Thank you for shining a spotlight on things that desperately need illuminating.

We await a statement from the Presiding Bishop.

Yes, we wait, but less and less patiently as each day passes with no word from the Presiding Bishop.

June Butler

In 1994 when I was in elementary school, a girl I went so school with, a seven year old whose brother was my age (10ish), was sexually assaulted and murdered by a convicted pedophile.

He had been in prison at least twice before for sexual assault of a minor (in 1975 and 1981 - the latter for which he only served 6 years). He had said he thought it would do it again.

He and two other convicted pedophiles moved in together in a suburban house in central New Jersey. The men got a puppy. The murder, who lived next door to the girl, invited her in to look at the puppy.

Imagine what it was like, two days later, when our parents had to explain to us what happened to Megan

Allie Graham

I'm not saying this man might not have been "recovered", but I want to know why she felt that he wouldn't do it again.

Allie Graham

The petition says " In 2000, Fr. Parry underwent psychological testing relating to the possibility of entering another monastery. The results of this testing revealed that Fr. Pany 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."

Proclivity means "not recovered."

I am not commenting about anything else, but I would like to point out that the Presiding Bishop did not ordain this man. He was already a priest ordained by a bishop in the apostolic succession.

That is true David- but the PB made him an Episcopal priest -- that is the point.

You're right, David, and the correction was being made while your were commenting.

Why he'd not been deposed by the RC's is another question.

But whether the proper term is ordained or not only emphasizes that canonically he still was subject to the whole process of someone being ordained -- or should have been.

WHY is the current Bishop of Nevada not freaking out? Isn't the BEST we can say is, "TEC dodged a bullet?" (If that?)

Not having adults alone w/ children (in rooms w/o windows) is important, yes. But that's on the "General Precautions" list.

I think we in the pews have an expectation of Due Diligence, regarding our church personnel (ordained AND lay).

We're waiting to hear if this was done. If ex-Fr Parry hid his past (entirely), what steps will be taken to see that no priest (future OR current!) can do this anymore?

And if he DIDN'T hide his past, how could this have happened????

We Need Answers, ASAP!!!

JC Fisher

I want to be attentive to the pain of those whose lives have been affected by the story of someone near them (or within their own story) who has been a victim of such abuse; however, I also feel that this discussion has some other facets that people may be aware of, but are not explicit, and so I'm hoping to simply point to them briefly.

One is a question after John Chilton; I'm not clear that "proclivity" does mean "not recovered," or at the very least, this sounds like technical psych evaluation language on par with that in alcoholism. Does an alcoholic (who, as the saying goes, "never recovers") retain the "proclivity" in the same sense as it's being used in a clinical psychiatric evaluation? It might not be inappropriate (or be less inappropriate, or somehow more-nuanced) to accept someone into work if this was a technical term that was being managed (as perhaps in a bipolar priest who is managing the emotional swings with medication).

I recently underwent a Diana screening as part of my own ordination screening process. It was a deeply disturbing couple of hours that involved looking at images of people in bondage situations, children, and other "deviancies." I remember being terrified that my ministry would be ended before it began on the basis of a statistically-significant spike in my reaction time to the images flashing across the screen.

That's a different matter from someone who has admitted to a criminal act, though other threads have discussed both the need for a "one strike, you're out" policy and the fact that with some of the (young) adult men involved, the issue may fall more to questions of celibacy vows and power dynamics in a pastoral role, rather than of child abuse. What I want to hold as similar is that if we are going to hold that some terms damn a man, we need to be very careful that we know what they mean and when we want to use them.

A separate thought is that there may be legal reasons for the Presiding Bishop not to issue an official statement. One hopes that this is being investigated with due diligence, but taking care of the process of working out something like this might take some time, especially given that there are continuing pastoral dynamics involved, as well as not being legally named as a defendant in the case.

I admit I have a lot of curiosity about what happened 20 years ago, what the policies were then, whether they were followed, how and why they've changed since then, and whether Fr. Parry was held to any changed standards that might have been present, but I am willing to wait for my curiosity to be sated, even as I understand the value (and indeed, necessity) of not letting the pressure for eventual transparency fade from sight.

In the meantime, I'm aware that as anxiety rises, it's hard to see fine distinctions, and harder to hold to grace and patience -- and there are rightly few anxieties greater than the fear that our policies might not protect our children. Sometimes that anxiety is the wind in our sails as we seek out new ways of doing things that will better serve us, such as building or reaffirming the need for Keeping God's People Safe or Safe Guarding God's Children. Other times it is a violent wind into which we shout our own voices. As this continues to unfold, I hope to hold everyone involved in prayer, that the God of all healing may offer grace to every level of our reactions, fears, and expectations moving through this time.

