A.S. Haley–The Bede Parry Case in a Nutshell

There would be absolutely no reason for Abbot Polan to have withheld from Bishop Jefferts Schori all he knew about Father Parry: that because of his “proclivity to reoffend” (as found in a written evaluation in 2000 which resulted in his being rejected for membership in another monastery), he was not employable wherever there would be access to boys or young men — such as in monasteries, or with church choirs.

This, then, is the nub of the matter: Fr. Parry now admits that he lied about his background to Bishop Jefferts Schori. She spoke to his former employer, and either must have learned about his lie then, or must have been so careless as to discount what she learned and/or read. But she went ahead and received him into her Diocese as a priest anyway, so that he could preach and continue assisting with the music and choir at All Saints, Las Vegas. So the simple question for the Presiding Bishop to answer is: Why?

And why, as Episcopalians on both sides of the aisle are asking, will she make no public response to these valid — and genuine — concerns? If one is maintaining impartiality, one does not presume that she is trying to hide anything. But the longer she maintains her silence on a crucial subject which only she can fully explain, the more it looks as though she is the one who is trying to hide something.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Christian Life / Church Life, * Culture-Watch, * Religion News & Commentary, Episcopal Church (TEC), Law & Legal Issues, Ministry of the Ordained, Other Churches, Parish Ministry, Pastoral Theology, Roman Catholic, TEC Bishops, TEC Polity & Canons, Theology

One comment on “A.S. Haley–The Bede Parry Case in a Nutshell

  1. Gretta says:

    Except, what really can she say? If she says, “Even though 2002-2003 was the year of the Boston Debacle where every Catholic bishop was running scared of having ANY priest functioning who had admitted sexual misconduct, I didn’t know or enquire about his background – including that treatment stint at Servants of the Paraclete treatment center in Arizona” (which is now closed because they let their patients go work in local parishes where many reoffended), then she did not do basic due diligence on this suspended Catholic priest. If she admits to knowing about his past and took him on anyway – then she looks exactly like she’s using her Roman counterparts’ playbook. And we know how well that is working out for them…..

    There just is no good answer she can give. But here’s one more question – even if she didn’t get the psych records from the RCs, given his admission, don’t you make the incoming guy submit to an independent psych evaluation just to make sure he’s safe?