The Presiding Bishop’s office has refused to respond to questions about her alleged violations of Episcopal Church canon law, stating they do not comment on litigation. However, an investigation by The Church of England Newspaper suggests there is a prima facie case that the Presiding Bishop also violated rules she put in place in the Diocese of Nevada governing clergy sexual misconduct when she received the Rev Bede Parry into the priesthood in 2004.
The Presiding Bishop’s silence and the subsequent uproar comes as the Church’s new disciplinary canons came into effect on July 1, making her liable for ecclesiastical discipline for her actions as Bishop of Nevada. It also raises questions about the fairness of the clergy sexual abuse rules, as the canons presume that change of life and rehabilitation are impossible for those who have committed sexual sins.
Under the new rules, anyone from any diocese (or not even an Episcopalian) can initiate the Title IV process. This can be done anonymously.
I wonder whether the proceedings against the PB have already started. As far as I can tell, she is canonically resident in DioNV.
I wonder how the diocesan intake officer could handle a few hundred thousand reports submitted from all over the world.
[blockquote]stating they do not comment on litigation. [/blockquote]
Since when? Their mouthpieces are all over the place whenever property lawsuits are in question.
I fear that this will escalate under a “he said she said” scenario. I am no admirer of the PB and yet I believe that this response from the current +Nevada should be taken into account –
http://www.episcopalnevada.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=156:statement-regarding-resignation-of-fr-bede-parry〈=en
In my opinion this is the correct response on her behalf. It states simply that the record in the diocese shows the process and how the decision to receive was made, also how the PB as then bishop of Nevada did impose a further restriction.
The issue seems to be as to what information was received by the diocese and then why the extra restriction. Was the latter based upon the information stated as received or based on further information to which she was privy?
Meanwhile the comments of the Bishop of Bethlehem are opening the door to a much greater issue as to how the leadership is functioning in this area of dealing with persons with sexual wrongdoing in their pasts.
One more comment as to the last statement in the article by George Conger, that “we are in the forgiveness business.” I agree BUT this does not mean that adequate consequences and protection of others do not need to be in place.
#3 If law enforcement was notified and no charges were presented, what additional consequences would you suggest?
In hindsight, did the additional restriction (stay away from minors) not work?
# 3 and 4–Pedophilia is not to be taken lightly. The statistics are quite clear that anyone afflicted with it to the point if acting out with a child is virtually uncurable. It is also virtually impossible to be a priest and not be in contact with young boys. I can not say what I would or would not have done under the circumstances, but one must question KJS’s attitude and judgement. If she hadn’t known, that is one thing, but knowing, as she obviously did ,and ordaining anyway is of concern. Also her lack of response is bothersome.
Agreed about pedophilia. Except in this case, the guy isn’t a pedophile.
The complexities of this make it difficult to know how best to act. What is – IMHO – to be avoided is either a hysterical response or over blow a causus belli in opposition to the PB.
At whatever pace the investigation of this unfortunate matter proceeds, perhaps the following issues can be considered:
* Parry very likely had strong advocacy for his reception as a priest, often a highly political process. From whom did this advocacy come and what was its basis? Was it because he had a strong command of and could articulate particularly well what it means to be part of the church Catholic universal? Was he a especially fine organist and choirmaster? Was he willing to ‘take’ the least convenient services? Something else?
* In his continuing research, Bishop Edwards might extract and and disclose the number of applicants to clerical ministry in the Nevada diocese during the presiding bishop’s tenure there. How many were in fact received/ordained? How many were turned away? What were, in general, the reasons for applicant failure?
Just because the many folks of the diocese’s Standing Committee and Commission on Ministry were involved in Parry’s acceptance doesn’t mean that it was a ‘good’ process. Is it too harsh to perceive that such governing bodies are often populated by sycophants who are wholly informed by whatever leadership is in place (here, the bishop), good or bad?
More broadly, among the sweltering mass of pewsitters are many who have managed to keep their hands to themselves but still consider themselves to be unworthy for ordained ministry. And they might be now wondering how gents like Parry – and McGreeley in Newark – do-or-might pass muster. Is the Episcopal Church _that_ hard up for priests?
(Posted also to Episcopal Cafe-The Lead, where it apparently won’t pass moderation!)
Actually Bishop Edwards’ statement makes things rather worse, not better.
I haven’t bothered to comment on the PB’s actions in this latest until last night — we all know who she is by now and marveling over her every action is useless. But I’m cross-posting this comment from over at SF:
That is one of the very first things that popped out to me with Bishop Edward’s statement— [i]she knew[/i].
And we know that she knew that Parry committed a sexual violation *of a minor* because she restricted him to no contact with minors as a condition of ordination. Simply incredible.
