TEC who despise that woman, and they are fed up to the point where they intend to petition General Convention to get rid of her “for the sake of the Church’s survival.”
The title here is cleverly written — Conger is that.
Is the paraphrase: In a lawsuit against a sexual abuser and the Abbey he worked at, we learn that a psychiatric report was sent out to the Diocese of Nevada in which it is stated that the abuser ‘had a proclivity to abuse minors.’
Was he re-ordained? Aren’t former RC priests typically received?
No. 5: Someone mentions that in the Comments section of this article.
#’s 5 & 6:
I was thinking the same thing – perhaps he was Laicized by the RCC which would then explain a TEC ordination? That being said (hypothetically) – all the more reason for adequate inquiry by the Diocese of Nevada into the circumstances of his desire to minister within the TEC.
The facts still seem murky. He says he told Jefferts-Schori about the 1987 event, calling it “sexual misconduct.” It seems to me that a bishop should investigate that, and as the story is presented now she seems to have been far too casual about accepting what Parry said at face value — if that’s what happened. A key might be some proof that the 2000 report was provided to the Diocese of Nevada and that it says what the lawsuit alleges it says. I don’t say these things as a supporter of the PB, but because even people we don’t approve of are entitled to have the evidence presented. Surely someone else in Nevada must have been aware of something about this story. I hope they will step forward.
#8 — Yes. The present Bishop of Nevada made a very compressed statement. Even he could presumably check the records and determine if the psychiatric report was received/reviewed, etc. If the PB is going to remain silent, I wonder if SNAP ought to be more diligent in seeking answers.
I’m not sure that there’s an effective way, within TEC channels, to demand (and get) full accountability from all concerned.
So, anyone who can apply pressure from the outside, via the news media and legal avenues, should have at it.
This story cannot be allowed to fade into the sunset.
I’m with David, I find it difficult to believe she’ll face any repercussions whatsoever.
Did he commit any offenses after becoming an Episcopalian?