Hello All,
Just wanted to draw your attention to the Presbyterian Coalition's comments on the recent GA-PJC decision:
"Despite their limitations, the commission's decisions produced some help for the church. The PJC signaled in Naegeli et al v. Presbytery of San Francisco that its previous decision in Bush v Presbytery of Pittsburgh still stands, by quoting from that decision: "It would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the 'fidelity and chastity' portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision."
Similarly, though allowing the restoration of a person to ordained office in Bierschwale et al v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area, the commission said, "Having been restored to the exercise of the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament, [Paul] Capetz is fully accountable under all standards and requirements for ministers of Word and Sacrament to abide by the Constitution of the PC(USA), including G-6.0106b."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an extremely ambiguous ruling since it speaks out of both sides of its mouth. The GAPJC should have had the courage to take a stand, not avoid the crucial issue.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, I stand by my refusal to take or be obedient to a vow of celibacy. There is no point in being restored to the ministry if my "scrupple" is rendered meaningless by saying I am beholden to the very standard to which my conscience is opposed.
If someone wants to bring another challenge against me once again, go ahead.
Paul E. Capetz
(the following is a comment that made things clearer for me)
ReplyDeleteFor clarification, the case Bierschwale et al v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area was not a case against Dr. Capetz. Instead, it was a remedial case focused on the constitutionality of actions of the presbytery. Although the GAPJC did not find any of the presbytery’s actions to be irregular, in responding to “Specification of Error No. 6,” the GAPJC specifically stated the following in regard to Dr. Capetz :
Effect on Capetz.
Capetz’s past, present or future conduct is not at issue in this remedial case. If there is any question about Capetz’s conduct, including whether he has led a life in obedience to Scripture and in compliance with historic confessional standards of the church, he, like any other officer of the church, may be held accountable for his conduct under the Rules of Discipline. A remedial case may not be used to challenge the actions of a particular church officer. Wier v. Second Presbyterian Church, (2002 minutes. p. 339).... Capetz may still be subject to disciplinary action based on his conduct. Having been restored to the exercise of the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament, Capetz is fully accountable under all standards and requirements for ministers of Word and Sacrament to abide by the Constitution of the PC(USA), including G-6.0106b.
The GAPJC’s decision therefore makes it clear that as a Minister of the Word and Sacrament in the PC(USA), Dr. Capetz now has exactly the same obligations as all other officers of the PC(USA) to “abide by the Constitution of the PC(USA), including G-6.0106b.”