Anger at those who seek answers to the silence by the Presiding Bishop is insulting and not helpful for victims who may now be more fearful than ever to come forward with their stories. I am sorry that the church cannot accept that there is legitimate complaint to this stonewalling behavior.
The question remains -- how far did the background checks go and who was consulted before allowing this man to become an Episcopal priest. Brushing off inappropriate touching as not important is horrifying to all victims of sexual harassment.
I cannot tell you how sick this statement makes me.

I will not defend what Bede did. He admitted to it and the law enforcement authorities did not pursue any course of action, nor did the teen. The information as presented did not "brush off" the incident. The report indicated that the matter had been handled appropriately. Further, Bede himself owned up to the incident. It is important that we look at the history of what followed: Psychiatric treatment, counseling, etc. or everything that should have been done and could have been done.

As the present Bishop of Nevada noted, this information is difficult to hear. It does NOT fit with what we have been accustomed to reading about an individual who has committed such an incident. Why are we unwilling to hear that there are differences? Why are we unwilling to try and see that even among those who might commit abuse, there are differences?

Bede has resigned. He will never be able to exercise his orders in the Episcopal Church. The process we have in place was followed. At what point do we say that it has ended? And yes, I realize the emotions attached to this for those who have been abused sexually. I suspect that even they, if looking objectively, might also agree that this is not what we have come to see as the "usual" story such as this.

Isn't letting go or offering it up a part of the healing process? Picking at the scab of the wound will not let it heal. Some, of course, will never be satisfied with any answer that does not agree with their own likely preconceived idea of what the answer should be.

When do we begin to exercise the Christian charity and forgiveness for ourselves and others that we are so prone to say is part of out faith? What more does Bede need to do? What more does the Episcopal Church need to do? Will any of it ever be enough?

In response to previous comment I am from Nevada and happen to know Bishop Dan personally. Let get some facts straight: 1) there is not a single abuse incident within Diocese 2) the lawsuit is against catholic monastery where priest was serving over 2 decades ago 3) as much as past behaviour is inappropriate the priest was not charged with a crime 4) legally speaking with age of consent varying between states from 16-18 yo no crime was committed unless relationship was not consensual 5) unprecedenced precautions (medical evaluation, supervision, not being allowed to work with children and youth were in place during the period priest was serving as Episcopal Priest. 6) lawsuit relates mostly to lack of leadership and efforts to "cover up" abuse by catholic monastery supervisors. Please consider those facts in actions taken. With regards of the silence from episcopal church and PB office I am dissapointed we don't see stronger response. As a member of Diocese of Nevada congregation I would like to assure everybody that transparency, proper procedures and children safeguards were always in place. A message from Bsp. Dan seems to confirm that. In regards of victims stepping in to share their stories I am pretty sure that if anybody got hurt all it takes is a phone call to the police or directly to Bishop Dan and proper procedures and - if abuse confirmed - punitive actions - both legal and criminal would be implemented immediately per our Diocesan canons and guidelines. This Diocese has nothing to hide. Statement do not intend - in my view - to "downplay" victims stories but to bring to public attention the fact that all efforts were made to prevent any possibility of abuse. I feel confident that justice system will determine fault. As leaders of our congregations we cannot play the role of judge! With all respect to victims here this is America and people remain innocent until proven guilty. That is constitutional law. Justice system will determine fault and penalty for any abusive or illegal actions. In the mean time Diocese of Nevada and I am sure Bsp. Dan Edwards extend lines of communication and cooperation and help. As I mentioned before I hope the same lines of communication will open up soon on national level.

Why don't we hear from a principal actor in the story of how Bede Parry became an Episcopal priest, the present Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori?

If all the questions about Parry's service in the Episcopal Church, both before and after he became a priest of the church, had been answered in a satisfactory and timely manner, no one in the church or the diocese would have to defend against an imagined "horrifying story of a predatory pedophile priest who is passed from parish to parish so he can continue his predatory behavior." People imagine things when they don't have the complete picture.

My expectations do not have to do with Bede Parry who is no longer a functioning priest in the Episcopal Church, but I do expect to hear from the Presiding Bishop of my church. Her silence is unseemly and inappropriate. If there's nothing to hide, if all was done according to the rules, why don't we hear from her?

