Bede Parry’s Signed Statement
Posted in
* Anglican - Episcopal,
* Christian Life / Church Life,
* Religion News & Commentary,
Episcopal Church (TEC),
Ethics / Moral Theology,
Ministry of the Ordained,
Other Churches,
Parish Ministry,
Pastoral Theology,
Presiding Bishop,
Roman Catholic,
TEC Polity & Canons,
Theology
By the timeline given, it sounds hard not to conclude that
1. the psychological verdict cornered Bede Parry, professionally, and left him without a clear next vocation
2. he decided to go into TEC to solve that problem
3. he sought ‘cooperative dismissal’ from RC Orders, so as to begin:
4. the ordination process in Diocese of Nevada
It sounds like the Abbot informed +KJS and all local ecclesiastical (relevant) parties in Las Vegas of the verdict of his diagnosis.
How did the Bishop of Nevada determine he was fit for reception into Orders in TEC, having sought dismissal from RC orders, and having this record?
And this:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/07112011-kansas-city-minefield-episcopal-bishop-knew-of-molester-oped/
[blockquote]… in 2000, I considered joining the Prince of Peace monastery in Riverside, California. Prince of Peace had me undergo a series of psychological tests. After the testing, Prince of Peace’s Abbot Charles Wright informed me I was no longer a candidate. The psychological evaluation had determined that I had a proclivity to reoffend with minors. Abbot Wright called Conception Abbey’s Abbot Gregory Polan with this information.
Abbot Polan would later share the information with Robert Stoeckig from the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas, Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the human resources department at Mercy Ambulance in Las Vegas. Bishop Daniel Walsh, Monsignor Ben Franzinelli, Bishop Joseph Pepe, Archbishop Robert Sanchez and Rev. Bob Nelson were also made aware of my previous misconduct.[/blockquote]
That does rather look like a smoking gun.
As the link seems to come and go, here is the text:
Katharine Jefferts Schori, knew about the sexual abuse activities of a homosexual candidate for the Episcopal priesthood, did nothing about it, and indeed allowed him to become a priest.
Today, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) held a press conference outside the Catholic Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph blaming members of the Catholic, as well as Episcopal, clergy.
The accused clergyman, Bede Parry, is a former member of the Benedictines of Conception Abbey in Missouri. In the 1970s, he sexually abused young males. He was later kicked out of the Abbey, and after being denied entrance into a Las Vegas monastery, he became an organist at All Saints Episcopal in Vegas. He then sought to become an Episcopal priest.
In 2002, he informed the Episcopal Bishop of Nevada at the time, Katharine Jefferts Schori, of his latest (1987) sexual abuse transgression. Shortly thereafter, Bishop Jefferts Schori was told by an official at Conception Abbey about Parry’s past; she was even given damaging psychological records on him.
No matter, in 2004, she welcomed him as an Episcopal priest. In July, 2011 Parry resigned from All Saints Episcopal following a lawsuit against him (he is charged with abuse when he was studying to be a Catholic priest).
It is important to note that at no time was Bede Parry a priest in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph. Nor is it true that the Diocese is named in the lawsuit.
To top things off, Parry is not a Catholic priest. So why is SNAP advising Catholics to “come clean now†when the dirt is not on their hands? Why did it hold a press conference in Kansas City by the Cathedral? Because they hate Bishop Robert Finn? Why wasn’t it in New York City, home to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States? She’s the issue—not Bishop Finn.
SNAP is a dysfunctional, opportunistic bunch, but there is dirt on Catholic hands. Not recent dirt, but dirt nonetheless. It does no one any good to deny that.
Wake me when we’ve moved from, “This is terrible! Someone ought to do something!” to actually filing charges against the Presiding Bishop.
#6 — Nothing prevents anyone from doing that, Mr Johnson, including yourself. I would be very surprised if the Intake Officer had not already received charges for review. Yours would be an addition, so no need sleeping now.
RE: “but there is dirt on Catholic hands . . . ”
Yes yes — [b]everybody look over there at the Roman Catholics!!!!![/b]
I think at this point it is probably not a question of whether someone has filed requests for investigation (if I understand correctly, in the TEC Title IV newspeak, it is the Title IV committee that actually “brings charges” if any are to be brought) with the intake officer, but what action is being taken by the intake officer and Bishop Henderson (who should, actually, be filing themselves). The question is, do the TEC bishops and hierarchy have 1/10 of the courage of the victims who have come forward. Because this is not a case that should (nor could, really) be brought forward by KJS’ long time opponents, it must come (if TEC is to survive) from those of her up-til-now supporters who are serious about protecting children in the church.
