Fascinating Email Exchange raises even more questions about the Presiding Bishop/Bede Parry Case

Patrick J Marker wrote to Abbot Gregory Polan here including this:

*** During our first telephone conversation, on Monday, April 25, 2011, you shared the following information:

1) You heard something about Bede’s 1981 misconduct at St. John’s “at the time of the incident”.

2) You were aware of an incident involving Bede Parry with a member of the abbey’s choir in the summer of 1987.

3) Bede Parry was sent to New Mexico soon after the 1987 incident.

4) When Bede Parry tried to enter another monastery, he took psychological tests that showed a “proclivity toward sexual misconduct with minors.”

5) You called Parry’s boss at an ambulance company and a woman bishop with the Episcopal Church with the information.

6) You identified the woman bishop as Katharine Jefferts Schori.

7) You told Katharine Jefferts Schori not only about the allegations [plural] against Bede, but also of Bede’s attempt to join another monastery, the psychological testing and his “proclivity”.

8 ) That Katharine Jefferts Schori, despite your revelations, “allowed him to continue to work.”

Read it all carefully.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Christian Life / Church Life, * Religion News & Commentary, Episcopal Church (TEC), Ministry of the Ordained, Other Churches, Parish Ministry, Presiding Bishop, Roman Catholic, TEC Parishes, TEC Polity & Canons

11 comments on “Fascinating Email Exchange raises even more questions about the Presiding Bishop/Bede Parry Case

  1. Creedal Episcopalian says:

    [blockquote] In our last conversation, you said that you had to trust your conscience. I find it hard to believe that your conscience is telling you to stonewall.[/blockquote]

    Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark.

  2. cseitz says:

    What prevents AS Haley from bringing charges before the Intake Officer? I mean that sincerely.

  3. wildfire says:


    Canon IV.6:
    [blockquote]Information concerning Offenses may be submitted to the Intake Officer in any manner and in any form….
    Any person other than the Intake Officer who receives information regarding an Offense shall promptly forward the information to the Intake Officer. [/blockquote]

    This is a canonical duty for all clergy. For laity it is permissive, but not mandatory.

  4. Cennydd13 says:

    Then it should be done…..immediately.

  5. David Keller says:

    I know. Let’s get Dorsey Henderson on the case. Right away.

  6. cseitz says:

    Thanks, Wildfire. Perhaps ACI clerics can file charges. It sounds like it is our duty as clergy.

  7. Cennydd13 says:

    Hmmm……perhaps we’re starting something here……..

  8. Cennydd13 says:

    Ya think?

  9. ORNurseDude says:

    In light of the seriousness of the allegations regarding her conduct in the case of Bede Parry when KJS was the Ordinary of Nevada, is she not [b]obligated[/b] – as Presideing Bishop – to inhibit/restrict herself, in accordance with the “new and improved” Title IV canons?
    Perhaps, in the immortal words of Jeremiah Wright, “the chickens [i]are[/i] coming home to roost.”

  10. cseitz says:

    I suspect it wouldn’t hurt to write the gentleman running the Conception Abuse blog and indicate what the procedures are. All one must do is write the Intake Officer, Bishop Clay Matthews. Coming from Mr Marker, this would be a serious concern.

  11. Cennydd13 says:

    9. And one of ’em just laid an egg with this latest revelation.