(CEN) Lawsuit charges US Presiding Bishop knowingly ordained a paedophile

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has declined to respond to questions concerning her ordination to the priesthood of a paedophile. Her silence has prompted questions from liberals and conservatives in the church about what she knew of the Rev. Bede Parry’s confessed abuse of boys, and when she knew it.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts SchoriTEC Bishops* Christian Life / Church LifeParish MinistryMinistry of the Ordained* Culture-WatchChildrenLaw & Legal Issues* TheologyEthics / Moral TheologyPastoral Theology

Posted July 5, 2011 at 5:27 am

To comment on this article: Go to Article View

The URL for this article is http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/37428/

1. TomRightmyer wrote:

The lawsuit says, “Immediæely after Plaintiff reported the sexual abuse by Fr. Parcy in 1987, Fr. Parry was sent for sexual offender treatment at the Servants of the Paracletes facilþ in Jemez
Springs, New Mexico, where Fr. Pany resided from August 1987 through October of 1987.”  Three months treatment to deal with many years of sexual misconduct?  Touching faith in psychological treatment - but not uncommon at the time.

July 5, 8:18 am | [comment link]
2. David Wilson wrote:

Bishop Marshall’s remarks say it all! Nothing will come of this. The Pee Bee will slide through.  One only needs to compare the treatment of Bp Steven Plummer of Navaholand and Bp Ci Jones of Montana.  Plummer gets off with a handslap for sexually abusing his teenage nephew and Jones gets defrocked for an extramarital affair he was engaged in as a priest 20 years prior to the charges being leveled.  One bishop was a liberal and one was a conservative.  I’ll bet you can guess which bishop was which.

July 5, 10:20 am | [comment link]
3. Cennydd13 wrote:

Sooner or later, even the most “progressive” bishops are going to tire of their Church…..and their reputations…..being dragged through the mud because of the shenanigans of the past few years.  What do you suppose will happen then?  I’m not as sanguine as you are, David, and even though I’m no longer an Episcopalian (thank God!), I still have friends in TEC who despise that woman, and they are fed up to the point where they intend to petition General Convention to get rid of her “for the sake of the Church’s survival.”

July 5, 10:34 am | [comment link]
4. cseitz wrote:

The title here is cleverly written—Conger is that.
Is the paraphrase: In a lawsuit against a sexual abuser and the Abbey he worked at, we learn that a psychiatric report was sent out to the Diocese of Nevada in which it is stated that the abuser ‘had a proclivity to abuse minors.’

July 5, 11:35 am | [comment link]
5. driver8 wrote:

Was he re-ordained? Aren’t former RC priests typically received?

July 5, 12:45 pm | [comment link]
6. David Hein wrote:

No. 5: Someone mentions that in the Comments section of this article.

July 5, 12:47 pm | [comment link]
7. DTerwilliger wrote:

#‘s 5 & 6:
I was thinking the same thing - perhaps he was Laicized by the RCC which would then explain a TEC ordination?  That being said (hypothetically) - all the more reason for adequate inquiry by the Diocese of Nevada into the circumstances of his desire to minister within the TEC.

July 5, 1:21 pm | [comment link]
8. Katherine wrote:

The facts still seem murky.  He says he told Jefferts-Schori about the 1987 event, calling it “sexual misconduct.”  It seems to me that a bishop should investigate that, and as the story is presented now she seems to have been far too casual about accepting what Parry said at face value—if that’s what happened.  A key might be some proof that the 2000 report was provided to the Diocese of Nevada and that it says what the lawsuit alleges it says.  I don’t say these things as a supporter of the PB, but because even people we don’t approve of are entitled to have the evidence presented.  Surely someone else in Nevada must have been aware of something about this story.  I hope they will step forward.

July 5, 4:53 pm | [comment link]
9. cseitz wrote:

#8—Yes. The present Bishop of Nevada made a very compressed statement. Even he could presumably check the records and determine if the psychiatric report was received/reviewed, etc. If the PB is going to remain silent, I wonder if SNAP ought to be more diligent in seeking answers.

July 5, 4:58 pm | [comment link]
10. Ralph wrote:

I’m not sure that there’s an effective way, within TEC channels, to demand (and get) full accountability from all concerned.

So, anyone who can apply pressure from the outside, via the news media and legal avenues, should have at it.

This story cannot be allowed to fade into the sunset.

July 5, 5:36 pm | [comment link]
11. Alta Californian wrote:

I’m with David, I find it difficult to believe she’ll face any repercussions whatsoever.

July 5, 6:37 pm | [comment link]
12. Ratramnus wrote:

Did he commit any offenses after becoming an Episcopalian?

July 5, 8:01 pm | [comment link]

© 2014 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.

For original material from Titusonenine (such as articles and commentary by Dr. Harmon) permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com

<< Back to main page

<< Return to Mobile view (headlines)