Of course, there is forgiveness. Of course, there is redemption, but that does not mean that questions which remain can go unanswered or that we must not ask the questions.

June Butler

It's certainly disheartening to see the Bishop take such a tone; better to start with humility and acknowledgement and then move on to the defense, rather than the other away around. And yes, it is equally disheartening that the PB has not said anything.

But there is another aspect to this story --accusations of "inappropriate contact with a minor" have, historically, very often been a cloak for homophobic persecution. I have no idea if this is the case here, and the Episcopal Church is usually more fair than that in treating homosexual and heterosexual inappropriate behavior equally. (As we in the Diocese of PA know!) But given that the accusations arose out of an RC context, it is a stronger possibility.

And I don't think he was saying that the alleged touching of a late adolescent boy was unimportant, but that such actions are different from the psychological condition of pedophilia. Which is also important. If we want to deal seriously with our culture of sexual assault, sweeping ever possibly-inappropriate action together into one box does no one justice.

Phil Gentry

Ann - I understand your anger and outrage. Child abuse, in whatever form, is always horrifying and sickening. As a survivor of physical violence and "inappropriate touching" as a child and sexual assault as a young adult, this story strikes deeply at personal, painful memories.

Having said that, I respectfully disagree with your take on the letter from the Bishop of Nevada. I do not hear him "brushing off" anything. I hear him giving a very careful and full account of the background check by the bishop, clergy and laity of the diocese.

As Bishop Edwards has written, this will not be enough for some. Personally, I do not need to hear the voice of our presiding bishop on this matter. I think it has been - and is being - handled appropriately at all the appropriate levels.

Bede Parry will no longer be able to practice his priesthood. Indeed, he'll never find employment as an organist in a church anywhere, ever again. Justice is being served. Some will argue not enough. Others will argue it is too much.

How much is enough? What more can the church do except for what has already been done? Would seeing the actual diocesan records of who was contacted and when make a difference? Would you prefer an independent, outside audit of the records? I think that can be arranged. And, if there is any culpability of those entrusted with Bede Parry's reception process, they should be held accountable. I'm not exactly the most trusting soul when it comes to the institutional church, but I hear nothing in the bishop's letter to make me question the veracity of his report.

Would placing your hands into the actual wounds help you to believe what is being presented as the truth from this bishop, these clergy and laity of the Diocese of Nevada? If so, then I suggest you take that upon yourself to see if that might be possible.

Other than these steps, and seeing justice being served, I think we need to seriously and prayerfully consider the gospel mandate to begin the process of healing and forgiveness and reconciliation. Not for the sake of Bede Parry, but for the sake and well being of our own souls. That has certainly made a difference in my own life of faith.

No, I don't completely trust the institutional church. I don't think I ever will. And, I think that's healthy. It keeps me ever vigilant and watchful to make sure that every boy and girl child, every woman and man, is safe from predators whether they be ordained or not.

I hope this is helpful to you and others.

For those who have the story of the predatory pedophile fixed in their minds, it will be difficult to hear and accept the actual facts. These facts will not fit their entrenched assumptions.

Way to be patronizing, Bishop Edwards....

And I might point out that no one would have had that set of assumptions if you and the Presiding Bishop had been open and forthright from the get-go.

If all of this is true, it makes me wonder, why did the diocese accept (ask for?) Fr. Parry's resignation? If Bishop Edwards is such a believer in redemption, and there were no reports of impropriety, why let Fr. Parry take the brunt of this?

You can't have it both ways, Bishop. If Fr. Parry isn't guilty of anything, then you need to reinstate him and back him to the diocese.

Thanks for your comment Phil -- exactly the tone I had expected from Bp Edwards and the PB -- instead of insults and blaming. When silence and insults are the response - one does not have trust in the powers in charge. Defensiveness is the answer of a person who fears. Shoot the messenger is a classic tactic.
I do believe that people are innocent until proven guilty but that does not mean no more questions. I do hope there are no other cases - but still I question why the rule he could not be with youth and children and how did +KJS plan to make that happen outside of church. A priest does not just stay in the church building all the time.

When people hire me, as they sometimes do, to help handle situations like this, I say: tell everything you know, tell it as fast as you can, correct whatever misinformation is out there, explain any extenuating circumstances, acknowledge any wrongdoing or missteps forthrightly, and above all, do nothing that suggests you are withholding information.

