The Lead

A story has been making the rounds in the last few days that purports to demonstrate that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori knew that the Bede Parry, a former Roman Catholic monk, had sexually abused minors and was likely to do so again when she received him as a priest into the Episcopal Church while she was serving as the Bishop of Nevada.

This claim is overblown. Rather, the story is one person’s recounting of a conversation he had with a second person in which the second person allegedly recounted a conversation he had with Bishop Jefferts Schori in which he allegedly informed her of Parry’s past. In a courtroom, this sort of information is hearsay, and inadmissible. In a newsroom, it is a lead—a darn good one, but still only a lead. Those familiar with journalistic standards would know that the information is not publishable, at least by mainstream religion reporters, until confirmed by the man who allegedly had the conversation with Bishop Jefferts Schori.

I am certain that if any mainstream reporters are following the Parry case, they have already deduced that Abbot Gregory Polan, the second man whom I referred to above, is an obvious person to interview. He was a monk at Conception Abbey during Parry's tenure, and abbot by the time Parry was received into the Episcopal Church. He may be better able to answer the question of what the presiding bishop knew and when she knew it than anyone other than the presiding bishop herself. Either he has not been contacted (which I highly doubt); he is not talking; or he is not telling reporters what Patrick Marker, who has bravely brought material about sexual abuse within the Benedictine order to light, tells us that Abbot Polan told him.

Marker’s story can’t be accepted as factual until it is confirmed. But the existence of such a story, and the fact that it has gained traction with readers who have no ideological axes to grind, suggest that the presiding bishop will not be able to avoid speaking about this matter forever. And thanks to Mr. Marker, Abbot Polan may soon find himself in a similarly untenable position.

In Crisis Communications 101 (a course that exists entirely in my head) one is taught rules for governing the release of bad news: tell it yourself, tell it all, and tell it quickly. These rules apply with special force to organizations whose moral credibility is their stock in trade. I don’t know that the presiding bishop has bad news to deliver, but either way, she would be well advised to put the facts of the Parry case before us.

It is no surprise that the Episcopal Church’s ideological adversaries have been all over this issue. We at the Café find ourselves in the unusual position of believing that however overheated their rhetoric and under-sourced their stories, they may be doing the church a greater service in this matter, than the church is doing for itself.

Comments (13)

Thanks, Mr. Naughton, for a reasoned and reasonable post.

David Clohessy, SNAP Director

Posted by Snap Heals | October 31, 2011 11:44 AM

Thanks, Jim. The story is making the rounds amongst those who are generally not considered to be friendly to the Episcopal Church, thus it is timely for you to address the matter here.

Where is the transparency that was promised to us in the handling of sexual abuse in the Episcopal Church? It's way past time for us to have a statement from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. The Bede Parry story will not go away until we do.

June Butler

Posted by GrandmèreMimi | October 31, 2011 12:47 PM

He may be better able to answer the question of what the presiding bishop knew and when she knew it than anyone other than the presiding bishop herself.

Undoubtedly true . . . but still doesn't satisfy why "herself" isn't talking.

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux | October 31, 2011 2:48 PM

I find this all very disturbing...for some it is way more about wanting to discredit or call out the PB, than it is about the
actual situation in the dio of nev.

Yes, perhaps it would have been better for the PB to make a statement early on, however the letter by the current Bish of Nev. was well done and should have ended the matter. The
answer has been given; not accepting the answer unless it come directly from the PB? what's up with that? What is important... that the church answer the situation or that the
PB is called out?

As for the actual case: The facts to date indicate a man who offended in the past,
but amended his life.

Whether the PB knew or not about a psych eval saying 'he is likely to offend again', is beside the point...psychology is a good tool, but it is not the

absolute authority within the church nor the Kingdom of God. In any case, the facts to date show that the psych eval was wrong.

This should not be a scandal for the PB and the church...it should be a victory. and as Jesus says; "those without sin...throw the first stone".

