In re the psychological evaluation of Bede Parry from 2000, it should be rather simple to establish whether the report was sent to the Diocese of Nevada. There would be either a release of information signed by the client authorizing the psychiatrist/psychologist to send the report, or their would be a transmittal letter in either the abbots'/abbey's files (Conception; St John's) or in the archbishop's/archdiocesan's file (Iowa).

Roman Catholic chanceries are in the business of creating a paper trail. So, too, abbeys have well-documented histories.

In all this, however, I believe the Presiding Bishop should have been forthcoming with either statement or timeline within the first few days after the allegations were made. It is true that she would not have immediate access to the personnel files. However, we are living in a digital age: telephone, PDF, fax.

Perhaps this bruhaha could have been avoided had their been a fully-staffed communications department at 815, people with broad experience of The Episcopal Church's and other catholic communion's polity.

Sadly, James, even that might not be enough. In my experience, the advice of the Presiding Bishop's chancellor always trumped that of experienced communicators at 815 (when there were such). And as a public relations practitioner, he is a very good lawyer.

Like Jan, I am not sure that the communications folks at Church Center are driving the decision making. I think this situation would have been handled better if they were. There is a tendency, certainly not restricted to the church, to assume that legal advice trumps all other sorts of advice. It does not.

Good evaluation and assessment of a distillation of what, at face value, appears to be the facts of the case, both as presented in the plaintiff's claim, as well as, additional information that seems to have been ferreted out in the newspaper accounts.

What jumps out at me is that Bede Parry was not a predatory pedophile in his past, but a closeted gay man, trying unsuccessfully to live the life of a member of a religious order, at the same time that he was in contact with late adolescent and young adult males who may have been in a very similar situation, dealing with sexual urges and desires they do not necessarily understand and with which they perhaps do not always feel comfortable after having succumbed to them.

One of the things that I do here in Mexico, is volunteer with a gay & lesbian community center where I provide peer counseling, meaning gay man to gay man, to late adolescent and young adult gay and bisexual guys. In my considerable experience, many of these young men are also predatory and can quickly become more than an inexperienced closeted gay man can handle.

I do not know Bede Parry, but I think that there was much more going on here than we perhaps will ever know, and it is one thing for us to have important expectations regarding professional boundaries, especially in a 20/20 hindsight situation of second guessing on events from 20 to 30 years ago, but that was also a time period where many folks were not given the skill sets that today we understand more fully.

I say none of this to excuse anything that has happened in the life of Bede Parry, but I want to get it out in the open that we need to be thinking about many more dynamics that can be at play in these types of situations. The dynamics of closeted GLBT people of all ages in todays culture, as well as, providing the training that equips people with the skill sets that provides protection to folks on both sides of the dynamics.

Bro. David

Several points occur to me. The diagnostic label of pedophile may not apply to Mr. Parry due to the age of his sexual partners but this is not in itself predictive of less likelihood of future sexually inappropriate or illegal behaviors. The degree of compulsivity and opportunity come into play as well. Many R.C. priests were labelled 'ephebophile' instead of 'pedophile' and this non-official label gave false assurance of them not re-offending. The fact that civil charges are being leveled and not criminal ones may have to do with the age of consent which varies state to state.In some states a 16 or 17 year old may give consent. This takes it away from criminal sexual abuse but leaves it as exploitation and abuse. Thank Andrew Gerns for a fine analysis. Church authorities had enough evidence to re-open the situation. I am not clear whether he was ordained in the Episcopal Church or whether his R.C. orders were received.

Don Hands

Although there was a time when young male curates were married off to the daughters of parishioners, I am not aware that there was ever a time when we did not know that there was a boundary there. Straight or gay there is no permission to romance people under your care. Straight or gay if you need to work out issues of sexual identity or need do it outside of your cure.

Not only is that the right and professional and faithful way to be towards your parishioners, it is the smart way to be as a person fulfilling a role which has transference phenomenon attached to it (also power). It is rarely You that is attractive, but the role or the power. Every professional walks around with this target on their back so never crossing that boundary is for your own protection as well.

And, frankly, the "It was the 80's" defense might work if it were the 1880s we were talking about. But we certainly knew enough in the 1980s to know that this sort of boundary violation was unacceptable.

