Fascinating Email Exchange raises even more questions about the Presiding Bishop/Bede Parry Case

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Patrick J Marker wrote to Abbot Gregory Polan here including this:
*** During our first telephone conversation, on Monday, April 25, 2011, you shared the following information:

1) You heard something about Bede’s 1981 misconduct at St. John’s “at the time of the incident”.

2) You were aware of an incident involving Bede Parry with a member of the abbey’s choir in the summer of 1987.

3) Bede Parry was sent to New Mexico soon after the 1987 incident.

4) When Bede Parry tried to enter another monastery, he took psychological tests that showed a “proclivity toward sexual misconduct with minors.”

5) You called Parry’s boss at an ambulance company and a woman bishop with the Episcopal Church with the information.

6) You identified the woman bishop as Katharine Jefferts Schori.

7) You told Katharine Jefferts Schori not only about the allegations [plural] against Bede, but also of Bede’s attempt to join another monastery, the psychological testing and his “proclivity”.

8 ) That Katharine Jefferts Schori, despite your revelations, “allowed him to continue to work.”
Read it all carefully.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Episcopal Church (TEC) • Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori • TEC Parishes • TEC Polity & Canons • * Christian Life / Church Life • Parish Ministry • Ministry of the Ordained • * Religion News & Commentary • Other Churches • Roman Catholic

11 Comments
Posted October 28, 2011 at 6:11 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Creedal Episcopalian wrote:

In our last conversation, you said that you had to trust your conscience. I find it hard to believe that your conscience is telling you to stonewall.

Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark.

October 28, 9:53 am | [comment link]
2. cseitz wrote:

What prevents AS Haley from bringing charges before the Intake Officer? I mean that sincerely.

October 28, 11:16 am | [comment link]
3. wildfire wrote:

#2,

Canon IV.6:

Information concerning Offenses may be submitted to the Intake Officer in any manner and in any form….
Any person other than the Intake Officer who receives information regarding an Offense shall promptly forward the information to the Intake Officer.

This is a canonical duty for all clergy.  For laity it is permissive, but not mandatory.

October 28, 12:22 pm | [comment link]
4. Cennydd13 wrote:

Then it should be done…..immediately.

October 28, 12:35 pm | [comment link]
5. David Keller wrote:

I know.  Let’s get Dorsey Henderson on the case. Right away.

October 28, 12:40 pm | [comment link]
6. cseitz wrote:

Thanks, Wildfire. Perhaps ACI clerics can file charges. It sounds like it is our duty as clergy.

October 28, 2:07 pm | [comment link]
7. Cennydd13 wrote:

Hmmm…...perhaps we’re starting something here….....

October 28, 3:18 pm | [comment link]
8. Cennydd13 wrote:

Ya think?

October 28, 3:19 pm | [comment link]
9. ORNurseDude wrote:

In light of the seriousness of the allegations regarding her conduct in the case of Bede Parry when KJS was the Ordinary of Nevada, is she not obligated - as Presideing Bishop - to inhibit/restrict herself, in accordance with the “new and improved” Title IV canons?
Perhaps, in the immortal words of Jeremiah Wright, “the chickens are coming home to roost.”

October 28, 4:04 pm | [comment link]
10. cseitz wrote:

I suspect it wouldn’t hurt to write the gentleman running the Conception Abuse blog and indicate what the procedures are. All one must do is write the Intake Officer, Bishop Clay Matthews. Coming from Mr Marker, this would be a serious concern.

October 28, 5:45 pm | [comment link]
11. Cennydd13 wrote:

9.  And one of ‘em just laid an egg with this latest revelation.

October 28, 8:11 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): A.S. Haley on the New Questions the Presiding Bishop needs to Answer Re: Bede Parry

Previous entry (below): David Ould on a TEC website prayer Omission and then *Amendment*

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)