We are pleased that the Presiding Bishop and Bishop Dan Edwards of Nevada have issued further statements on Bede Parry. In light of these statements, however, two further clarifications are needed.
Anglican Communion Institute–Clarification Needed On Bede Parry
Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Christian Life / Church Life, * Culture-Watch, * Religion News & Commentary, Children, Episcopal Church (TEC), Ethics / Moral Theology, Law & Legal Issues, Ministry of the Ordained, Other Churches, Parish Ministry, Pastoral Theology, Presiding Bishop, Roman Catholic, TEC Polity & Canons, Teens / Youth, Theology
Yes, Mrs Jefferts Schori, exactly what did you know and when, exactly, did you know it? That’s the problem with her partial-disclosure statement. It invites far more questions than it answers.
The Conception Abbey abuse web-site has now posted the statement from the PB. You can view Bede Parry’s statement and Patrick Marker’s comments, alongside the PB’s statement.
Well done, Dr. Seitz.
We are all even more deeply indebted to ACI than ever. Your persistence in highlighting this very disturbing case is much appreciated. This latest ACI statment is admirably bried and objective, but doesn’t pull any punches.
The sheer hypocrisy of the current administration of TEC knows no bounds. The PB is not only a heretic and a tyrant, but a scoundrel.
David Handy+
David+, I suspect that you’ll not be getting a Christmas card from the P.B. this year, nor will you be invited to join her for holiday cocktails.
What exactly did she know? I submit that she knew everything. When did she know it? Probably as soon as the Abbot told her, in my opinion.
Well, here is the thing! We know that with TEC officials and their lawyer-drafted statements that it is important to look at what they do not say, or what they go to some lengths to avoid saying, as much as what they do say. We saw that in the PB’s video testimony to the Virginia Court, and we saw it recently in Bishop Dorsey Henderson’s strained statements in relation to the Mark Lawrence Kangaroo Court he and 815 were making a complete hash of. Following on from ACI’s analysis above and the Presiding Bishop’s statement, this is no exception and gives none of the comfort that some are desperately seeking including Jim Naughton.
So, is there something that KJS is studiously avoiding in her statement? We can look at the three pieces of evidence linking her to knowledge of the Catholic Church psychological report that Bede Parry was unsafe and considered a likely repeat offender:
1. The filings in the Nodaway County Circuit Court in Missouri :
The Petition by John Doe 181 against Conception Abbey states:
2. The evidence of Patrick Marker
Patrick Marker, an abuse victim, gave the following statement in a letter dated July 19th 2011 to Abbot Polan of Conception Abbey, Missouri, in which he quoted from his attendance notes of the following prior telephone conversations they had had:
and
and the letter concludes:
[to be continued]
Cont
3. The Evidence of Bede Parry
Patrick Marker obtained a signed statement from Bede Parry which includes the following:
Then comes his key statement:
So the following statements have been made:
1. In the Petition of victim John Doe 181 to the Nodaway County Circuit Court in Missouri:
“The results of this testing revealed that Fr. Parry was a sexual abuser who had the proclivity to reoffend with minors. The results of this testing were provided to …. the Episcopal Bishop for the Diocese of Nevada
2. In the statement of Patrick Marker of his telephone attendance notes of conversations with Abbot Polan:
“When Bede Parry tried to enter another monastery, he took psychological tests that showed a “proclivity toward sexual misconduct with minors.†….You called … a woman bishop with the Episcopal Church with the information. 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 “proclivityâ€. 8 ) That Katharine Jefferts Schori, despite your revelations, “allowed him to continue to work.â€
And
“Katherine Jefferts Schori had known about Bede’s “propensity to reoffend†for nine years. You will call the new Episcopal bishop in Nevada, Dan Edwards
3. In the statement of Bede Parry:
“Also in 2000, I considered joining the Prince of Peace monastery in Riverside, California. Prince of Peace had me undergo a series of psychological tests…. 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 Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schoriâ€
So, all three sources of information are consistent: Abbot Polan of Conception Abbey told the Presiding Bishop in a telephone conversation in 2002 about the results of the psychological evaluation that Bede Parry was a serial sexual abuser of minors with a proclivity to reoffend.
Now it is worth looking carefully at the Presiding Bishop’s Statement:
It would have been a simple thing for the Presiding Bishop in this carefully constructed response to have addressed the actual allegations of John Doe 181, Patrick Marker and Bede Parry by saying that she had not been told of the results of a psychological report and his proclivity to reoffend, but instead she makes a different statement saying that she did not “receive a copy of any reportâ€, quite a different matter and which is neither alleged by victims John Doe 181 and Patrick Marker nor by offender Bede Parry.
