To spell it out,

the bike is analagous to a game of chess in this story.

the lost bike represents a game that is lost/forgotten and cannot quite be remembered of its own accord.

the bishop is like friend whose advice is analagous to a tool which can be used as a "remembering device" to recall the bike/game.

This particular remembering device, however, has the unintended consequence of recalling an association/indiscretion that, how shall I say, may best be forgotten.

Having established that . . . then one might assume that the Vicar (us) would prefer to lose the bike rather than being forced to recall his prior indiscretions by employing the Bishop's advice/tool.

The reality is that no-one has stolen his bike. He misplaced it through his own forgetfulness. So when he recovers the bike, it reminds him that he should really have more faith in his fellow man. Instead of thinking the worst of others, he should first look to his own weaknesses.

For that matter, we have no proof that the vicar was guilty of adultery. He may have been advising a married couple in his parish who were having marital problems.

So perhaps we are at fault when we jump to the conclusions that the adultery in the story must be the vicar's? Metaphorically, have we all lost our bicycles?

- the reason I mentioned adultery is because, given what <once> had mentioned in his story, that analogy is reasonable to ASSUME - although of course it is not by any means proven.

When the vicar mentions adultery in his sermon, it triggers his recollection of where he left his bike - so its not unreasonable to assume that PERHAPS it was his own indiscretions that triggered that recollection. The story, as related here, does not allow us to really make much more inferences than that.

As far as the real story goes, I have never heard it before, and have no clue about anything it intends to relate. I took all my cues from the story that <once> wrote here! Obviously, if there is any more to the story than what was retold here, that could change everything!

I agree that the bike could be a metaphor for the vicar's faith, or lack thereof - if the bike is seen thru the lens of forgetfulness - because at the end of <once's> tale, he compares the lost bike to a forgotten game. So yes, surely it is possible that the Vicar has misplaced his goodwill toward others - although then perhaps another of the ten commandments would have been a more appropriate trigger to his recollection.

It's not a true story. It's a very very old joke. The mechanism for the humour is that an unexpected revelation <that the vicar is being adulterous> is revealed through indirect means - <him forgetting where he left his bike>.

The sepia tinge is because the story/joke is set in the 1950s, when everything was black and white.

And the link to the game is about forgetfulness. I really cannot remember seeing this game before, but I got to the solution almost instantly. And I'm normally not a good enough analyst to solve Thursday level problems as quickly as that.

Apparently Paul McCartney had a similiar experience with the song "Yesterday". He says that he heard the song in a dream. What is more, he dreamt it so clearly that he was able to play it note for note when he woke up. And this worried him - had he remembered it clearly because it was a song he had already heard and just remembered, or had he really just made it up in a dream? Forgetfulness or inspiration?

So he played the song for the other Beatles to see if they recognised it.

I'm not sure this is entirely worth the effort here, but for the sake of clarity, and possibly some closure as well,

Let me explain . . .

I think the misunderstanding stems from <izimbra's> comments - since he references elements of the real/original story that you didn't include when you told it. For instance, he said:

<The way I heard it is that the vicar and his wife were planning to divorce, he was lonely, and he got lured into some sexy flirting by organized con artists.>

and then he said, to me, . . .

<calling any of that adultery . . . is an absurd stretch>

But this seems kinda whacky to me - I am not sure I understand why labeling it adulterous was an "absurd stretch" - it seems perfectly sound, given what you said.

For instance, since it was the association with "adultery" that led to his recollection, we can fairly assume he was adulterous - at least that's how I understand the humour.

In any case, I stand by my assessment and think its fine!!

It's interesting that you mention Sir Paul and the Fab Four - for surely (among other things) they were masters of the art of association.

The Beatles are among my favorite musicians and I never tire to hear about their history and sources of inspiration, etc. They really were something special, no?

You mention a desire for "closure". The following Wikipedia article is a little abstract, but I recommend a close reading, as it may not only help you with that goal, but also describes important wisdom of general applicability:

The difference: on the immediate 16. Nf7+, Black can play <16...Rxf7> because he still has the bishop on d6, thus allowing 17. Re7+ <Rf8>. So White would win only the exchange (17. Bxf7), instead of a whole piece as in the game line.