The civil suit [against the Roman Catholics, not The Episcopal Church,] contends that the results of [the Catholics'] psychological testing in 2000 showed that Parry was a serial abuser who was likely to offend again, and that this information was shared with the Episcopal Church prior to his ordination. "I'm really skeptical that the report ever existed. But if it did, we've never seen it," said Edwards.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? Asked and, finally, answered. [Though of course the investigation must go on. Clearly, further reports on this (all) candidate(s) were needed, but apparently weren't there]

JC Fisher

Not so hard? Agreed.

The hard part was living with the silence. And, ideally, this still rises to the level of a press release from Edwards, especially given the lame one that was first issued.

On one point I absolutely agree with Edwards: the PB has earned her reputation for being cleaning up things. Which made the silence all those more puzzling. I know, I know, lawyers and all that. But that's just the point.

Wouldn't a background routine background check have shown this?

Allie Graham

I'm pleased to hear that the Episcopal authorities in Nevada appear not to have seen the RCC report on Parry which labeled him a serial abuser, but I wonder why the PB could not have said that herself.

The article in the Christian Century says:

"Nonetheless, Bishop Katharine directed that Bede Parry would not be allowed to have contact with minors in the ministry," Edwards told Religion News Service. "She gave that directive to people who oversaw him in the ministry."

Why would a bishop permit a person into the priesthood whom she did not trust to be around children?

June Butler

Is this not the sort of thing that comes up in Oxford background checks? Shouldn't there be an investigation into why the background checks and psychological evaluations did not show this? Edwards may be coming up with an explanation, but it is surely not an excuse.
Alicia Graham

I think +Edwards needs to commission an independent study not just make his own investigation. He has a vested interested in keeping this under wraps as does the PB. As June notes -- why did someone you worry about being around children get to become a priest.
The RCs say they sent the full report to the Episcopal Church. Edwards says he does not think it exists. What happened?

I have been following this story on the Internet for the past several days as it gets closer to appearing in the mainstream media, which I suspect is inevitable. I have always believed that TEC was a leader in taking measures to prevent child abuse. I am not conversant with the canons of the church, but I am at a loss to understand how a Bishop could ordain anyone whom she knows has behaved inappropriately with a child. I would beg TEC to address all of the related questions immediately and transparently and not to wait for The Washington Post or The New York Times to do our work for us. I need to hear my Presiding Bishop explain who is allowed to be a priest in TEC. Giving a man a collar and then telling him and his superiors that he should stay away from children sounds utterly absurd.

Slightly less absurd if the congregation was warned to keep children away. The more I listen to the comments the more I think Edwards has only dug the hole deeper.

The background checks, so far as I understand them, can only report on actual acts of public record. If no complaints were made or charges brought or adjudicated, they will not show up. I'm not aware of Oxford or other agencies reporting on suppositions or rumors. So far as I can tell, there was nothing of record against Mr. Parry at the time. Maybe I missed it.

Actually the Oxford check does report things that are not on the record - I just had one done on me when I was licensed in Oregon from Wyoming - and the questions are of the rumor and supposition nature as well as checking the law record.
Some other questions I have:
Generally bishops do not make decisions to receive or ordain known perpetrators without a lot of advice from others inside the institution. Who did +KJS consult -insurance co? David Rider, a consultant on clergy health issues regarding re-instatement? the Office of Pastoral Development? or an attorney who might give bishops advice regarding these issues? Were any of these or other folks consulted in 2003-04?

I agree with June's comment above:

Why would a bishop permit a person into the priesthood whom she did not trust to be around children?

This in itself is highly suspect. How can a person be of good moral character, and have a manner of life suitable to performing the duties of ordained ministry if there is sufficient concern to issue such a directive?

In both the ordination of a deacon and priest, the congregation is asked:

Dear friends in Christ, you know the importance of this ministry, and the weight of your responsibility in presenting N.N. for ordination to the sacred order of deacons/sacred priesthood. Therefore if any of you know any impediment or crime because of which we should not proceed, come forward now and make it known.

I find the fact that someone could approve and then participate (presumably) in the ordination of someone with such a huge caveat completely baffling. It provides little comfort to hear that then Bishop Schori had not viewed the supposed report, because she evidently knew enough to doubt the man's character and such a doubt would seem to preclude his ordination. Hopefully more information will come out, and we will stop hurling stones at the RCC for obstruction of justice and a deaf institutional ear and instead focus on our own systemic and institutional sin, whether in the past or ongoing.

The Rev. Joseph B. Howard (Jody)

Why is Bp Edwards hanging out there all alone as the chief spokesman, when it was Bp Katharine who permitted Parry to become a priest of the church? Perhaps, he doesn't have the benefit of lawyers telling him to keep silent.

June Butler

Or else, June, he is taking one for the team?

Andrew Gerns

Or there is nothing really here, except a closeted man who made a mistake in the past with closeted young men and now will go to his grave with the scandal.

As a gay who is also trained in human behavior and psychology, this situation sets off more than one set of alarm bells.

Contrary to what Ann has stated, the RCC does not claim to have done an evaluation of Bede Parry and then having sent it to the Diocese of Nevada in 2000, the civil claim filed against the Abbey makes that statement. And yet makes no explanation as to why it claims a copy would have been sent to the Diocese of Nevada. Bede Parry did not approach the Dio NV for consideration of reception as a priest, he was not ordained by +KJS, until 2002.

There are a number of issues here that have no more basis in fact at this moment than than that they are claims made in the civil petition against the Abbey. But it feels very much like there are folks joining a the mob mentality and are grabbing the pitch forks and tar buckets as they rush to conclusions based on very flimsy evidence.

David, I want to pick up on what you have said because it crystalizes a question I have been asking myself. What is the minimum that can be factually asserted in this case. It seems to me that Parry has admitted to numerous relationships that the Episcopal Church would consider sexual misconduct on the part of a clergy member, and, that if he only informed the diocese of one of those instances when he asked to be received as a priest, he was guilty of withholding information. Now those two things taken together fall a good deal short of the charges of serial pedophilia some folks are lodging--but if I have them right--and I am open to correction--they would seem to suggest that he should not remain in order.