From past experience of such statements by the Presiding Bishop drafted by her lawyers, and those of +Dan Edwards and +Dorsey Henderson, if something has been left out, or if a response does not address the accusation made, it is for a reason. The Presiding Bishop will know, that her statement may indeed come before a Court, possibly she may already have been advised she may be called in the extant Missouri proceedings, so she will have been aware [as she was in the Virginia proceedings] that anything less than scrupulous truth, will risk exposure, and possibly contempt proceedings, so this statement will probably have been carefully drafted with her lawyers.
So – that then raises the question of why she did not address the claims that Abbot Polan had advised her of the results of the psychological tests, and of Bede Parry’s proclivity to reoffend, and instead deals with a claim not made in the three pieces of evidence by denying that a copy of the relevant document was sent to her.
The answer is of course, that in the absence of further ‘clarification’ that we have to assume that this is deliberate caution on the part of the PB and her lawyers in case Abbot Polan is called in proceedings and gives evidence of the telephone contact between himself and the Presiding Bishop, and what three sources say he told her about the damning psychological report on Bede Parry being a menace to children?
[N.B. A detailed timeline by Allan Haley is here]
Pageantmaster, Thank you for the succinct analysis in #6 and #7.
It seems clear to me that the PB is trying to create a gray area of “he said-she said.” The crux of the argument, should they both be called into court at some later date, will be the abbot, stating that in a phone call 10 years ago, he told the PB all about Parry, and the PB stating that the abbot never told her any such thing, but just that Parry had left the RC priesthood to pursue secular employment.
What she hopes everyone ignores is the fact that by virtue of doing all this over the phone, she was negligent- since there is no documentary evidence of Parry’s fitness for the priesthood. It is an oft practiced technique in management that when one is concerned that a decision may be questioned down the line, nothing is written down. Recollections of verbal conversations are evidence but not proof, whereas documents have a much greater legal bearing. You can’t say “I did not know” when the document that says you did know bears your signature.
Clearly, the vetting process that allows a sexual predator to become a priest should be very complete, and include conclusive PROOF that he will not repeat these offenses. There should be all sorts of documentary evidence of the careful steps the bishop went through in determining that Bede Parry had both repented his former lifestyle and transgressions, and that there was PROOF that he was not a danger in the future. Apparently, the process of “background checks” in Nevada is a couple of phone calls, where no one takes notes, and you go with an offhand opinion by the bishop of the person’s character.
The Presiding Bishop may think she is safe from criticism of her handling of the Bede Parry case because so many parents who are concerned about the welfare of their children have already left the church and they are not here to demand safety and Christian teaching for their children — and it may be that the Presiding Bishop will get through this nicely because there are some, otherwise intelligent, Episcopalians who simply would rather remain ignorant of the dangerous and unhealthy challenges that children and young people face in a church culture where leaders like PB Schori, blissfully lead children and their parents into dangerous situations instead of offering the refuge and Christian leadership that everyone in the church needs.
Nevertheless, I hope and pray that, this time, the Bishops of the Church will take notice of the injustice and harm done by predators like Bede Parry and choose to defend the children and young people who are the hope of the Christian Church.
(KC Star) A Missouri man filed a lawsuit today against Conception Abbey in northwest Missouri, alleging a coverup of sexual abuse by a former monk who directed its boys’ choir in the late-1980s. The lawsuit, filed in Nodaway County Circuit Court, claims that Bede Parry, then a Benedictine monk, molested the plaintiff in 1987 during a summer camp at the abbey. At the time, Parry led the Abbey Boy Choir of Conception Abbey.
The plaintiff, who filed the suit under the name John Doe 181, alleges that the abbey knew that Parry had sexually abused other students prior to abusing him but kept it quiet.
“This is a grave institutional failure,†said Jeff Anderson, a Minnesota attorney who represents the plaintiff. “Bede Parry wasn’t able to control himself, but it was the abbot and the top officials who knew that and made the choice to protect themselves at the peril of many kids and young adults.â€
Abbot Gregory Polan, the head of Conception Abbey, told The Kansas City Star this morning that he could not discuss the lawsuit
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/08/3255141/second-suit-filed-against-conception.html
http://www.behindthepinecurtain.com/wordpress/?p=4221