BishopAccountability.org
	Spin Cycle Midwest Conservative Journal November 17, 2011 http://themcj.com/?p=26276 Katharine Jefferts Schori finally signed her name on a statement written by one of 815?s legion of lawyers issued a statement on the Bede Parry situation: 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. Bede Parry himself, on the other hand, seems to suggest that he was let go for a lot more than that. In the summer of 1987, Conception Abbey hosted a choir camp. I had been involved with the Abbey Boy Choir as organist, director, or both, for several years. During the camp, I had inappropriate sexual contact in my living quarters with [John Doe 181], a member of the Abbey Boy Choir. My misconduct with [John Doe 181] was reported to the leadership at Conception Abbey the same day. At a meeting with [John Doe 181’s parents] and the Abbot, I admitted to the misconduct and apologized for my behavior. Soon after the incident with [John Doe 181], I left Conception Abbey for Jemez Springs, New Mexico. Abbot Jerome Hanus drove me to the airport. I took part in a three-month program at the Servants of the Paraclete facilities. I am aware that in 1990, someone from Conception Abbey asked [John Doe 181’s parents] about my potential return to the area. I am unaware of the details of the conversation but was told by Abbot James Jones that it would “not be wise” for me to return to Conception Abbey. 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. 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. Back to the Presiding Bishop. 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. On the one hand, Bishop Schori asserts that Parry “approached me to inquire about being received as a priest, having served as a priest in the Roman Catholic Church.” Later, she claims that the reason Parry left the Catholic priesthood “had to do with his desire to take up secular employment.” Which is it? And as far as receiving the results of a psychological evaluation, Parry disputes that point as well. 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. As does one of the legal filings. 34. In 2000, Fr. Parry underwent psychological testing relating to the possibility of entering another monastery. 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 Abbey, the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas and the Episcopal Bishop for the [Diocese] of Nevada. Returning to Schori. Parry was required to fulfill all the expectations of the canons regarding reception of a priest from another communion in historic succession. Like this one? Evidence of moral and godly character; and that the person is free from any vows or other engagements inconsistent with the exercise of Holy Orders in this Church Whoops. 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. One wonders why the results of the Episcopal and Catholic psychological evaluations were as diametrically opposed as they turned out to be. 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. If you overlook the St. John’s University incident Parry admits to, Bede was a straight-shooter all the way down the line. 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. A rather crucial piece of information, one would think, that the then-Bishop of Nevada seems to have kept to herself. In an apparent contradiction to the bishop’s claim that restrictions were placed on Fr. Parry’s ministry and the “reasons for it conveyed” by Bishop Jefferts Schori to his supervisors, Fr. Lovelady[Parry's Nevada rector] said he “never had even the smallest hint of any kind of inappropriate behavior, or any inclination to such. I was not aware of anything in his past and now that I’ve been made aware of these allegations, I have not changed my opinion about Bede in any way and if I were still in the diocese of Nevada, I would be supporting him.” So would the Presiding Bishop by the sound of it. 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. Jim Naughton’s previous and quite admirable caution about taking people’s word for it seems to have been superceded by a “Katharine said it, I believe it, that settles it” stance. Not that Schori’s statement matters in the slightest, at least in the short term. Until Abbot Polan testifies as to exactly what he communicated about Parry, who he communicated it to and when, this situation is pretty much dead in the water as far as the Episcopalians are concerned. Katharine Jefferts Schori is not going anywhere.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.