Michael, I do not see anyone making any defenses or excuses, for folks gay or straight.

The Episcopal Church has made an official statement regarding the facts of the case. It's worth a read as it appears there have been some false facts reported by the media: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/perspectives/

Christopher, we linked to that report a couple of days ago. The facts are a little hard to keep track of, but I am wondering which facts you think are being disputed.

Thank you, Andrew Gerns!

Since I first began my current attempt to make sense of Bede Parry's situation, I have been struck by the dearth of fact in its' many and varied presentations. Of course, in such situations, that's often the case, but the reminder of a student advisor who said, "Medicine'll tear your heart out and you'll lose patience with the follies of Law, but Theology! Now, my girl, you're really asking for trouble!," has been poignant for me. So has Bede Parry's case.

I have no personal revelations to offer since the central questions are those that have a long track record of causing me to end up wandering in circles. I'm not gay, my sexual identity is not my first choice of calling card, I admit to a temptation under certain circumstances to having a T-shirt printed that says, "Straight and... hopefully modest." And yet, blind, harmful intolerance does not generally bring out the best in me.

In those things, I'm probably not very different from most people who've encountered Bede Parry's story... except for the scout master.

Well-liked, affable, glad to extend the outdoor adventures offered by his vacation cabin, he was regarded as a community asset... except to a handful of boys all of whom were either 18 or 19. Hesitantly, with great foreboding, they came to me. Would I believe them? Would I condemn them? Would I plaster a nasty tale stuffed full of names across a region where their scout master was a treasured member of a prominant fundamentalist scene? And what awful retribution was likely to follow?

Yes, I believed them. The details were impossible to doubt. Was their scout master gay? Undoubtedly. Did his involvement with "conservative" fundamentalists who would happily hang him out to dry for that have bearing upon his apallingly bad choices? Of course it did. And with those points neatly covered, exactly what on earth was I supposed to do?

Like the accusations against Bede Parry, the boys were technically adults capable of consent. Similarly, their scout master had succumbed to a fantasy of "required" proximity to take advantage of them. Awash in untruthful adolescent boasting at the high school, unestablished in all areas of their adult identities, when a trusted friend of mature years made opportune suggestions, the young men understandably failed to scream and run.

There was no pedophilia involved, no bondage, no beastiality, and expressions of remorse "for the way YOU feel about what happened," were frequent. Thus, the behavior continued.

That this was a very highly conflicted man was obvious in his choice of religious affiliation and in his volunteering to lead scouting. Pyromaniacs should not join fire brigades, either. It's unsafe. That he may have embodied the "risk-taking behavior" which hallmarked San Francisco in the '80's was a question for a sociologist, not me. That the boys emerged from his purview "grossed-out," but mostly otherwise unscathed was a Godsend. That, over the ensuing years, they had average, regular lives without specific health or psych issues was a blessing.

Yet they did come to me, and their concern was for the other, younger boys.

To say that the scout master and I had "a chat" would be like using that term to describe the conversation that you had with your mother after you used her grandmother's treasured Thanksgiving dishes for your pals' football party in college. "Fantastic Thinking" was my theme. No, he didn't "have to" be around those boys. No, high school Health class did NOT cover sexual advances from scout masters. Yes, it was unfair, uncharitable, and unChristian that his fellow parishioners would happily lynch him, but no, he didn't "have to" go to church with them. In short, my point was that his litany of self-victimization was not a list of healthy attitudes.

As for continuing as a scout master? No, he showed no prospect for harming a child. He was gay, preferred much-much younger men, was as conflicted as a sack of squirrels, and liked to view those facts as results of his tragic victimization by society. But nowhere on the list of talents and attributes of good scout masters do those particular attributes appear. That was pointed out to him, and the last I heard, he and his psychiatrist were living together quite comfortably.

That was many years ago, and since then, much has changed... but not so much in Rome. What a narrower, less kind society accomplished for our scout master friend was seemingly accomplished and may still be happening to many men like Bede Parry. The first level of care and concern in his case fell to Rome, and due to factors we all know, apparently kept falling. The second level landed on our plate.

