The former rector of All Saints Church in Las Vegas, Fr. Eldwin Lovelady told CEN that during the five years Fr. [Bede] Parry was his assistant “I found him to be faithful to his priestly ministry, a wonderful pastoral presence to me and to members of the parish, and a friend.”
In an apparent contradiction to the bishop’s claim that restrictions were placed on Fr. Parry’s ministry and the “reasons for it conveyed” by Bishop Jefferts Schori to his supervisors, Fr. Lovelady said he “never had even the smallest hint of any kind of inappropriate behavior, or any inclination to such. I was not aware of anything in his past and now that I’ve been made aware of these allegations, I have not changed my opinion about Bede in any way and if I were still in the diocese of Nevada, I would be supporting him.”
Bishop Edwards’ claim the diocese did not receive the 2000 psychological profile of Fr. Parry is at odds, as he notes, with the claim made in a lawsuit filed last month in Missouri, which stated the Episcopal Diocese was given a copy of the report. However, the bishop’s further contention that any psychological profile conducted in 2000 that indicated a predilection for abuse would be “dubious” as such tests would not be developed until “20 years later” appears to be a misstatement.
Sorry, but the decision to divert the blame for receiving Parry into the Episcopal priesthood does not detract from the [b]fact[/b] that as Bishop of Nevada at the time, KJS was responsible. Leadership principles dictate that responsibility cannot be delegated, but authority can. In this case, she was, and still is, responsible, and she utterly failed, and therefore, she must continue to be held responsible for this state of affairs.
Cennydd–We think so much alike it is downright scary. If she was a conservative rather than a left wing radical the Attorneys General of Nevada and New York would already be investigating her. And we now know, not only did she know about the man’s problems, but the “record” which shows she advised his supervisor is either false or fabricated.
Which further illustrates why she needs to be dealt with, and if her House of Bishops or General Convention won’t do it, then it is up to the laity…….the ones who really [b]DO[/b] care about the survival of TEC…….to take action against her and those who support her. I am quite sure that there are enough good attorneys in TEC’s membership who are fed up with her and her friends and who would dearly love to see them gone.
If they have had enough of them, they should be ready, willing, and able to file suit against them in civil court……no matter what the cost, because if they don’t, then TEC might as well close up shop, turn out the lights, and lock the doors, because they’ll be out of business. People are not going to stand for this much longer, and I guarantee you that the exodus from TEC will continue to the point where there’ll be nothing left but the walls.
In the meantime, the ACNA will continue to grow, and grow, and grow.
And this is separate from the RCC’s case wherein the Church failed to prosecute Parry. There was nothing to stop Schori from doing anything about him, except that she chose not to. Therefore, a suit against her and her friends should be filed.
Oh…but she checked the canons and said it was okay! There, there, the boo-boo is all better now.
Which further proves her incompetence as a bishop, but it [i]does[/i] prove that she is a schemer who will stop at nothing to get her own way. [i]She has got to be stopped![/i] The question is one of who will have the nerve and determination to do it.