It is also helpful to compile a few documents--a timeline, perhaps or an FAQ that make clear your version of events. That way folks don't have to go back to the original stories to figure out which allegations you are refuting, which ones you have let stand and which ones you have not addressed.

In the current situation, the facts as the bishop states them are pretty starkly at odds with the facts as the plaintiffs lawyer has stated them, and not just on the issue of whether the diocese received the psychological testing referred to in the court filings. If Bede Parry's offense is confined to a single incident in 1987, that's one thing. If he is the man portrayed in earlier news stories, that is quite another. The bishop's letter seems to take issue with the these earlier stories, but does so indirectly, and so one is left without a complete sense of his view on the totality of the allegations.

The other thing I say is that if you seem to be behaving in a way that indicates you are protecting yourself against legal action, people will assume that you have reason to protect yourself against legal action. And if this fuels unhelpful or damaging speculation, you will have only yourself to blame.

Would placing your hands into the actual wounds help you to believe what is being presented as the truth from this bishop, these clergy and laity of the Diocese of Nevada?

Elizabeth, I don't see what your analogy has to do with anything being discussed here. Questions remain and have not been answered. Our Presiding Bishop is silent. Please don't ask me to "take it on faith" that all is proper and in order. Perhaps that is the case, but I'll need more than this semblance of circling the wagons.

June Butler

As a layman who has often been critical of the Church and its leadership for it's failures in keeping children safe and on other issues,and as one who is not easily persuaded by the titles of the people involved, many of the comments on this subject seem more designed to embarass the Presiding Bishop, than a search for truth.
I sincerely hope that I am not miscontruing motives, but it is difficult not to raise the question.

And then there are these questions: and why did the supervisor not know Parry's background?
The Rev Ed Lovelady, Fr Parry’s former superior at All Saints told CEN his assistant was “faithful to his priestly ministry, a wonderful pastoral presence to me and to members of the parish, and a friend. I never had even the smallest hint of any kind of inappropriate behaviour, or any inclination to such.”

While he was not aware of his past actions, they would not change his opinion that that Bede Parry is a “true and valued friend and fellow priest.”

“I agree that priests should be entitled to the forgiveness and reconciliation in the Church that we preach about during Lent,” Fr Lovelady added. “We, as the Church, are in the forgiveness business.” ~Lovelady (supervisor)

I would never want to embarrass the PB - I had the greatest of hopes in her ministry - it is her silence and actions and that of Nevada that are "embarrassing" and more.

Edwards just defended himself by saying that Sexual Assault is okay, its just Pedophilia that is not. This is quite problematic.

He seems to have just tried to slap all of us across the face for simply raising questions, when even what he provided is an explanation but not an excuse.

This is too big to try to save face, especially with such a rude and disrespectful letter.

Allie Graham

Lovelady's statements could mean he didn't know about the prior episodes.

What's unfortunate is that his statements don't make clear that the diocese had informed him of what it knew although Edwards' statement implies that he was.

But that's just the problem -- Edwards' statement does not meet the standard Jim Naughton outlines.

And, most important, if there were no doubts about Parry why did KJS recommend a double protection? In a world (see today's Daily Episcopalian essay) when young aspirants must jump through hoops that don't always make sense, why was Parry received with a condition like this?

Label me as fantasizing if you wish, or looking for a pretext to attack, but it's not constructive.

I went back to the latest report in The Kansas City Star. I commend careful reading.

I have said before that we need to allow for due process. As I think about Bishop Edwards letter, I can see two meaningful reasons that the response should come from him. First, whatever Bishop Katherine might remember off the top of her head, the records are in Nevada. To get at the facts requires careful review of the records and discussions with many folks, and not just her recollection. Moreover, not only does Bishop Edwards have the records in his "possession," as it were, his is a more independent voice. Would another's audit be more independent? Yes, and it would be a reasonable step to take. His is still more independent than hers, if only because she was bishop at the time and he wasn't.

Second, while the suit that has been filed is against Conception Abbey in Missouri, were a suit filed in Nevada, the liability would not be Bishop Katherine's personally, or not solely so, but also the liability of the diocese. So, in that sense I think Nevada needs to respond, whoever currently sits in the cathedra.

