Questions remain for Nevada on abuse case: The Church of England Newspaper, July 14, 2011

Bishop Dan Edwards of Nevada and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

First printed in The Church of England Newspaper.

The Bishop of Nevada has issued a statement asserting that his predecessor did not violate canon law by receiving the Rev. Bede Parry into the priesthood of the Episcopal Church.  However, anti-abuse activists have lambasted Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s continued silence in the affair, and have warned the Church that silence will not end questions on what she knew, and when she knew it.

In a strongly worded statement released on July 5, Bishop Dan Edwards stated the decision to receive Fr. Parry was not taken alone by Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in 2004, but was “a multi-level decision which meticulously followed the applicable canons.”

However, some of the facts laid out by Bishop Edwards conflict with statements given by other participants in the Parry affair.  The bishop, who has declined to respond to questions from The Church of England Newspaper, has also sidestepped the issue of what his predecessor knew about Fr. Parry, as well as why the bishop and diocese felt free to ignore its own guidelines on sexual misconduct when it received the former Roman Catholic priest.

Bishop Edwards stated the diocese’s clergy selection board, the Commission on Ministry, knew of the “incident of ‘inappropriate touching’ that allegedly occurred with a young man in his late teens. That incident was not covered up.”

He also denied any knowledge of a 2000 psychological examination that identified Fr. Parry as a serial sexual abuser.  “No such report was sent to the Diocese of Nevada and, to this day, we have no knowledge of its existence other than an assertion” in a law suit.

Bishop Edwards added that even were such a test performed in 2000 as claimed, “reliable testing to predict such sexual abuse was not even developed until nearly two decades later, so the assertion in the John Doe complaint is dubious.”

He did state that an independent psychological evaluation by the diocese “did not indicate any pathology or risk.”

Bishop Edwards added that his predecessor, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori “added the restriction that [Fr Parry] should not have contact with minors. This was to add double protection and prevent even the appearance of any threat to minors. This restriction and the reasons for it were conveyed by the bishop to people who supervised Fr. Bede’s work.”

The bishop noted that there had been no complaints about Fr. Parry’s conduct, stating that “since he became a priest, there has been no report, formal or informal, credible or incredible, no rumor or innuendo of any repetition of the [1987] incident.”

Fr. Parry’s colleagues amongst the Nevada clergy have confirmed Bishop Edwards’ assessment of Fr. Parry’s probity and dedication whilst serving as an Episcopal priest.  The former rector of All Saints Church in Las Vegas, Fr. Eldwin Lovelady told CEN that during the five years Fr. Parry was his assistant “I found him to be faithful to his priestly ministry, a wonderful pastoral presence to me and to members of the parish, and a friend.”

In an apparent contradiction to the bishop’s claim that restrictions were placed on Fr. Parry’s ministry and the “reasons for it conveyed” by Bishop Jefferts Schori to his supervisors, Fr. Lovelady said he “never had even the smallest hint of any kind of inappropriate behavior, or any inclination to such.  I was not aware of anything in his past and now that I’ve been made aware of these allegations, I have not changed my opinion about Bede in any way and if I were still in the diocese of Nevada, I would be supporting him.”

Bishop Edwards’ claim the diocese did not receive the 2000 psychological profile of Fr. Parry is at odds, as he notes, with the claim made in a lawsuit filed last month in Missouri, which stated the Episcopal Diocese was given a copy of the report.  However, the bishop’s further contention that any psychological profile conducted in 2000 that indicated a predilection for abuse would be “dubious” as such tests would not be developed until “20 years later” appears to be a misstatement.

The bishop’s assertion that no test in 2000 could accurately gauge predilection towards abuse cannot be substantiated by reference to scientific literature.  The September 1989 issue of the journal Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment reports the Multiphasic Sex Inventory (MSI I) “is also an excellent instrument for differentiating between deniers and non-deniers of abuse.”  The second edition of the test, MSI II, was released in 2000 and has been used in over 50,000 cases to identify and plan treatment regimes for sexual abusers.

An attorney for Fr. Parry told CEN his client shared details of the 1987 incident with Bishop Jefferts Schori as well as his subsequent hospitalization.  What remains unclear, however, is why a background investigation failed to look into Fr. Parry’s four previous incidents of abuse known to the Catholic Church—incidents that would have been noted in any report on his hospitalization for abuse in 1987.

The bishop’s claim that all procedures were followed in the Diocese of Nevada process, does not address issues raised by canon lawyer Allan Haley that Bishop Jefferts Schori and the diocese appear to have violated canon law by not following the rules governing the reception of Roman Catholic clergy into the Episcopal Church.  Nor has the bishop explained how the Diocese of Nevada’s absolute prohibition on serving in the ordained ministry for those who have committed child abuse was waived in Fr. Parry’s case.

Supporters of the embattled priest, tell CEN they are disappointed by the Presiding Bishop’s silence and the diocese’s lack of support for a priest, whom Bishop Edwards has noted has an “unblemished” record.

Anti-abuse advocates are equally outraged.  David Clohessy, the national director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, the nation’s largest and oldest self help group for clergy molestation victims was unimpressed by the Episcopal Church’s response.

Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was “ducking and dodging.  If she truly acted responsibly with this admitted predator, she’d address the roiling questions of why she ordained him,” he said.