Sarah, I am RC and was responding to the comments by William Donohue linked in #2 above. Donohue is the president of the Catholic League and does yeoman’s work countering anti-catholic bias. He overstated his case on this one, however, as he does from time to time, and that needs to be noted.
#7,
The fact that I don’t consider myself an Episcopalian any more might pose a problem or two.
🙂
#10 Overstated, how so? By stating the obvious about the responsibility of the Diocese of Nevada?
Let RCs decide whether he is a loose canon in their own context, but in this instance, he is stating the obvious re: TEC. If not so, how so?
#11 — why?
Absolutely nothing will come of this unless somebody in the TEC hierarchy gets sued for major money and it looks like they might have to cough up a couple of million they don’t have.
#13,
So literally anyone can initiate this?
#15 Yes indeed.
#12 – overstates the Catholic case. Of course there is dirt on our Catholic hands. Donohue should heed the Lord’s words about motes and beams.
In Parry’s statement you have the self-deceit of the abuser and the paedophile – abuse becomes ‘inappropriate’ rather than ‘wrong’. That is the nature of the self-justification.
That said, Parry now admits that the reports went from the abbot to KJS, which corroborates the report from one of the victims recently that the abbot had told him that he had sent the reports to KJS. That is two supporting statements. Of course, KJS is unlikely to admit to that, and if +Edwards is not being disingenuous, then the diocesan files had had the reports removed [or not placed on them] before he became bishop, so the only other witnessese are likely to be [other than diocesan staff at the time] the abbot and abbey itself, and their records of phone conversations and notes and duplicates of correspondence sent to KJS or the diocese.
However, there is one further piece of evidence. KJS apparently gave a supervision stipulation in regard to Parry and restricted his contact with youngsters, notwithstanding that this was not passed on. So that is further corroboration that she was in receipt of information which made that stipulation and restriction necessary. That is three pieces of evidence which corroborates her knowledge and to some extent her concern. As the Curmudgeon points out, in addition, the TEC and diocesan regulations required her to undertake searches and enquiries, which had she done so, would have turned up this information.
There is a smoking gun as far as her knowledge is concerned and as people on all sides are pointing out questions needs to be answered by her.
Tj, you said it very well. It remains for those Episcopalians in both the lay and clerical orders who are truly alarmed and who are concerned for the welfare of the Church’s children, and for the Church itself, which is even now suffering damage from this scandal…..to demand a full and complete investigation of the allegations against PB Jefferts Schori in accordance with the Church’s Constitution and Canons. It is their responsibility to do so.
RE: “Donohue should heed the Lord’s words about motes and beams.”
Ah — I understand now. It’s actually “[b]how dare that Roman Catholic defend the specific actions taken in this particular case by his church, and also point out the perfidy and corruption of the current leader of The Episcopal Church in this particular case!!![/b]”
I guess probably the reason for holding the press conference where they did is to try to keep the Shawn Ratigan issue in that RC diocese also on the boil, and attempt making both the RCC and TEC look derelict of duty, all at once. And Donohue does well, it seems to me, to point out that the two situations are not directly related – i.e., Bede Parry is not Shawn Ratigan. It appears Bp. Finn inherited a really bad situation and regrettably did not respond quickly or fully enough w/r/t to the Ratigan mess to fend off legal action. This is in turn because SNAP now appears to be as much a lawyers’ project as an abused’s support organization, and as such the lawyers may just seek to blur RCC and TEC distinctions.
#16,
Hmmmmm.
Re # 11,
Christopher,
In the words of the late William F. Buckley… “Is there be anyone on the face of this Earth, from the Dali Lama to the Pope of Rome who can be absolutely certain that he is not in fact an Episcopalian?”
Sarah –
Your #16 gives no evidence of understanding my point, and doesn’t even make sense, given that I AM ROMAN CATHOLIC, and addressing only Donohue’s factual inaccuracy, which is that us Catholics do have dirt on our hands in the Bede Parry case. Not current dirt, but dirt. If nothing else, it’s precious to declaim on Parry not being a Catholic priest (factually correct) when he was ordained after several behaviors that should have stopped the ordination process and sent him to jail, depending on the laws and law enforcement in Missouri at the time, or at least to an enclosed monastery where he could do penance separated from potential victims.