And while I know things could have been handled more responsively, I don't think 16 days is too long for a thorough examination. If we were to ask for an independent review, I would expect that to take even longer. It will take even longer to learn whether the court in Missouri determines to be fact and of the allegations in the lawsuit, beyond what Parry has admitted.

In the meantime, we do have a pastoral responsibility to Bede Parry. Bishop Edwards points to evidence of "true repentance and amendment of life" in 24 years without further incident, in consistent honesty on Parry's part with his superiors, and in resigning, not because of a new incident, but because he is an occasion of scandal for the Church. We certainly have a pastoral responsibility to any victims who come forward, and Bishop Edwards has affirmed that. We also have a pastoral responsibilty to him; and if we drive him away we'll find it difficult to carry it out.

Marshall Scott

When Bp. Kathrine was elected PB, I was thrilled. I had picked her out as the candidate that I liked best on the basis of the videos of all the candidates. From day one I have wished her well. I wish the PB well still today.

Those who are tempted to question my motives and the motives of others who have been expressed concerns about the way the Parry situation has been handled might do well to have a care and to read Jim Naughton's comment carefully.

June Butler

I read the letter from Bishop Edwards and was impressed with his forthrightness of fact and how the canons guide the way the Episcopal Church "does business."

I'm surprised by the attacks on the Presiding Bishop. What further statement than the one provided from Bishop Edwards should we expect. Why? Who exactly would those statements help?

Frankly, as an abuse survivor, I am disturbed by the anger directed at those who I KNOW would have protected me when I was a child.

How does this righteous indignation help a system that, in my opinion, is designed well to protect children? And, this all borders on voyeurism, rather than accepting truth as it is.

Thank God for Bishops who will speak the truth, rather than act out in the way that "the world" (or FOX TV presenting scintillating stories) might. Pray for them as they work in these difficult situations!

Chesley Kennedy

@Marshall Scott,

Wise and considered comment as always, Marshall, which is one reason I wanted to take issue one of your sentences: In the meantime, we do have a pastoral responsibility to Bede Parry. Bishop Edwards points to evidence of "true repentance and amendment of life" in 24 years without further incident, in consistent honesty on Parry's part with his superiors, and in resigning, not because of a new incident, but because he is an occasion of scandal for the Church.

There has not been "consistent honesty" on Parry's part. He was not forthcoming about the other incidents in his past. He only admitted to them recently.

"O God, you have bound us together in a common life. Help us, in the midst of our struggles for justice and truth, to confront one another without hatred or bitterness, and to work together with mutual forbearance and respect; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." (BCP 824)

Whitewash and coverup are the kindest words that I can apply to +Edward's pitiful statement.

Quite frankly, one is left with the very sick feeling that there very well may have been other predators admitted to the ministry of TEC according to the standards KJS followed in the Bede case, both lay and
clerical, in Nevada. Furthermore, the attempt to deflect the responsibility from KJS for allowing a sexual offender into the
ministry of TEC by +Edwards, by claiming that due process was followed by COM/Standing Com., does not shield her from her failure to protect the Church from those who have proven they can not be trusted in ministry. Our people, especially the most vulnerable in our midst, deserve far better than KJS has given.

And while we are on this topic - how many other sex offenders have been admitted to the ministry of TEC by our bishops? How many instances of abuse are allowed until a person is seen as a danger to the safety of those entrusted to our ministry?

The Very Rev. Donald Perschall

We need to see more details and let the truth come out in terms of this case. However, two questions can be addressed without any more evidence:

why does it seem appropriate to admit someone to Holy Orders in the Church with such a caveat? (How does this square with the understanding of fitness for ministry and one's manner of life etc...)

and secondly:

If a person is deemed fit for Holy Orders, how can such a caveat be seen as anything more than a cynical attempt to cover one's own ass.

These are sincere questions on my part. It's true that I've no special appreciation for the Presiding Bishop, but this is not a "gotcha" game and I'd never wish this sort of scandal on her or on the Church (it does reflect on all our ministries after all). And I especially wouldn't want such a bleak situation, where others may have been put into danger, to be true.

The Rev. Joseph B. Howard (Jody)

I can honestly say I am embarrassed to be an Episcopalian today. From someone who has twice met her on visits to Trinity Cathedral in Miami and greatly admires her, I am at a loss for words as to the Presiding Bishop's judgment in receiving Parry as a priest in the first place and in her recent silence on the issue.