I'm troubled by two factors here: one is the restriction placed upon his ministry; the second, the feeding frenzy of sensationalism in media and greedy dishonesty among some of the public that made such a restriction a matter almost of routine.

A snide "Yeah, thanks, guys," card to Rome might make us feel better, but it's unlikely to get us clear of the firing line. Hanging "P.S. We're Not Roman!," under our Welcome signs isn't going to reach a public that's data-drowned and likes to clump people into groups. Draconian constructions of re-ruling suits radical politicians in election campaigns, but damages our mission terribly.

Guys, we've got to do better, and since I'm down to one bullet here, I'll shoot: engagement is the tool we have and the one we need to use. When media is contacted, a mistake must be admitted, and without shifting blame, the greed and dishonesty of some who've looked for profit in others' distress must be mentioned and admonished; it's our job. Our struggle with the matters cruxial to these issues must be highlighted, we're trying hard while many others aren't; it's lonely out here for us, too. And while speaking to truth, can we please make a point of mentioning God's forgiveness of the human foibles that give us more damaged, conflicted, victimized human beings every day?

"...if Parry was not a threat, then why the restriction on children..."? In my humble opinion the answer to this question is very simple: Why risk it? Since the revelation of the sexual abuse crisis it has often been my thought that if I had children I would never leave them alone with a priest...EVER. This would be my policy regardless of the presence of credible allegations against the priest or the lack of any allegations whatsoever. Having spent 20 years in the Roman Church I've seen to many lives ruined by such allegations be they credible or not: The lives of underage victims of abuse from the hands of a trusted spiritual leader; The lives of some very good and holy priests who have been falsely accused and who would never dream of hurting a child. It's simply too great a risk for the child and for the priest.

Cullin R. Schooley

It seems to me that if this doesn't shortly result in a presentment against KJS it will have been a lot of talking about nothing.

@C. Wingate

A presentment against the PB on what grounds, that in spite of the her and the diocese of Nevada working very hard to do their due diligence, it is possible that the candidate for reception was not completely honest and the background check in place at the time was not able to detect that?

A presentment because she did not jump through hoops of other's determination quickly enough?

Why? I see nothing here to provide grounds for a presentment, let alone terminate an episcopal career. I think that it is time that we stop eating our own.

Bro. David

Folks, we are going to be drawing a line in the comments on speculative charges making a case against a man for crimes he is not charged with. We are also going to attempt to reign in the use of the word pedophile, as, again, there is no evidence, and is therefore potentially libelous.

Three colleagues have asked me to clarify exactly what "mistake" I asked TEC to admit in an earlier comment, so with your kind forebearance, I shall:

There is, as several here have noted, some media pot-stirring that has inferred at least a whiff of some kind of nebulous, unstated culpability on the part of TEC in the matter of Bede Parry's reception and ministerial posting. The restriction placed upon his ministry has been a focal point. I have mentioned that I find the surrounding media and litigation aspects troubling and worthy of admonition. They led to the restriction which, had no John Doe lawsuit been filed against an RC monastery, would have remained a private matter.

But precisely what, if anything, was the "mistake"?

The mistake was in not "reprocessing" Bede Parry.

By receiving his RC orders, TEC relied upon the unreliable in a matter in which the unreliable have been demonstrably even more unreliable than their usual, very shaky norm. Thus, we received both "the baby and the bathwater," and inherited the media-supported public belief that TEC was involved in matters which in fact have nothing whatever to do with TEC: Bede Parry is accused of doing precisely NOTHING wrong as an Episcopal priest.

While the greater Christian Communion, its' needs and its' relationships, cannot be dismissed or overlooked, there's more than one track record involved here. Prudence should have been applied in charitably understanding that TEC could not undertake Bede Parry's reception without the possibility of falling into an adversarial position versus Rome given the surrounding context. Temperance would have operated against allowing that unhappy possibility to be realized. Compassion could have supported a man whose resignation has placed TEC in a disadvantaged position.

Had Bede Parry been reprocessed, TEC would have had several opportunities under TEC - not RC - oversight to assure certainty, and would now have documentation in hand that should refute the improper and inappropriate misattributions which are feeding sensationalism and misunderstanding.

