Bede James Parry was serving as organist and music director at All Saints Church, Las Vegas, when I became aware of him. His arrival preceded my own in the Diocese of Nevada.
He approached me to inquire about being received as a priest, having served as a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. At the time, he told me of being dismissed from the monastery in 1987 for a sexual encounter with an older teenager, and indicated that it was a single incident of very poor judgment. The incident was reported to civil authorities, who did not charge him. He told of being sent to a facility in New Mexico, serving as a priest thereafter both in New Mexico and in Nevada, and recently (2002) being asked to formalize his separation from the monastery.
In consultation with other diocesan leadership and the chancellor, we explored the possibilities and liabilities of receiving him. I wrote to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas and the Diocese of Santa Fe, receiving brief responses from each bishop, who indicated no problematic behavior. I wrote to Conception Abbey, from whom I received only an acknowledgement that he had served there, been sent for treatment to a facility in New Mexico, and had been dismissed for this incident of misconduct. Neither then nor later did I receive a copy of any report of a psychological examination in connection with his service in the Roman Catholic Church. His departure from the Roman Catholic priesthood had to do with his desire to take up secular employment.
Parry was required to fulfill all the expectations of the canons regarding reception of a priest from another communion in historic succession. He did undergo a psychological exam in the Diocese of Nevada, was forthcoming about the incident he had reported to me, and did not receive a negative evaluation. His background check showed no more than what he had already told us. He was forthcoming about the previous incident in his interviews with the Commission on Ministry and with the Standing Committee.
I made the decision to receive him, believing that he demonstrated repentance and amendment of life and that his current state did not represent a bar to his reception. I was clear that his ministry would be limited to an assisting role, under the supervision of another priest, and like any other diocesan leader, he would not be permitted to work alone with children. Since that time, as far as I am aware, he has served faithfully and effectively as a minister of the gospel and priest of this Church.
The records of his reception are retained by the Diocese of Nevada, and further questions should be directed to Bishop Dan Edwards.
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church
This was posted below on the ACI essay:
The PB has made a statement.
Several things are unclear. The PB says she did not receive a psychiatric report. Parry says the Abbott told her about its contents.
Did she not receive a report but was told all the same?
The PB says he left the RC Priesthood because he wanted to pursue secular work. Parry says he was in a dismissal, and in the light of RC statements in 2002, he was in the ‘one strike you’re out’ category. He even says that he used this language with the Nevada Episcopal Diocese.
And if he wanted to pursue secular work, why did he return to a religious vocation?
There is further the discrepancy between +Edwards saying Parry was not to have any contact with minors and the PB saying there was no special restriction, just what obtained for any adult working with minors.
One looks forward to the admirable Curmudgeon’s analysis of this rather poor excuse for an excuse.
The events at Penn State U. have heightened the Public’s attention to these issues. The timing of the PB’s statement in and of itself speaks louder then her words. Her conduct at the inception of her involvement with Mr. Bede is unseemly at best. As with the hierarchy at PSU, the term “CYA” comes to mind with respect to the PB and Bishop Edwards. Based upon the mindset of both and their majority, the desire to gloss this over is predictable.
Even taking Jefferts Schori’s statement at face value, she does not explain why Parry should ever have been considered for the priesthood in her diocese. Parry admitted to her that he, as a forty-something priest, had sex with an under-eighteen male over whom he had supervisory authority. The priesthood is not a right which we can claim if we repent and do our time.
Exactly, Katherine. That’s what is so puzzling. Our church didn’t need this guy and we don’t have a big ole priest shortage like the RCC. So why on Earth admit him?
I will say this. A shiver went up my spine when I read this line:
[blockquote]At the time, he told me of being dismissed from the monastery in 1987 for a sexual encounter with an older teenager, and indicated that it was a single incident of very poor judgment.[/blockquote]
Am I being overly sensitive and worried if I wonder about this being used as a justification or excuse? As in, well, it was an older youth, practically an adult and he IS sorry about it! That’s the kind of crappy illogic the RCC used to justify its coverups and move-alongs. Surely, KJS isn’t dumb enough to follow their game plan — or is she excusing this on the basis of “he’s a gay man, that’s his nature, and it wasn’t a little kid”? I hope I’m wrong and my creep-ometer is just highly sensitized from my RC days.
It seems clear that at least one lawyer earned serious money helping draft this, as it works hard to be ambiguous at all the places where the details really matter.
What is possibly most revealing about it is the difference in consequences, even if it is accepted at face value. You can enter someone into the priesthood who, as a middle aged man, has had sexual relations with ‘an older teenager’ (putting aside the question of competency as to whether a Bishop receiving such an admission should suspect that such a person might well have offended more, and so really look very hard into that supposed leaving from Catholic orders out of a desire for secular employment) and the next Bishop can say it was all done well and within the canons.
And you can receive an Anglican priest who has happened to work in *cough* ACNA *cough* and it is listed as one of a set of grave charges possibly/probably leading to abandonment of communion.
Revisionists show constantly by their actions, and the judgements they make on actions, that they don’t care about immorality, nor do they care about protecting the vulnerable (unless the vulnerable is the cause of the decade), but they do care about maintaining the ‘name brand’ of the institution.
It would appear that Bede Parry explained the RCC discipline events as unfair discrimination against him for being gay. Politiclally correct persons such as the PB who see homophobia behind anything are likely to buy such an argument hook, line and sinker.
Of course anyone who knows about Mr. Bede’s actions is aware of a high propensity of sex abusers to re-offend, usually leaving in their wake multiple victims. One would think this at least would have given the PB pause before making him a priest in her diocese.
She mentions Bede Parry admitted his action was “a single incident of very poor judgment. ” I think one might charitably use the same verbage regarding +Shori”s decision to allow him to function as a priest.
The Presiding Bishop’s statement may seem to be a defense but it is clearly an offensive tactic meant to deny the truth about Bede Parry and create the FICTION that Bede Perry is a one time offender – of course that is NOT TRUE but many people will accept this fiction even though unfortunate children who attend a church where he is (or was) Priest could easily be victimized by this REPEAT OFFENDER.
The Bishops of the church may not want to talk about this but if they are concerned at all about the children of the church they should take notice because the success that Bede Parry achieved in the Episcopal Church (despite his record as a child abuser) probably will embolden others who wish to use their position to take advantage of innocents who mistakenly respect them because of their position in the church.