While we know nothing of whether specific incidents of any sort resulted in Tutor's exclaustration, nor whether he was ever suspected of sexual impropriety, the Parry case provides somewhat more insight into what may be a parallel case of exclaustration in a Catholic religious community and an example of the real danger if an Anglican denomination does not inquire fully into the circumstances involved. This is an obscure subject, I'm not a canon lawyer, and Catholic sources stress that every exclaustration involves unique circumstances and conditions. But given the Parry case, it should ring some alarm bells.
The chronology here shows that, while the Catholic Church was very slow in its initial response to Parry's sexual activity, by 1987, it was fully aware of it and had taken action to (in the words of the chronology) place him on "three-year leave". Since exclaustrations can be for periods of one year or three years, and since Parry was a priest in a religious order, this appears to have been an exclaustration, not just a leave. In 1990, at the end of the period, Parry's abbot told him "it would not be wise" for him to return to the order, although Parry was allowed to continue functioning as a Catholic priest outside the order (his actual employment in this capacity appears to have been intermittent after this). This suggests that the result of the period of discernment involved in an exclaustration may be a not entirely voluntary decision to leave the order.
In 2000, Parry applied to join another Catholic religious order, but the order administered various psychological tests that sent up warning signals and rejected his application, and the Catholic Church eventually eased him out of the priesthood.
By 2002, Parry had applied to become an Episcopal priest. While accounts of who said what to whom at that time differ, the record appears to show that as part of the reception process, then-Episcopal Bishop of Nevada Schori spoke to Parry's abbot at his former community. The abbot claimed that he did notify Schori of Parry's record. It's worth pointing out that all discussions of the Parry case simply assume that this is the normal procedure for transferring a former Catholic monk or priest to another denomination. This procedure also included psychological testing by TEC, although the TEC tests apparently did not bring up Parry's proclivities. The question is simply whether Schori took appropriate action on hearing of Parry's record as a Catholic, although there is no question that a reference check and even psychological exams took place.
The Parry case also points out that there were very numerous incidents of misconduct by Parry within the order prior to his exclaustration and constructive expulsion, and it appears that exclaustration can be a very serious last resort taken only when lesser measures fail. If the ACA was not asking questions about Terrance Tutor in 2007, it should be asking very serious questions now.
The Roman Catholic Virtus program director makes this point:
During a recent VIRTUS® meeting at a diocese, the issue of screening and selection was explored. I discussed the fact that best practices standards require a church or religious organization to conduct a background and reference check on every staff member—regardless whether they interact with children—and on all volunteers who interact with children. A participant in the back of the room raised his hand and said, “If you want me to do a background and reference check on every staff member and on every volunteer who interacts with children, you’re nuts.” It was neither the first nor will it be the last time that someone will call me “nuts.” And, actually, I appreciated the opening because it was an excellent opportunity to illustrate the value of best practices standards. “You know,” I replied, “It is a nutty time we live in—a time for best practices nuts like me.”Tutor, in his capacity as "Safe Environment Coordinator" for the ACA Diocese of the Northeast, replied to a query on what best practices were for the ACA, replied,
Within this Diocese of the Northeast, we have a comprehensive policy that mirrors that of the Roman Catholic Dioceses around the nation.The ACA-DNE policy does in fact say,
Given the unique role and particular confidence that persons place in deacons, priests, and bishops, all applicants for ecclesiastical studies for ordination as deacons and priests, as well as all current deacons, priests, and bishops are held to the highest standards and undergo the strictest scrutiny thorough background screening, as mandated by the Anglican Church In America’s Constitution, Canons and Policies.So what check did the bishops do on Tutor? My own minimal-diligence check showed he lied about claiming to be, or to have been, an Augustinian monk. Any weasel-wording ("but he used to live under the Augustinian rule, after all") would not, presumably, conform to the "strictest scrutiny" test. But irrespective of anything else, nobody needs to administer psychological tests or put the guy on a couch to recognize that he has a very troubling need to impersonate an Augustinian priest, in dress and title, when he is clearly not what he claims to be.
Instead, the bishops have made him "safe environment coordinator". I would not advise anyone looking for a safe environment to go anywhere near the ACA.
What is the problem with the bishops?