Chris Cooper

From the timeline of Nevada and Parry, another inconsistency:

"It has been reported that there was a psychological examination showing that he was likely to repeat his offense. No such report was sent to the Diocese of Nevada and, to this day, we have no knowledge of its existence other than an assertion by the plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer in a John Doe lawsuit against the monastery. Reliable testing to predict such sexual abuse was not even developed until nearly two decades later, so the assertion in the John Doe complaint is dubious. The Diocese of Nevada, however, did have our own independent psychological evaluation done by a psychologist and it did not indicate any pathology or risk.'

This is clearly a mistake or worse - The John Doe lawsuit says this:

"28. 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."

I'm not sure what decade Bishop Edwards was thinking of, but it cannot be the one beginning in the year 2001. Otherwise, we cannot expect a reliable test to be developed until 2020.

That caught my eye, too, Ann.

When he can't get this date correct the best you can say is the quality of his investigation is in doubt.

We've been asking along about the allegation of a year 2000 test said to show Parry still had the proclivity and said to have been shared with the diocese.

I can only imagine that the bishop is under a lot of pressure, some of it from with the Episcopal Church, and I am inclined to think that some of what seem to be inconsistencies in his letter were actually problems in wording. I don't want to assume evasion or worse when all we are dealing with is a lack of clarity.

That said, it would be helpful to know in a somewhat more specific way which part of the allegations against Bede Parry the diocese acknowledges, which parts it disputes and on which parts it has no opinion.

I noticed that myself, specifically the last part:

"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 were provided to Conception Abbey, the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas and the Episcopal bishop for the Diocese of Nevada, the lawsuit says."

I wish the affidavit had been more clear on this time line, giving at least the month (or even the season!) the report was forwarded to the diocese. Considering that the BP was still getting consents in Jan 2001 (Diocese of Eastern Tennessee Standing Committee report: g. From the meeting of January 25, 2001:
-consented to the ordination of The Rev. Thomas Clark Ely as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont.
-consented to the ordination of The Rev. Katharine Jeffert Schori as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Nevada.
-consented to the election and ordination of The Rev. Roy F. Cederholm, Jr., as Bishop Suffragan of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts.), I'm wondering if she saw the report, or if it went to the Dio Nevada standing committee and was handled there. Hopefully this can get clarified soon.

Guy Butler

There is another issue at play here.

He was the shepherd of a flock. The shepherd leads the flock, he or she does not seek any sexual gratification from among them.

We draw this line because of the power imbalance, the shepherd has power and in my estimation that makes it impossible to be in a consensual physical relationship with anyone under his or her care. Period no exceptions.

We have to draw such a clear line so that there is no fudge about it at all. People under our care are not allowable recipients of any romantic much less physical relationship.

We often rehabilitate clergy who what affairs outside of the bounds of their parish and are suitably repentant. But I believe that we have an obligation to forgive, but not deploy people who have crossed the clergy/parishioner line.

Lawyers, Doctors, Therapists, Professors, etc can all be sanctioned for crossing the boundary with those under their care. Our new Title IV is modeled on these sorts of ethics panel considerations and I believe that violating the clergy/parishioner boundary is of a more severe degree and should then bar people from that trust again.

It is fine that you or I as adults might express our confidence in the person, but we cannot make that decision for everyone entrusted to our broader care since they are potentially the victims of a relapse around the power relationship.

I am free to gamble with my own well being, but not that of others with respect to violating power relation dynamics.

This standard gets rid of the issue of whether or not it was consensual, what was the age or gender of the other party and many of the parsings we've seen in Bp Edward's and the other comments here. If it is a person entrusted to your care, you just don't touch.

To the prayer Jared C shares with us, I just want to say AMEN!!!

I, too, am bothered by Bishop Edwards' tone: defensiveness doesn't help.

Respectfully, I'm not sure a bishop/ComMin is WIDE enough, to make a decision (receiving the ordained ministry of someone w/ merely the ADMITTED history of Fr Parry) of this magnitude. Were the delegates to the Diocesan Convention aware?

No, we're not Rome. We're not even the TEC of 20 years ago . . . but we have to do better.