The bottom line: if we expect our leaders to have never sinned...we had better be sinless ourselves

Daniel Jarvis

Posted by Dan Jarvis | October 31, 2011 3:35 PM

...for some it is way more about wanting to discredit or call out the PB, than it is about the actual situation in the dio of nev.

Daniel, not for me, I assure you. I have no reason in the world for wanting to discredit the PB. I rejoiced when KJS was elected PB. She was my favorite.

...the letter by the current Bish of Nev. was well done and should have ended the matter.

The fact is that it didn't. The story is making the rounds amongst those who wish TEC no good, and those folks are asking what the PB knew and when did she know it. Those of us who care deeply about sexual abuse and the Episcopal Church would also like to hear the answers from the PB herself.

Posted by GrandmèreMimi | October 31, 2011 7:56 PM

June thanks for reading and responding. I too care deeply about abuse and the episcopal church. And If you need to hear from the PB, i respect that.

blessings danielj

Posted by Dan Jarvis | October 31, 2011 9:55 PM

It may be expedient to frame the Bede Parry situation as: 'the Episcopal Church's ideological adversaries' vs. those who care about Clergy Sexual Abuse victims. As a moderate-conservative Episcopalian whose nuclear family was directly affected by Clergy Sexual Abuse (albeit not in ECUSA); the comparison is provocative ... at best. Frankly, I have found the behavior and attitudes of moderate and conservative Episcopalians neither more or less callous nor opportunistic towards victims of Clergy Sexual Abuse than those of the liberal TEC establishment. *Both* political wings of Episcopalians play church politics, incessantly, and once again, it appears that abuse victims are the tools to score major points against "the enemy". ... And yet, a few on *both* wings care deeply about victims. My heartfelt thanks goes out to all of them.

Since 2002, the glaring light of media scrutiny has shown on the dark corners of the R.C. Church, to the palpable agony of faithful Catholics. That has not been the experience of Episcopalians. Are there still-hidden dark corners in the Episcopal Church? I strongly suspect so.

It took the media to break through R.C. denial. What will it take to break through the pervasive denial at all levels of our church?

John Iliff

Episcopalian, and parent member – SNAP

Posted by John Iliff | November 1, 2011 1:14 PM

Daniel, thank you.

John, thanks for leaving a word. You know.

Posted by GrandmèreMimi | November 1, 2011 6:08 PM

For Christianity, we have a belief in the power of the Spirit and the transformation in Jesus to change lives. The evidence in this case bears that out. This doesn't happen as oft as we would like, we should be rejoicing in it and working towards reconciliation, forgiveness, and healing for all concerned.
Yes, forgiveness, but that does not mean one can be ordained as a priest. That should never have happened. One can amend one's life and never do something again - but there are also things one can never do because of the original offense. The fact that the bishop put the restriction of no contact with children on Parry and that now he is deposed - tells me that he should never have been ordained. And - If he had truly amended his life and there was no worry - why the deposition?

Posted by Ann Fontaine | November 2, 2011 10:31 AM

Ann There has been no deposition. Parry resigned on his own accord and asked to be released from priestly duty. And the"no contact with minors"...a logical approach of covering all the bases. The presented evidence indicates to me that this case is not the typical "bad priest coverup" that some people would like it to be, but rather an indication of a superficial, legalistic trend among some.

Posted by Dan Jarvis | November 2, 2011 1:48 PM

"Logical approach?" Logical would be no ordination - there are plenty of ways to minister without being ordained.

Posted by Ann Fontaine | November 2, 2011 1:57 PM

...this case is not the typical "bad priest coverup" that some people would like it to be...

What is it then, Daniel? Why so many questions still unanswered by the PB?

Who are the "some" with the "indication of a superficial, legalistic trend"? Plus, I don't understand what you mean by the words in quotes.

Posted by GrandmèreMimi | November 2, 2011 6:30 PM

Dear sisters I have no desire to go round n round with you on this. I posted my comments and they were mine to say. we disagree; i accept that.
The Lord be with you.

Posted by Dan Jarvis | November 2, 2011 11:50 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations