November 16, 2011Bishop Katharine's statement answers many questions, and I'm grateful for her words. I only wish her statement had been released earlier.
Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has issued the following statement concerning Bede Parry.
________________________________________
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
What's missing and what I'd like to have seen in the letter is an offer to make amends to anyone who has experienced abuse from Bede Parry or anyone serving in the Episcopal Church and an invitation to them to step forward with their stories, along with an assurance of confidentiality and compassionate treatment from the church. As I see it, Bishop Katharine missed an opportunity to reinforce the message that all accusations of abuse will be taken seriously by the Episcopal Church.
Was Bede Parry not permitted to work with children at all, or was he under only the ordinary constraints of any adult member of the church not to work alone with children?
Bishop Dan Edwards' letter states:
Nonetheless, the bishop added the restriction that he should not have contact with minors.I believe in forgiveness and redemption, and Bede Parry should have been welcomed into the church, but I still wonder why he was admitted to the priesthood. I don't doubt Bishop Katharine's intentions to do a good thing, but the policy on abuse of minors should be 'one strike, and you're out', and Parry had his one strike.
H/T to Kurt Wiesner at The Lead.
So, why did that take her so long? ...
ReplyDeleteCathy, I don't know. Lawyers?
ReplyDeleteI think there are serious problems with a "one strike, you're out" approach. There have been seveal examples in the US, for example, of teenaged boys ending up as registered sex offenders because they had sex with their ever so slightly younger girlfriends. I think, especially after one strike, the facts need to be assessed, including the likelihood of reoffending.
ReplyDeleteBetter late than (see re Rome) never...
ReplyDeleteMalcolm, I speak of one strike, and you're out with respect to adults, not teenagers.
ReplyDeleteJCF, yes. Better now than not at all.
Given all the publicity that this situation has had, I think that it likely that any incidents that might have happened after Perry was received would have been reported by now. Even though the PB's statement might better have been earlier and contained statements of our commitment to victims and to preventing abuse, I think the statement is sufficient and, unless there are reports of abuse that occurred after Perry was received, there is little reason for further discussion.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, you're probably right that we would have heard by now had there been other incidents. Still, I stand by this statement:
ReplyDeleteBishop Katharine missed an opportunity to reinforce the message that all accusations of abuse will be taken seriously by the Episcopal Church.
My point still stands, Grandmére, that each case needs to be juged on its own merits. While one strike may be sufficient justification in some cases to bar a person from an assortment of leadership positions, it depends on the precise nature and details of the case. I would be loathe to make an absolute "one strike" rule because that allows for no exceptions. It leaves no room for grace.
ReplyDeleteOn the matter raised by Daniel, I agree that it would be inapropriate for the PB to apologize for victims since Perry was received unless and until there is evidence that there were such victims.
How a person in authority responds to issues like these is fraught with a number of risks - including the risk of effectively convicting a person (if only in the court of public opinion) when no crime has been committed.
Malcolm, I disagree. With adults, it must be one strike and you're out. Time and time again, we've seen that people who say they will never offend again and who may be sincere in their statement, in fact, offend again. I believe the risk is too great.
ReplyDeleteYou speak of forgiveness and grace, and I agree with you that there is always forgiveness and grace, but forgiveness and grace don't mean that you can be a priest. Bede Parry should never have been allowed to become a priest in the Episcopal Church.
As we now know, Parry recently confessed to being a multiple offender. Bp. Katharine says she knew only about one offense, and I believe her, but, had she known, she would surely have refused to receive Parry as a priest.
Where do I say Bp. Katharine should apologize before the fact? I said I wished she had extended a compassionate hand to anyone who has been abused by an employee of the church, not just Bede Parry's victims. By not doing so, she didn't break any rules or do any wrong. I simply believe that the church must emphasize over and over, in word and in deed, that no act of sexual abuse will be tolerated.
My points still stand.
The thing is, Grandmére, tht there will inevitably be cases - rare tough they may be - where the identification of the individual as a sex offender is weak based on either the facts or the specific details. The initial example I gave, for instance, of a person identified as a sexual offender in his late teens because he had sex with his not much younger girlfriend. these cases may be rare and highly unusual, they do exist, and a policy has to have the flexibility to deal with the rare exception. An absolute one strike policy does not have that flexibility.
ReplyDeleteOn the particulars of the Bede Perry case, it seems to me that if they were going to set restrictions about working with young people - beyond the general restrictions in place for everyone - then that of itself raises an appropriate question about whether he should have been received into orders at all.
Malcolm, with regard to your second paragraph, I agree.
ReplyDeleteI believe the PB's statement is merely sufficient, allbeit too late in coming. The timing of a public statement came so late that the court of public opinion had all ready reached their verdict.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have read, it looks like Bede Parry should have never been ordained an Episcopal Priest....but it's too late to put that toothpaste back in the tube.
Maybe one of the many lessons we can learn from this is the high cost of remaining silent.
David and John, the PB's statement is better than nothing and better late than never. That's as good as I can give it.
ReplyDelete