It has always been the case that occasionally, some phrase roughly equivalent to, "Would you care to see my etchings?," leads to wrong behavior by people who ought to know better - including Episcopal priests. To pretend otherwise would be dishonest. Straight or gay, that is THE standard, and TEC admissions of all persons regardless of sexual orientation relies upon it equally in all cases.

It hasn't happened... yet. But if a cardinal known privately, strictly entre nous in the Curia, to have sixteen mistresses shows up at TEC's door, I sincerely hope and pray that TEC will reprocess him, too. There would be no absence of Christian virtues in doing so.

Cyberia, in what manner was he not "reprocessed?" His reception process took parts of three years. He asked for reception in 2002 and the bishop and diocese "processed" him and finally received him in 2004.

If this is current TEC code for something, please be more blunt for those of us from other Anglican churches.

Bro. David

"Reprocessing" isn't anybody's code, it's just a term of use. I got used to hearing it when Roman, Orthodox, and Protestant views on Apostolic Succession were being discussed simultaneously; avoids differences in terminology. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for pointing it out!

Possibly, the simplest answer to your question is another question: After graduation from which Episcopal seminary was Bede Parry's Ordination by TEC as an Episcopal priest?

My understanding from all sources is that his RCC Orders were received. Why, given his confessions of breaching them, he still had them? God knows.

[Editor's note: kindly sign your real name on subsequent posts.]

To Cyberia's comment about reprocessing, I don't think that attending an Episcopal seminary would add any depth to background checks (the purpose you seemed to be originally advocating by the suggestion).

There's also a certain amount of absurdity in suggesting that someone who's been active in ministry for X years go and repeat a 3-year degree they've already obtained, but this time in our schools. This isn't even required of Episcopal nominees for priesthood (they can also complete an M.Div at a non-Episcopal seminary or divinity school, though sometimes they're encouraged to complete a year of Anglican studies to make certain they're prepared to respond to the canonical preparation requirements: http://www.episcopalarchives.org/pdf/CnC/CandC_2009pp65-121.pdf (pages 79-80, especially)).

Again, it is very unclear how an Episcopalian ordination process would protect against previous boundary violations or abuses, and this seems to stand in direct contrast to ecumenical sensibilities.

Rather, what actually seems appropriate from the concerns rising around this case is to suggest more robust background checks or a review of whether we do-have/want-to-have a "one strike you're out forever" policy.

The "mistake" in Bede Parry's case rests upon his RCC Orders which, though no TEC bishop's ruling would have any effect upon Rome, appear not to have been in anything approaching "good order," no pun intended, when presented to the Diocese of Nevada. According to all sources including TEC, he violated those RCC Orders and admitted doing so... and at this point we pass over the Metaphysical Bridge into that country where lawyers, TEC or otherwise, don't normally appear:

Ordination isn't like getting a driver's license, or being accredited as a surgeon, or being admitted to the Bar. Crash your car, mess up too many operations, or violate too many laws and you'll be in court if not in jail. But violating Holy Orders involves penalties which are considerably stronger and infinitely more long-lasting, because to do so is an offense against the Holy Spirit. Thus, Bede Parry's case presents many hazy areas, but that isn't one of them.

There is a gargantuan logic hole in Parry's case:

(a) If his RCC Orders were to be received, they had to exist.

(b) By violating them, Parry invalidated them, therefore, they no longer existed.

DioNev could not and TEC cannot claim that on the one hand, his RCC Orders were valid for reception into TEC, and simultaneously, his admitted abandonment of them and their consequent invalidation was of no importance. Abp. Cranmer on his best day couldn't choke that one down! So, however boring or redundant it might have been for Parry, he could have made application to go through the Episcopal Ordination process, same as anybody else - and the same as any Anglican priest must do to enter RCC Orders.

He didn't, and the resulting hash was supposed to be neatly rendered legally harmless by sticking a restriction on his ministry - for litigation and insurance purposes...

...but what about the Holy Spirit?

Rev. CW Brockenbrough

I want to be clear at the start of my comment that I hope we can have care for the feelings around these topics as we post on other subjects that branch out from the original content; there are charged issues here for members of the church in all orders of ministry (of which the laity is certainly one), victims of boundary violations, and the priest in question.