I am not, and will not be, addressing the matter of the Episcopal Diocese of Nevada nor the current Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. That is a matter for Episcopalians and other Anglicans to sort out. It’s your business, not ours, except as we pray for you in Christian fellowship.
TACit probably has the right of it: Donohue’s interest appears more to rebuff SNAP and manage the mess in Kansas City. Bp. Schori is secondary.
As a member of a diocese that (Praise God) has, at least, half a dozen faithful Christians seeking to begin the ordination process every year and where just about any parish vacancy brings dozens, if not hundreds, of applicants, I find it incredible that there could be any diocese that would consider a candidate that had already been turned down by another “faith tradition.” That, in itself, should have raised all kinds of red flags.
Hmmmm….anyone have bishop Matthews email? Do complaints to the intake officer need to be in some particular format (ie- snail mail, fax, email)? Can we include the numerous non-canonical “acceptance of renunciations”?
#26 Well tj, those I have seen so far have a large pile of waste paper attached as an annexure prepared by Goodwin Proctor with a paragraph at the bottom claiming that these prove the case.
As to Bede Parry’s statement, this reads to me as if an attorney wrote it up. Whoever wrote it, it seems more like a response to questions posed by the court or the cops. Since he served as both a RC and TEC priest, I am inclined to think that if he had intended this as a false confession (sort of, yes, he did it, but it wasn’t really wrong), he would have come up with a more “churchy” document.
This reads to me more like he recounted names and dates to a legal adviser, who put it in its current form, and he signed it.
Probably long overdue, in 2002, in response to the plethora of abuse cases, the Roman Catholic Church produced a document which stated clearly ‘one strike and you are out.’ (I believe Parry even used this language with regard to conversations he says he had with Nevada TEC.) So, in the light of this there was a ‘cooperative dismissal’ from RC Orders. It did not take much time for him to approach TEC Nevada. He admitted prior sexual abuse. His superiors told TEC Nevada and corroborated/amplified. He had been dismissed from Orders. Yet he was received as a Priest.
What was the Diocesan thinking? Was this some kind of odd attack on the Roman Catholic Church? The entire thing just seems morally indefensible and also lacking any logic. Was the strong stand of the RCC in its 2002 guidelines being rejected in favor of TEC’s enlightened theology and practice?
[b]Professor Seitz[/b],
Rather than your question [blockquote]”[i]What was the Diocesan thinking[/i]?”[/blockquote] and assuming that by thinking you are referring to the conscious process of analysis using reason, I would humbly suggest that the more accurate question would probably be [blockquote][b]Was[/b] the Diocesan thinking?[/blockquote] I would also humbly suggest that the answer to the latter question is almost surely in the negative.
[i]Pax et bonum[/i],
Keith Töpfer
[i][b]#26 tjmcmahon[/b] or anyone else interested[/i],
The email address for The Rt. Rev’d F. Clayton Matthews is: [blockquote] cmatthews@episcopalchurch.org [/blockquote] He is head of their Office of Pastoral Development, which includes the Title IV Disciplinary Committee. And I would presume that you can include any action on the part of [b]She Who Must Be [/b][strike]obeyed[/strike] [b]Accused[/b] which you can logically show is a violation of TEC’s canon law.
[i]Oleum in ignem coniectis, maneo obediens servus tuus
[/i]
Keith Töpfer
What I don’t understand about this is that this was all taking place in 2002 – RIGHT AT THE TIME that Boston was breaking. At the time there was much collective panic in the RC church among bishops and religious superiors to get rid of their problem clergy as quickly as possible with as little liability as possible. The “voluntary laicization” is a much faster process, and would certainly have indicated that Perry knew the writing was on the proverbial wall that he was going to be dismissed one way or the other. And these same RC authorities were also being warned by their lawyers DO NOT allow your abusive priests to transfer to new locations without the receiving group being warned (thus the evaluation by the new group that indicated his continued proclivity to offend). This makes me think that if the abbot had warned the RC folks, his lawyers were probably warning him to notify ANYONE who wanted to employ Perry. Including KJS.
