WORSE THAN THE CRIME
Jim Naughton takes note of the continuing interest in the Bede Parry situation and Katharine Jefferts Schori’s part in it:
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.
Jim’s absolutely right, of course. At this point, all we have is Bruce Marker’s version of his conversations with Abbot Gregory Polan. Unless and until the Abbot confirms Marker’s story, we don’t have very much. And Jim’s also correct in stating that the Presiding Bishop could make all this go away tomorrow if she wanted to.
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, suggests 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.
And the fact that sites like this one have latched on to this story means nothing.
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.
Can’t argue with any of that. And Jim’s commenters agree. Obviously, the Presiding Bishop isn’t going to say anything unless she absolutely has to. And if Gregory Polan has decided, for whatever reason, to clam up, then speculation about what Katharine Jefferts Schori knew about Bede Parry and when she knew it will continue to fester. To the detriment of the Episcopal Church.
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.
Jim’s absolutely right, of course. At this point, all we have is Bruce Marker’s version of his conversations with Abbot Gregory Polan. Unless and until the Abbot confirms Marker’s story, we don’t have very much. And Jim’s also correct in stating that the Presiding Bishop could make all this go away tomorrow if she wanted to.
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, suggests 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.
And the fact that sites like this one have latched on to this story means nothing.
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.
Can’t argue with any of that. And Jim’s commenters agree. Obviously, the Presiding Bishop isn’t going to say anything unless she absolutely has to. And if Gregory Polan has decided, for whatever reason, to clam up, then speculation about what Katharine Jefferts Schori knew about Bede Parry and when she knew it will continue to fester. To the detriment of the Episcopal Church.
The Rev. David Swanson, senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Orlando. (Orlando Sentinel file / October 28, 2011)
This weekend, in light of the continuing protests at St Paul's, many in the Church will be asking themselves whether they side with the protesters or the authorities. But as author and Church historian Stephen Tomkins writes, the debate goes back at least 2,000 years.
The Church of England Evangelical Council, which speaks on behalf evangelical bodies within the Church of England, notes with concern suggestions being supported by the Prime Minister that would radically redefine the concept of marriage.