To the point that has been raised: Cyberia, or Rev. Brockenbrough, I'm not sure that there is the logic hole you have described. I'm certainly not an expert on RCC ecclesiology, but my sense is that they don't describe their Holy Orders as being invalidated in the way you describe, or at least, did not in the 1980s. This seems on the face of it to be a theologically-defensible idea, all the way down to the mundane (priests make mistakes) and all the way up to the sweeping and historical (the condemnation of donatism as a heresy); the continuation of valid orders is certainly borne out in what I know of RCC practice (the RCC has at times -- and I don't know if this is current practice -- sent priests to therapeutic centers, rather than defrocking them). It would seem the RCC didn't consider these orders metaphysically invalidated.

Your sense that the Holy Spirit is transgressed-against is a powerful thought, but I believe it points us back to the comments already made on this and related threads about repentance and forgiveness, which are surely also elements of the Spirit's movement in creation. I believe that the tension between the justice due to a violation and the mercy that may be offered (there's been debate as to whether it should)leaves us again at a moment of discernment, without a clear judgment to announce for every case.

I'm not sure we don't fall ourselves into "the country of lawyers" (to paraphrase) with a legalistic interpretation of an immediate metaphysical consequence. I'm also struck that if sacraments are making visible the already-real (or outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual graces), then there are more-profound ways to ask some questions already alluded to in these conversations: was his ministry in the time since his reception priestly? It would seem that this would be the metaphysical version of the question, while the settling of his canonical status is lawyerly. Neither of these seems quite appropriate to discussions of whether TEC needs to address its current procedures for protecting young persons.

Rev. Brockenbrough (apologies, I'm not clear as to whether this is the same poster as Cyberia) has also shifted the focus of the "reprocessing" question from a suggestion that a policy of reprocessing would have protected both TEC and the priest in question (because TEC's process is in-house and gives us info more directly) to a suggestion that a new processing was necessary (and that TEC's version is, of course, the only one we use) because the original orders did not exist in a metaphysical way. It seems to me that either of these topics is something that can be discussed, but I'm not clear which is being advocated or why.

I'll have to admit that I'm more concerned personally with the pastoral implications, both for those who have been injured by boundary violations of any nature and degree, and in how the communications around this oblique lawsuit are affecting the sense of care that the community has, both for this priest (whatever his status) and for the communion at large (as in the questions that have been raised about the pastoral responses of the bishop of Nevada or the communication referrals to him from the national church office).

Certainly there are "pastoral implications," and I would suggest that they extend beyond "boundary violations" and public perceptions created by communications from or within the church, while agreeing that the pastoral care of Bede Parry is a factor of profound impact. Please, though, keep in mind that it's his case. There are many factors in each applicant's individual situation and the process of reviewing and making decisions relating to them falls ultimately to bishops due to their autonomy.

I have none, and make no pretense of owning any tidy answer that will fit all postulants like a snuggle-blanket, nor do I know of anyone who does.

Yes, Parry's history included pastoral failings at several levels; my recitation of virtues was meant to emphasize that.

Yes, consideration of points which might seem esoteric to some does have its' place in the pastoral care of priests whether by bishops or by others; it's a package deal.

Yes, in his case, a process or "reprocessing" that allowed greater opportunity for more people to have input and interaction with him would and should have provided both greater surety, pro or con, and better documentation.

Yes, there is parity and fairness in setting such a requirement in Parry's case. The RCC Ordinariate isn't operating under an "open doors" policy, either. Both churches have the autonomy of deciding what each person must do to conform to their rules and that church's best interests.

Yes, Parry's RCC Orders were not in theologically apple pie order, and receiving them in that condition could raise questions, notably amongst other branches of the entire Catholic Church, with some of whom TEC already has challenges in maintaining understanding.

Yes, receiving his Orders in the manner in which it was done certainly appears to display evidence of at least one "mistake."

Yes, TEC needs to address Parry's case honestly and as openly as yet more and other laws and legal liabilities allow; neither stonewall pretense nor boilerplate from knee-jerk-reaction committees will serve TEC well in the long term.

