Item 28, pps 4-5 states that Bishop of Nevada Katharine Jefferts-Shori also received the psychiatric report. Since she made Parry a priest despite this and his confession, she evidently does not view pedophilia or ephebophilia as a bar to priesthood. While in Nevada, Shori also invited John Spong to present his licentious sexual and theological notions.
This is a very damning indictment of the defendant, the Catholic Church, and Katharine Jefferts Schori, and I hope the plaintiff receives full justice. But what’s just as important is the fact that the Presiding Bishop could very well be hauled into court, and if so, she is going to have to testify about her acceptance of Bede Parry while knowing full well about his past. That is going to take a [b]lot of explaining,[/b] and I would [b]not[/b] like to be in her shoes. I don’t think that shifting the blame to the Catholic Church is going to work.
I believe (the new post-July 1) Title IV indicates the requirement for ‘self-reporting’ negligence. Haley has the relevant texts. Almost on the very day this story broke, the announcement of a disciplinary committee in relation to the new Title IV was made. There could be some serious whirlwind reaping given the wide scope now granted to ‘national church’ generated committees and the PB. The optics of all this are not good, given the Nevada news.
It appears that unless a new (tragic) victim is on the horizon, in the Nevada context, the Presiding Bishop is not going to speak up at all. One wonders how durable that approach will prove over time.
It seems KJS is about to find out how it feels to be on the receiving end of a serious lawsuit, with her being named personally as a defendant. Not quite like giving depositions in VA.
I think that, any way one looks at it, KJS’s testifying or not won’t make the slightest difference in how the court looks at her complicity in this case. The evidence is there for all to see, and it’s going to take some slick maneuvering to get her off the hook. I say “Let the chips fall where they may, and let justice be done.”
#5 — are you anticipating her being named alongside the Abbey? Absent any abuse victims stepping forward, with what would she be charged re: criminality?
The answer is I believe clear. To be named, she would have to be charged with criminal offense and for that there would need to be a victim bringing charges. As it stands, the petition is made against the hierarchy within which the crimes were alleged to have happened: The Abbey is charged for hiding a sex offender and describing him in other terms.
As for the PB, see my comments in #3.
We all know there is a difference between what is “legal” and what is “social” or “political”. It wouldn’t bode well for any bishop for it to be internationally known that he/she had accepted into Orders a person who admitted a history of a sex offense involving minors or otherwise.
I wonder who is worse–one who does something bad or those who give him/her a “pass” for doing something bad. We shall see.
This goes beyond ‘affirmative action’, beyond favoritism, even past expediency and bending the law, to actually ignoring the law. She’s done this on other occasions during her ‘reign’.
You cannot advocate sin without disregarding and violating God’s law. This will eventually lead to violating man’s law – for as I John 3:4 says, “sin is lawlessness.”
If it were possible, KJS should be charged with knowingly accepting a priest who is a known pedophile, and by doing so, thereby ignoring the Abbey’s record in that regard. What will her General Convention do about it? Well, if they have any integrity, they’ll find some way of disciplining her, but most likely, they’ll sweep it under the rug. And her lawyers will no doubt find some way to protect her. God, however, is an entirely different matter, and I don’t think He will be so forgiving.
At the moment +Marshall seems to be the only one making any noise. Considering that Bennison survived, I imagine they’re going to sweep this under the rug. The masses of +Katharine adoring bishops and deputies will not brook any sort of action against her, even if it dampens their favorite leisure activity (schadenfreude vis a vis the RC scandals). Barring any increased publicity, additional lawsuits, additional post-reception victims, or further bishops (like +Marshall) emerging to criticize her I would be incredibly surprised if this affects her one whit.
Or at least as far as TEC is concerned. The rest of Anglicanism, however, minus her cronies in her satellite provinces, is an entirely different matter, and there’s no guarantee that they will tolerate this much longer before taking action to further isolate her and her followers. There is no guarantee that they won’t.
Regarding the suit against the Abbey. Please keep in mind that an improper sexual relationship with someone who is over 18 is not illegal. An improper sexual relationship with someone who is over 16 is morally repugnant and depending on the type of contact and the laws of Missouri of the time may or may not have been illegal. But it is definetely not pedophilia for a adult male to be attracted to a post pubescent mal. It is homosexual predation.