So let’s get this straight.
Father Parry sexually molested a minor and he broke the law. Not only did he break the law, not only did he commit sexual abuse, but he also violated the position of authority and power that he had over a child in his charge.
All of this Bishop Edwards attempts to pass off by describing this as “An incident with a late adolescentâ€, “morally wrong,†and “a matter for serious concern.â€
No. It was not simply “morally wrong†or “an incident.†It was illegal. It was sexual abuse. It caused obvious anguish to the child and to the parents. And it violated trust and abused power.
And Bishop Schori and apparently the Standing Committee, et al, [i]knew about this[/i].
And they decided that this man—[i]with restrictions from contact with minors[/i]—would make an adequate TEC priest.
I mean . . . how on earth does one act effectively as a priest [i]under restriction from contact with minors[/i]?
Quite honestly, I thought we had somewhat higher standards than this.
I mean—obviously we don’t have all that high of standards for 1) competence or 2) faithfulness to the Gospel.
But who knew that we were so desperate for priests that we needed to receive clergy who sexually abuse minors? And whom *we know* did so?
I mean—talk about cavalier. It’s just breathtaking.
Substitute Benedict XVI for our presiding bishop and the lead story writes itself.
“Agreed about pedophilia. Except in this case, the guy isn’t a pedophile.”
Words have a way of getting redefined these days, don’t they?
OK…to use modern precise terminology, then he’s an ephebophile. Is anyone suggesting that’s OK? Is anyone suggesting that paedophilia is somehow worse than ephebophilia?
Or is ephebophilia the Next Frontier for TEC?
“Or is ephebophilia the Next Frontier for TEC? ”
It very well could bel if they want to be completely inclusive of the gay culture where such relationships are often considered loving and committed and a safe way for youth to explore their sexuality.
I see Sarah has already said, at #9, much of what I think about this. Why would an Episcopal bishop be receiving a priest in her jurisdiction who has admitted to sexual contact with a teenager when he was himself in his forties, a teenager, furthermore, to whom he was an authority figure?
I see the current bishop of Nevada denies the diocese ever received the report which the lawsuit mentions. This plaintiff’s attorney will have to prove his claim. If he can, then we’d be in cover-up territory. On this aspect, we have to wait for evidence.
So cutting through all the euphemisms, is what we have here a 40 year old homosexual male having sex with teenage boys?
The more the Diocese of Nevada chooses to keep silent, the guiltier they look, and the same goes for Schori. It gives one the impression that they have something to hide, and that’s not healthy for them.
As others have noted the most damning admission is this:
[blockquote]Based on the known facts and interviews with Fr. Bede, lay and clergy church representatives agreed that he should be received as a priest. The record shows no dissent. [b]Nonetheless, the bishop added the restriction that he should not have contact with minors.[/b] This was to add double protection and prevent even the appearance of any threat to minors. This restriction and the reasons for it were conveyed by the bishop to people who supervised Fr. Bede’s work. Further, the bishop, in consultation with the diocesan attorney, recommended abuse awareness workshops.[/blockquote]
can we have a little less plain speaking, #14. If you persist, the conjunction of the word homosexual and the phrase “sex with teen age boys” wlll cause you to be held up as an example of bigotry and homophobia and you will be sent to New York to do community service committing ssm’s until you see the error of your ways.
There is only one right way of thinking. Yours is not it. This is the correct thinking: All homosexuality shall be hidden where unsavory, illuminated where popular, evangelized where forbidden, multiplied where permitted. Larry
#17, man, you’re bitter. Your parish probably offers confessions by appointment.
No one, including the Bishop of Nevada, is trying to say that what this guy did was OK. It was repulsive. It was wrong.
Pedophilia is very much a different thing than ebonophilia in that pedophilia has been proven to be a compulsive attraction that is so difficult to overcome that most church authorities have determined that those who are sexually attracted to children should be permanently barred from the priesthood.
I repeat my questions in number 4: if law enforcement was notified and no charges were presented, what additional consequences would you suggest? Additionally, in hindsight, did the additional restriction (stay away from minors) not work in some way?
RE: “I repeat my questions in number 4: if law enforcement was notified and no charges were presented, what additional consequences would you suggest?”
I don’t see any assertion from the other documents — other than from the bishop — that the police were informed about the 1987 sex abuse.
RE: “Additionally, in hindsight, did the additional restriction (stay away from minors) not work in some way?”
Well . . . I guess we’ll never know if the TEC man in the collar was able to use his authority to gain sex with more minors.
Which is kinda the point. We shouldn’t have given the man who had sexual contact with several minors a collar.
17, 🙂