A few days ago the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies dismissed the remedial complaint filed against the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area regarding their restoration of the Rev. Paul Capetz to the practice of ordained ministry.  The Rev. Capetz is on the faculty of United Theological Seminary, an independent theological institution with a UCC heritage.  He had asked to be released in 2000 because he could not agree with Book of Order section G-6.0106b, the “fidelity and chastity” standard.  With the passage of the PUP Report he asked to be restored while declaring a scruple.  The Presbytery agreed in January and restored Mr. Capetz.  The complaint was then filed with the Synod PJC.  I’ve held off a couple of days hoping to get official language, but I have not found it yet so I’ll discuss this decision based on what was first reported by the Witherspoon Society.

According to the Witherspoon Society piece, the Synod PJC ruled that the Book of Order and interpretations by previous General Assembly PJC decisions all deal with the ordination process and since Mr. Capetz was previously ordained there was no basis for complaint.  I would also note that the Authoritative Interpretation resulting from the PUP report also deals principally with the ordination process, and that another GAPJC decision deals only with a call to employment in a PC(USA) entity.  In light of this precedent and case law this is a reasonable decision by the SPJC, even if it seems counter-intuitive based on all these previous decisions.  To determine a new interpretation on this particular circumstance will require appeal to the GAPJC or action by the General Assembly.

If you are interested there are a whole series of GAPJC decisions on this which have carved the lines fairly precisely.  As I list these I will usually rely on the very brief description found in the Annotated Book of Order.   One series of decisions has dealt with the ordination process.  The decision in 205-4: Gary J. LeTourneau et al v. Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area in 1993 made clear that a “self-affirmed practicing homosexual” (SAPH) may not be certified ready for ordination.  The prohibition on ordination was reaffirmed in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and in 218-04: George R. Stewart v. Mission Presbytery in 2008.  However, the GAPJC also made clear that if you are celibate you may be ordained based on 212-12: John S. Sheldon, et al., v. the Presbytery of West Jersey. And then in a couple of decisions that bridge between the two extremes, 214-5: Ronald L. Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and 215-8: Presbytery of San Joaquin v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods and Edgar T. Hart, Steve Nesheim, Larry Ballenger, Bill McDonald, Merle Wood, Rebecca Jordan-Irwin, and Kent A. Webber v. The Presbytery of the Redwoods, the GAPJC basically reaffirmed that orientation alone is not an impediment to ordination, but if there are reasonable grounds (not rumor) to believe the individual is a SAPH than the ordaining body is obligated to investigate this.

As far as ordination is concerned, these have all been related to the ordination process and the GAPJC has made it clear in 206-3: Hope Church v. Central Church in 1994, and reaffirmed in 211-2: Wier v. Session, Second Presbyterian Church of Fort Lauderdale, Florida that an ordination may not be annulled under these circumstances.  And the GAPJC did caution in 215-5: Daniel J. McKittrick v. The Session of the West End Presbyterian Church of Albany, New York not to rush the ordination or installation process to reach this end.

There is one other thread in the GAPJC decisions which is applicable here.  While an ordination may not be annulled in these cases, the GAPJC did say in 205-5: Ronald P. Sallade et al v. Presbytery of Genesee Valley in 1993, and reaffirmed in several of these other cases, that a SAPH, if ordained, may not be called to employment in a PC(USA) position that “presumes ordination.”  In the case of Mr. Capetz, he is employed by an independent theological institution and the presbytery validated that ministry.

As I skim through these previous decisions, it strikes me that there is no set precedent for restoration to ordained ministry.  (I’m sure you will let me know if I missed a paragraph somewhere.)  And while it does seem to go against the intent of many of these decisions, and of the recent 218-10: Randall Bush, Wayne Peck, and the Session of East Liberty Presbyterian Church v Presbytery of Pittsburgh, I see no reason under current decisions that the SPJC should not have dismissed it.  As I said before, the real test will be the GAPJC if it is appealed.  Time will tell.