If the Abbey had gone by the standards for the acceptance of candidates in force at the time of Parry’s entrance into the Abbey he never would have been accepted. This whole mess and the pain of the victims could have been avoided if the rules had been followed.
Might want to watch your definition of “post-pubescent”:
“In the United States, the first sign of puberty occurs on average at age 11 in girls, with menstruation and fertility following about two years later. Boys lag behind by about two years. Puberty may not begin until age 16 in boys and continue in a desultory fashion on past age 20”.
Call it “homosexual predation” or late for dinner if you want, it still doesn’t make it right. And calling it pedophilia is not a hard case to make, especially if the victims are under the legal age of adulthood and consent.
Which in my opinion means that everyone involved in perpetrating this crime and the coverup is liable for arrest and prosecution…….regardless of who he or she is. My [i]own[/i] opinion, of course.
#17, I did not say I thought inappropriate sexual contact (and to me that would include any homosexual contact) with post pubescent males was right.
No I do not need to watch my definition. Pedophiles are attracted to children who have not yet developed sexual charateristics. Parry’s victims as far as is known were teenagers. That would make him a homosexual predator.
If an adult is attracted to a youth who is physically mature but has a mental capacity of a child (whether because of chronological age or other reasons) I would venture to guess that there is more going on in their sick little brain than just what is listed in the sexual disorder section of the DSM.
I think the distniction between pedophiles and homosexual predators is an important one because I believe the popular liberal thought that homosexuals are just like heterosexuals except for choice of partners is in error and does not honestly address the very big differences in the sexual cultures between the two groups. Differences that make the abuse the happened with Parry more likely to happen again.
I doubt TEC would have a problem with the outright rejection of somebody with a past history of true pedophilia and a psych test that specified minors meant pre pubescent children. But acceptance of homosexual candidates is pretty much a given, except one would hope when big red flags show up re:Parry.
Is such acceptance going to prevent an honest look at what was learned in the John Jay Study about the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church? Is such acceptance going to ignore that sexual relationships between adult males and teenagers is more readily accepted and even lauded in much of the gay culture?
I think it is and that is why I believe more cases like Parry will happen. I’ve written before I do not at all believe all homosexual men pose a danger to youth. But I think TEC should look at the stats and formulate a policy that takes into account the risks shown by those stats.
Fine idea, Paula, and I truly wish they [i]would[/i] formulate such a policy, but if past experience since KJS’s election is any indicator, it won’t happen anytime soon.
#20, splitting definition hairs is largely beside the point. Parry’s psych report said he had, to paraphrase, the possibility of reoffending with “minors”. It doesn’t matter whether they are prepubescent, pubescent, postpubescent, or Martian, the man’s report should have raised red flags all over the place. Not to mention the man is also guilty of a complete lack of boundaries, in that he crossed the line and abused people that were under his care. The penalty should have been the same even if he was a choirmaster having straight affairs with adult women in his choir–“YOU’RE OUT, AND YOU STAY OUT”…and, if he then decides to seek Holy Orders or church employment in other denominations, he gets a psych eval and a background check at that time. It’s true that the background check will only report what it knows, so if criminal charges were not brought against him before, nothing might reveal itself in that case. One can only hope that digging around in his employment history and RC service would have produced the “problem”. And, even then, if the adopting or transferring hierarchy is going to ignore what it discovers; well, then, that’s a whole different but contributing issue.
Yes it should have raised red flags. I have written before that only if subsequent testing contradicted the first test results would there be a possible defense for his hiring. Even then I would expect conditions to be met such as ongoing counseling before he was fully accepted into the TEC priesthood.
I have commented before also on his lack of boundaries and how to me this is not uncommon within the gay culture. His behavior showed a lack of maturity and self understanding that in my opinion is unacceptable for a person in the minsitry. There is no way I can imagine him not continuing in such behavior unless he was very closely supervised and restricted in his day to day contacts.
I also would love to know just how detailed a background check was required. Did they require and did Parry consent to a release of all medical records including those which would be available from his pre ordination treatment at Paraclete?
Item 28, pps 4-5 states that Bishop of Nevada Katharine Jefferts-Shori also received the psychiatric report. Since she made Parry a priest despite this and his confession, she evidently does not view pedophilia or ephebophilia as a bar to priesthood. While in Nevada, Shori also invited John Spong to present his licentious sexual and theological notions.