The DSM-IV TR defines pedophilia as having fantasies, urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child. Hence, one could be diagnosed as a pedophile without ever having actual sexual contact with a child. 'Proclivity' refer to the fantasies and urges. It would be very risky to hire a pedophile as defined above.

Don Hands

Furthermore, no ALARM BELLS going off among Episcopalians -both lay and clergy - after reading the comments by Bishop Marshall on 6/25/11 in this very blog?!

Mainline & Evangelical Protestants and the E. Orthodox for some time have had their own "departments" in SNAP. Perhaps The Episcopal Church has now "earned" it's very own berth in SNAP as well?

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/news_reports/nevada_priests_resigns_amid_se.html

Today's changes to the Title IV disciplinary canons will muzzle most clergy.

Petition time, laypeople?

When no comments are forthcoming from the office of the Presiding Bishop, after a full week, one has to wonder about the committment to transparency.

This has to be taken seriously, and answers are expected.

It's simple, really. Did the Bishop of Nevada receive, or not, the 2000 psych eval? If so, what led you to the decision to move his candidacy forward? Did you order a pych eval? Was it in conflict with the one done in 2000? Did he admit to misconduct, or state there was only an allegation? Did he admit a violation direct to you? If so, why did you continue with the process? Since he was already ordained in another tradition, did you speak with his former superiors? If not, why not? Did you do a background check of more than the standard 10 years required by the Oxford Document Company? If not, why not? If The Episcopal Church is not a party to the lawsuit, why have no statements been issued?

When our leaders do not stand up with full transparency on this issue, how dare we demand it of others?

The Episcopal Church must be a leader in this area.

Dave Halt+

A separate thought is that there may be legal reasons for the Presiding Bishop not to issue an official statement.

Benedict Varnum, there may indeed be legal reasons, but I'd like to think that a pastoral response would take priority. After all, the Presiding Bishop is the chief pastor of a church, not the CEO of a corporation.

June Butler

Siblings, remember that everyone has a right to due process - including the Presiding Bishop. While neither she nor the Diocese of Nevada are defendants in the current suit, that doesn't mean there won't be a future suit. Living in a business where attorneys tend to add defendants and ask questions later (it's not uncommon for a doctor to be included in a suit because he or she was in the chart, even though the doctor's only note was to say that the patient was inappropriate for a consult and so was not seen!), I'm not shocked by caution.

I am also cognizant of the DSM IV definition that Don has provided, because to date none of the allegations against Parry, nor his admissions, are of actions involving "a prepubescent child." He is certainly guilty of sexual misconduct. However, all of his victims are, or in law may be seen as adults(remember, laws of sexual "age of consent" vary from state to state, and may be younger than 18).

We certainly need to know a lot more, and we want to know it as quickly as possible. In this, as in other events, we may have to wait for the courts to decide what "as quickly as possible" means.

In the meantime, I would recall these words of G. K. Chesterton, put into the mouth of Fr. Brown ("The Chief Mourner of Marne."):

"We have to touch such men, not with a bargepole, but with a benediction," he said. "We have to say the word that will save them from hell. We alone are left to deliver them from the despair when your human charity deserts them. Go on your own primrose path pardoning all your favourite vices and being generous with your fashionable crimes; and leave us in the darkness, vampires of the night, to console those who really need consolation; who do things really indefensible, things that neither the world nor they themselves can defend; and none but a priest will pardon. Leave us with the men who commit the mean and revolting and real crimes; mean as St. Peter when the cock crew, and yet the dawn came."

That includes even Parry and Bishop Katherine.

Marshall Scott

Marshall--It is certainly important for us not to rush to judgment--but that is where the PB could make a huge difference. As June notes, she is the head of the church--and that gives her certain responsibilities that ought not to be abrogated by the mealy-mouthed disclaimer: "On the advice of my legal team, I cannot discuss this."

We come from a long line of people who DIED to proclaim the Truth. It seems rather pathetic to be unable to tell the truth because you are afraid of legal consequences.

Benediction and consolation do not require leaving people who have made grievous errors in judgment in positions of leadership. We can show compassion without leaving the foxes in charge of the hen house.

Marshall, the Roman Catholic Church had legal advice from the beginning, and look where it got them.

What did the PB know, and when did she know it?

Of course, those in authority must allow for due process, but we also need simple answers to simple questions.

June Butler

We are ostensibly Christians.

Our Faith is supposed to be about forgiveness and redemption, not judgement.

The Church has historically been about judgment and power, and abuse of power and rush to judgement go with the territory.

Pedophilia and Ephebophilia amongst the Clergy are only part of the problem, though an especially egregious and monstrous part.

Are we Christians?

http://www.getreligion.org/2011/07/got-news-what-did-jefferts-schori-know-about-pedophile-priest/

Give me a reason to tell my SNAP colleagues that we really do walk the talk.

John
Episcopalian and SNAP member