JC Fisher

Lawyers, Doctors, Therapists, Professors, etc can all be sanctioned for crossing the boundary with those under their care.

This is most certainly true. I think that I will refrain from commenting on the particular case here. It is clear that there is a spectrum of opinion from allowing persons who have been "rehabilitated" to again be trusted to those who would hang/draw/quarter such an individual and have their remains ejected into outer space.

One "chilling" effect this has had on some, I know, is to make us run far away from any work or ministry with children. All it takes is one accusation, and the accused's life and career may be over. I personally will not see anyone under 18 in my neurology practice, although I am often asked to do so. I was asked about a year or two ago to teach in our cathedral sunday school a class for persons under 18. After consideration, I declined it, the main reason being that (particularly as a gay man) I wanted in no way to be even close to a situation where I might possibly be accused of impropriety. I probably would have enjoyed teaching. I might even have been good at it, but it was not worth the risk. I wonder how many others have felt like this and will continue to do the same? I am even a bit uneasy even making a post, perhaps better just to remain silent on an issue such as this and "above it all."

There is no doubt that we need good institutional structures to safeguard all persons, young, middle-years and old from abuse of any and all kinds (not forgetting that physical/sexual abuse is not the only kind of abuse). (The negative and abusive stereotypes and attitudes promoted and taught by "well meaning and upright" persons in and out of church that I knew as a youth were far more harmful to me than the one "dirty old man" who gave me a quick grope on the bus. But no one is trying to put "those" people out of ministry and in jail).

I suspect many will disagree with me on this. I certainly respect them and feel that they are well-entitled to their opinions and feelings. It makes me wonder if the church should just banish children/youth entirely until they are of age.

Just a few observations and wonderings I offer in a contentious thread, and with love for all of you so deeply moved by this tragic story:

- I think it important to remember that ordination and reception into orders is a community (i.e. diocesan) discernment. I tend to agree with commentators who question the wisdom of trying to hold our Presiding Bishop solely responsible for the decisions in this case.

- If I am not mistaken, in our polity, when it comes to disciplinary matters, the diocesan bishop of the diocese in which the offense originally occurred, or (in this case) the diocese in which the cleric is canonically resident is normally the first arbiter of ecclesiastical judgment.

- Bede Parry has apparently voluntarily renounced his Holy Orders. It strikes me as the most honorable course of action in an otherwise terribly painful circumstance where the accusations of the lawsuit, however valid or dubious, would consume his ordained ministry, and hence, the people he serves even more. I am reminded by a priest some time ago who told me that if he were charged with sexual misconduct -- even falsely -- he would depart Holy Orders for the sake of the people he served. This is a reality of day-in and day-out risk that many of clergy continue to face. Is there a better way?

- I find it helpful to remember how sensitized we have become to stories of child abuse and sexual misconduct. The press markets these stories with reason: they grab our attention and stoke our worst fears, and they leave everyone involved defensive and running for cover. It's a tragedy of our time. Do we run the risk ourselves of casting judgment too quickly? Why?

- Amen to Jared's offering an important prayer. It is my hope we can hold up the safety of our children and at the same time seek truth when painful stories like this unfold in our midst. Another colleague reminded me several years ago that people like Bede Parry can sometimes become our "Jonah's" which we throw overboard in the hope of divine appeasement for our corporate failings.

In the knowledge that these thoughts are likely to make me unpopular, and with prayers for everyone involved and everyone here. . .

First, I don't think it's fair to argue that most of the people have some axe to grind with our PB or are out to get Bede Parry. If they are like me, they are genuinely shocked that a diocese would ordain anyone who had admitted to child sex abuse. This does not mean that the offender should be cast out into darkness, but simply that TEC should not put a collar around his neck, with all that that means both inside and outside the church community.
Second, I suggest that we all ask our individual dioceses about their canons and policies in this regard. I had wrongly assumed from hearing over the years that TEC was a leader in the prevention of child sex abuse, that hiring Mr. Parry would have been out of the question. Clearly not. And this does not mean that I am judging him as a human being; I'm just not willing to risk any child's safety by putting him in back into this role, in which he committed a reprehensible and usually life-altering act on a child. There are so many other ways that he and others in a similar situation can serve God and their neighbor.
Scott Christian

First, I don't think it's fair to argue that most of the people have some axe to grind with our PB or are out to get Bede Parry.