This is a very damning indictment of the defendant, the Catholic Church, and Katharine Jefferts Schori, and I hope the plaintiff receives full justice. But what’s just as important is the fact that the Presiding Bishop could very well be hauled into court, and if so, she is going to have to testify about her acceptance of Bede Parry while knowing full well about his past. That is going to take a [b]lot of explaining,[/b] and I would [b]not[/b] like to be in her shoes. I don’t think that shifting the blame to the Catholic Church is going to work.
I believe (the new post-July 1) Title IV indicates the requirement for ‘self-reporting’ negligence. Haley has the relevant texts. Almost on the very day this story broke, the announcement of a disciplinary committee in relation to the new Title IV was made. There could be some serious whirlwind reaping given the wide scope now granted to ‘national church’ generated committees and the PB. The optics of all this are not good, given the Nevada news.
It appears that unless a new (tragic) victim is on the horizon, in the Nevada context, the Presiding Bishop is not going to speak up at all. One wonders how durable that approach will prove over time.
It seems KJS is about to find out how it feels to be on the receiving end of a serious lawsuit, with her being named personally as a defendant. Not quite like giving depositions in VA.
I think that, any way one looks at it, KJS’s testifying or not won’t make the slightest difference in how the court looks at her complicity in this case. The evidence is there for all to see, and it’s going to take some slick maneuvering to get her off the hook. I say “Let the chips fall where they may, and let justice be done.”
And even if she does get off the hook, her reputation is still badly tarnished, and that is not going to bode well for her or TEC.
#5 — are you anticipating her being named alongside the Abbey? Absent any abuse victims stepping forward, with what would she be charged re: criminality?
I’m not an attorney, so I don’t have an answer to your question. Still, it would be nice if she were held accountable.
What she did was wrong, and I think she knew it.
The answer is I believe clear. To be named, she would have to be charged with criminal offense and for that there would need to be a victim bringing charges. As it stands, the petition is made against the hierarchy within which the crimes were alleged to have happened: The Abbey is charged for hiding a sex offender and describing him in other terms.
As for the PB, see my comments in #3.
We all know there is a difference between what is “legal” and what is “social” or “political”. It wouldn’t bode well for any bishop for it to be internationally known that he/she had accepted into Orders a person who admitted a history of a sex offense involving minors or otherwise.
I wonder who is worse–one who does something bad or those who give him/her a “pass” for doing something bad. We shall see.
This goes beyond ‘affirmative action’, beyond favoritism, even past expediency and bending the law, to actually ignoring the law. She’s done this on other occasions during her ‘reign’.
You cannot advocate sin without disregarding and violating God’s law. This will eventually lead to violating man’s law – for as I John 3:4 says, “sin is lawlessness.”
If it were possible, KJS should be charged with knowingly accepting a priest who is a known pedophile, and by doing so, thereby ignoring the Abbey’s record in that regard. What will her General Convention do about it? Well, if they have any integrity, they’ll find some way of disciplining her, but most likely, they’ll sweep it under the rug. And her lawyers will no doubt find some way to protect her. God, however, is an entirely different matter, and I don’t think He will be so forgiving.
At the moment +Marshall seems to be the only one making any noise. Considering that Bennison survived, I imagine they’re going to sweep this under the rug. The masses of +Katharine adoring bishops and deputies will not brook any sort of action against her, even if it dampens their favorite leisure activity (schadenfreude vis a vis the RC scandals). Barring any increased publicity, additional lawsuits, additional post-reception victims, or further bishops (like +Marshall) emerging to criticize her I would be incredibly surprised if this affects her one whit.
Or at least as far as TEC is concerned. The rest of Anglicanism, however, minus her cronies in her satellite provinces, is an entirely different matter, and there’s no guarantee that they will tolerate this much longer before taking action to further isolate her and her followers. There is no guarantee that they won’t.
Regarding the suit against the Abbey. Please keep in mind that an improper sexual relationship with someone who is over 18 is not illegal. An improper sexual relationship with someone who is over 16 is morally repugnant and depending on the type of contact and the laws of Missouri of the time may or may not have been illegal. But it is definetely not pedophilia for a adult male to be attracted to a post pubescent mal. It is homosexual predation.