So how is it, that an RC priest, laicized at the time when the WHOLE RC US WORLD is falling apart from allegations of sexual abuse, that this recently laicized Catholic priest wasn’t put under a microscope before being accepted? Or worse, when the RC Church is falling apart over the mishandling of accused priests, and Cardinal Law is being run out on a rail for retaining abusive priests, how is it that a bishop knowingly accepts one with the same problem? It truly boggles the mind. How is it with Boston daily on the front pages of newspapers all over the country, that someone could think this was a good idea?
Excerpts from the public statement of +Nevada. If the PB is not interested in coming out from behind this statement, it is now the case, in the light of newer information (see ‘to this day’ below), that the Bishop’s own statements need revisiting and questions answered. There is more in the public domain now and it contradicts this statement.
“It has been reported that there was a psychological examination showing that he was likely to repeat his offense. No such report was sent to the Diocese of Nevada and, to this day, we have no knowledge of its existence other than an assertion by the plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer in a John Doe lawsuit against the monastery. Reliable testing to predict such sexual abuse was not even developed until nearly two decades later, so the assertion in the John Doe complaint is dubious. The Diocese of Nevada, however, did have our own independent psychological evaluation done by a psychologist and it did not indicate any pathology or risk.”
and
“At the time of Fr. Bede’s application, he had been working in churches as an organist for 15 years without a hint of any impropriety. An incident with a late adolescent, while certainly morally wrong, and unquestionably a matter for serious concern, does not indicate pedophilia.”
and
“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. Nonetheless, the bishop added the restriction that he should not have contact with minors. 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.”
and
“For nearly a decade since that decision, Fr. Bede has served faithfully, still without a hint of misconduct. Some in the blogosphere want to speculate that there have been ongoing depredations that have not come to light. I wish there were a way to reassure them, but since their imaginings are purely the fantasies of their own minds, there is nothing we can do to answer that. It is impossible to prove a negative. The facts are that for fifteen years before Fr. Bede became a priest and for over nine years since he became a priest, there has been no report, formal or informal, credible or incredible, no rumor or innuendo of any repetition of the incident that is alleged to have occurred in Missouri a quarter of a century ago.”
Read that last sentence in the light of what is now known.
Could Patrick Marker ask Bede Parry to respond to the statement of +Nevada? Could someone interview +Nevada again in the light of what is now known and ask for an explanation?
So when will this matter become a disciplinary issue for the bishop who so far has been a teflon PB? This hasn’t been her only offense against the canons, but apparently no one dares to challenge her. Probably because like Anglicanism in general, no one has any authority to do anything.
No one except the TEC bishops, and they won’t move unless they get a good swift kick in the backside!
Does anyone else see what should be a parallel between this mess and the Penn State/Sandusky/Paterno matter? The media is piling on the latter with an exuberance that would gladden the heart of every football coach, were he to see it done by his offense. The media silence regarding the former, and the silence of other TEC leadership and parishioners, is, well, Horton could hear a Who.
No. 37, it may be that the Penn State football program is a matter that elicits more general current readership interest (particularly at this point) than a Catholic priest who molested boys (sadly, an oft-told story) more than two decades ago.
#38 Perhaps it is a sign of marginalisation of general readership interest in the Episcopal Church in particular and in Christians in general in the media? That is not to say that for all of us, the ordination of a known offender is any less of an issue or a scandal because of the young and vulnerable people it recklessly places at risk.
But it is a continuing general problem where it is hard to get institutions and individuals to be held accountable, as one can see in the UK as well from the news here and here
No. 39: the Episcopal Church is one of the smaller of the so-called “mainstream” denominations in the United States, and things that happen within it are, particularly in a relatively small diocese like that of Nevada, particularly things that happened many years ago, are not likely to get the near the same press treatment that crimes committed under the nose of a major university football programme receives. You may be right that this is reflective of a general lack of interest in Christian issues, but by any objective measurement, this personnel decision in a remote diocese some years ago is not going to light up the general press. It also tends to fade into the general scandal about priests abusing children in the RC Church, a story that has gotten a fair degree of attention, but which, in journalistic eyes, is old news now. I keep trying to discern whether this particular guy (Bede Parry) committed any crimes after joining TEC. People are spun up enough about the story to make me think he did, but no one, and no post covering it, makes that claim, and I doubt anyone would fail to note it had it occurred.