Perhaps not, but I detect an undertow of this kind of blaming in this thread. I think not to admit that we want someone to blame for this mess would be disingenuous.

I generally agree,for the sake of our children, with zero tolerance for known abusers in positions of trust, and also with the suggestion that we review our canons.

That said, I've never met a perfect canon. At the end of the day, people make the judgments and determinations, as did our sisters and brothers in Nevada. Those decisions don't always turn out the way we hope.

All I'm saying is we do better to resist rushes to judgment. I think Jesus has something to say about that.

John, I'm looking at this statement in the Kansas City Star article: "Between 1973 and 1979, the lawsuit says, Parry told the Conception Abbey abbot that he had inappropriate sexual contact with three people at the abbey. And in 1981, the lawsuit says, Parry had sexual contact with a student at St. John’s in Minnesota. Parry admitted that misconduct to several people, including abbots at Conception and St. John’s, according to the lawsuit."

So, the part of the complaint against the Monastery is that the abbots knew about these events because Parry admitted them at the time. That's the basis of my use of "consistent."

Marshall Scott

The longer this goes on, from a layman's perspective, we have too many "barracks lawyers" trying to score points. We need more prayerful and thoughful commentary. It is a sad story all around. What is past is past. We need to move forward.

Herb Gray

At the risk of adding more words to a long discussion in which many thoughts, concerns, and feelings have been raised, I do remain troubled by Fr Parry's reception into the Episcopal Church.

To my mind, any conduct in the past that indicates a potential danger to a priest's charges seems to be an item that would restrict him or her from entering priestly ministry.

When someone demonstrates an ability to so blur the lines of authority and pastoral responsibility then how can we, in good conscience, bring that person into a role of pastoral leadership?

Our responsibility seems to lie far more with protecting our congregations than on the individual - even individuals whose demonstrated and clear repentance has been made manifest.

We are not excommunicating nor de-baptizing persons. They can absolutely be wonderful and faithful leaders and a solid presence in our parishes whose ability to communicate a sense of grace and forgiveness will be a blessing to those around them. However, we should draw lines at ordination.

With the profound distrust of clergy that now exists, in part because of clergy abuse scandals, our approach to this must be clear and firm - with the weight being given to safeguarding congregations.

When hiring people in the past or promoting them (and in offering advice to those in relationships) my advice has been "past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior." It is often the only thing we have by which to measure those we encounter.

This is not to discount grace, forgiveness, repentance, and the work of the Spirit. God is mighty to save and we all need that saving love.

However, the standard by which we set aside people for the priesthood (or receive them) must recognize that ministry can take so many forms that ordained ministry is not the only place for service to God.

I do not know all of the exigent circumstances of this particular case nor do I know Fr Parry. I trust that those charged with bringing him into the Episcopal Church did so after earnest prayer and deep thought.

It does seem, however, that admitting someone to the ordained ministry and creating a caveat that they not have interactions with minors is deeply problematic. That such a caveat would have to exist is profoundly distressing in one who is to be entrusted with a congregation.

Putting persons with a difficult past in situations where such temptations are naturally going to arise (and where the lines of authority are such that those situations will be even more fraught) is not kind to the individuals and it seems entirely inappropriate for the congregations involved.

Those who are part of discernment committees and have a role in guiding new clergy along often have wonderful, faithful, and gifted leaders they are asked to evaluate and advise.

Committees and bishops who would ask those who have committed such improprieties in the past to consider other forms of ministry are not wielding some great strength nor dwelling on one person's weakness - they are recognizing that some weaknesses, once revealed, make giving that person ordained responsibilities a chance for new hurt to unfold. They are acknowledging that our collective sins make risking new pain unthinkable.

There is no sure way to determine whether someone is actually "fit" for ministry. So many of us will fail at any given point. Yet, in this case, it seems that once such conduct is revealed - forgetting it is not an option. The lifelong impact of abuse is so grave that we cannot risk being a party by ordaining those we know to be a risk (and in this particular case acknowledging such with a specific caveat).

This whole question is not specifically about the Presiding Bishop nor the Bishop of Nevada. I think these questions need to be asked of the whole church and not about one case but about the overall standards which we use to shepherd men and women into the ordained life.

Robert Hendrickson