If the Abbey had gone by the standards for the acceptance of candidates in force at the time of Parry’s entrance into the Abbey he never would have been accepted. This whole mess and the pain of the victims could have been avoided if the rules had been followed.
Might want to watch your definition of “post-pubescent”:
“In the United States, the first sign of puberty occurs on average at age 11 in girls, with menstruation and fertility following about two years later. Boys lag behind by about two years. Puberty may not begin until age 16 in boys and continue in a desultory fashion on past age 20”.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/puberty
Call it “homosexual predation” or late for dinner if you want, it still doesn’t make it right. And calling it pedophilia is not a hard case to make, especially if the victims are under the legal age of adulthood and consent.
Which in my opinion means that everyone involved in perpetrating this crime and the coverup is liable for arrest and prosecution…….regardless of who he or she is. My [i]own[/i] opinion, of course.
Very troubling. ++Katharine should have been on record as going through Safe Church Training and if she has, should have paid better attention.
#17, I did not say I thought inappropriate sexual contact (and to me that would include any homosexual contact) with post pubescent males was right.
No I do not need to watch my definition. Pedophiles are attracted to children who have not yet developed sexual charateristics. Parry’s victims as far as is known were teenagers. That would make him a homosexual predator.
If an adult is attracted to a youth who is physically mature but has a mental capacity of a child (whether because of chronological age or other reasons) I would venture to guess that there is more going on in their sick little brain than just what is listed in the sexual disorder section of the DSM.
I think the distniction between pedophiles and homosexual predators is an important one because I believe the popular liberal thought that homosexuals are just like heterosexuals except for choice of partners is in error and does not honestly address the very big differences in the sexual cultures between the two groups. Differences that make the abuse the happened with Parry more likely to happen again.
I doubt TEC would have a problem with the outright rejection of somebody with a past history of true pedophilia and a psych test that specified minors meant pre pubescent children. But acceptance of homosexual candidates is pretty much a given, except one would hope when big red flags show up re:Parry.
Is such acceptance going to prevent an honest look at what was learned in the John Jay Study about the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church? Is such acceptance going to ignore that sexual relationships between adult males and teenagers is more readily accepted and even lauded in much of the gay culture?
I think it is and that is why I believe more cases like Parry will happen. I’ve written before I do not at all believe all homosexual men pose a danger to youth. But I think TEC should look at the stats and formulate a policy that takes into account the risks shown by those stats.
Fine idea, Paula, and I truly wish they [i]would[/i] formulate such a policy, but if past experience since KJS’s election is any indicator, it won’t happen anytime soon.
#20, splitting definition hairs is largely beside the point. Parry’s psych report said he had, to paraphrase, the possibility of reoffending with “minors”. It doesn’t matter whether they are prepubescent, pubescent, postpubescent, or Martian, the man’s report should have raised red flags all over the place. Not to mention the man is also guilty of a complete lack of boundaries, in that he crossed the line and abused people that were under his care. The penalty should have been the same even if he was a choirmaster having straight affairs with adult women in his choir–“YOU’RE OUT, AND YOU STAY OUT”…and, if he then decides to seek Holy Orders or church employment in other denominations, he gets a psych eval and a background check at that time. It’s true that the background check will only report what it knows, so if criminal charges were not brought against him before, nothing might reveal itself in that case. One can only hope that digging around in his employment history and RC service would have produced the “problem”. And, even then, if the adopting or transferring hierarchy is going to ignore what it discovers; well, then, that’s a whole different but contributing issue.
Yes it should have raised red flags. I have written before that only if subsequent testing contradicted the first test results would there be a possible defense for his hiring. Even then I would expect conditions to be met such as ongoing counseling before he was fully accepted into the TEC priesthood.
I have commented before also on his lack of boundaries and how to me this is not uncommon within the gay culture. His behavior showed a lack of maturity and self understanding that in my opinion is unacceptable for a person in the minsitry. There is no way I can imagine him not continuing in such behavior unless he was very closely supervised and restricted in his day to day contacts.
I also would love to know just how detailed a background check was required. Did they require and did Parry consent to a release of all medical records including those which would be available from his pre ordination treatment at Paraclete?
“There is no way I can imagine him not continuing in such behavior unless he was very closely supervised and restricted in his day to day contacts”.
And, if that much of a watchdog is needed, the answer needs to be “NO”.
Bookworm, Indeed.