So, as to "advocating":

Yes, I'd like to see bishops make a stronger effort to engage actively and constructively in a process which ultimately relies upon them.

Yes, I would be thrilled to hear and read more address of the proper pastoral care of men like Parry.

And yes, I would very much like to see a thoughtful Christian address of his case released by TEC press office on behalf of the PB.

Rev. CW Brockenbrough

Thanks for your clarifying thoughts, CW -- I think that I have a closer grasp of your position now.

I want to avoid that constant internet temptation to go line-by-line, and offer these thoughts back to you at present.

It seems to me that certain elements of our ordination process (this case points to the background checks fairly clearly) could be easily used in the reception process (indeed, I suspect they are, though I confess that I speak without deep knowledge of this) without forcing clergy to go through our full ordination process (a year's involvement in an Episcopal parish, 6-12 months' discernment with that parish's rector, a 6-12 month parish discernment committee, a postulancy interview, a postulancy period of formation for ministry (this one seems especially peculiar), a candidacy interview with the standing committee, an M.Div (presumably their old one counts), a unit of CPE, and a year of Anglican studies followed by the General Ordination Exams to prove they can apply academics to ministry, together with various re-commitments of the support of their sponsoring community).

To be explicit, many of these steps seem redundant; a set of good interviews and a review of ministry (someone with parish ministry history, especially in this day and age, will have more salient records about applying their education than the GOEs would draw out) seems a more direct engagement with where potential "receptees" are in their lives and ministries. There is no need for such an engagement to be shallow or assumptive, nor for it to ignore issues such as a history with boundary issues.

To move to a general concern, I think it's bad practice to make policy decisions as a reaction to one incident -- and here we have an incident where the facts aren't even clear: there are competing allegations about what did (not) exist ten years ago, who got it if it did, what other background checks were completed, etc.

Applying that here, suggesting that we not receive priests without making them go through a full Anglican ordination process seems to be a severe "baby-with-the-bathwatering."

With regard to your other comments, the thing that I find uncomfortable is the implicit suggestion that our processes should strive for fairness and parity with Roman Catholic processes. I'm very fond of the RCC ("Really, I've got lots of RC friends!"), but my commitment is to the gospel as we can live it out as TEC, following the will of God and the Lordship of Christ, and not with parity between denominations (else, why diversity of denominations?). That said, I remain struck that "fairness" seems better-applied to a sense that their vocation is not false just because it began in a different branch of our common life, rather than "each Anglican priest must be formed in the same way," (which I suspect is a principle that doesn't hold up long even amongst cradle Episcopalians).

Thanks, Benedict, I think we're getting fairly close to "eye-to-eye," here!

My proviso on this being about Parry's case holds for my RCC-related comments - though I surely would prefer fairness to be applied, experienced, and appreciated by all churches and all candidates. I think that in Parry's case, given differences in basic theological sensibilities, working out a program of additional seminary study which would have allowed him the advantages of that continuing education and offered TEC longer and better interaction, information, and documentation would have been mutually beneficial.

To study for how long? I dunno. That's where his old transcripts, a seminary course advisor, he, and the bishop speak, not me.

All of which says nothing about anybody else's case. Regardless of how this circle of questions and options get polished and honed, it comes down to the bishop in charge - which, conversely, says nothing of the current PB that doesn't apply equally to all bishops.

Their autonomy is the reason that they're in charge of the process - and responsible for engineering that particular, individual process which suits both TEC and each candidate best. While "each Anglican priest must be formed in the same way," has an interestingly "Edward Scissorhands" imagery to it, such a program would be silly and its' results most likely catastrophic. Rather, diversity is that gift which requires episcopal oversight for proper governance of the process. To cite a more recent article in "The Lead," we need a steadying, practiced hand in dealing with the potential "Pastafarian" applicant.

Perhaps, when bishops hear so much more, and more often, from lawyers than from clergy and laity on such important matters, it falls to clergy and laity to let them know that active, involved, committed interest in, and follow-up of, the process - whatever form it takes, case by case - is desirable, supported, and encouraged by those who are relying upon them. At the very least, what could it hurt?

Rev. CW Brockenbrough