09169
March 4, 2009

Capetz restoration case sent back to synod PJC

Test case on ‘scrupling’ must be tried, GAPJC rules

by Jerry L. Van Marter
Presbyterian News Service

LOUISVILLE ― The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s highest court has remanded back to a lower church court a case that will decide whether a former minister who refuses to promise that he will live in celibacy may be restored to active ministry.

The case revolves around Paul Capetz, a former PC(USA) minister and seminary professor who was ordained in 1991 but in 2000 set aside his ordination because of his conscientious objection to G-6.0106b of the church’s Book of Order, which requires of church officers “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.”

The 2006 General Assembly ― upon recommendation of its Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church ― adopted an “authoritative interpretation” of the Constitution whereby those being ordained could declare a “scruple” or conscientious objection to the PC(USA)’s ordination standards. It was then up to the ordaining body to determine whether any particular scruple does not involve an “essential” of Reformed faith or polity.

Capetz, in August 2007, requested to be restored to ordained ministry by Twin Cities Area Presbytery. He declared a “scruple” to G-6.0106b, stating “I refuse to take a vow of celibacy.”

In January 2008, the presbytery passed three motions recommended by its Committee on Ministry:

First, that Capetz’ “declared departure from G-6.0106b be found not to constitute a
failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the
Book of Order.”

Second, that Capetz “be restored to the exercise of ordained office of minister of Word
and Sacrament.”

Third, that the Presbytery validate Capetz’s “ministry as member of the faculty of United
Theological Seminary.”

Three members of the presbytery filed a remedial complaint with the synod PJC, asking it to order the presbytery to nullify all three actions. After a hearing in August 2008, the synod PJC dismissed the complaint “for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The complainants appealed that decision to the GAPJC, which heard the appeal on Feb. 27, 2009.

On March 2, the GAPJC ruled that the Synod of Lakes and Prairies Permanent Judicial Commission “erred by not conducting a trial to determine whether there are facts that show: (a) Capetz stated a departure from G-6.0106b and (b) if so, whether that departure was a failure to adhere to the requirements of G-6.0108; and if the facts show that (a) and (b) occurred, whether the Presbytery of Twin Cities’ action (to restore Capetz’ ordination) was irregular.”

“By remanding the case back to the synod PJC, the General Assembly’s PJC didn’t rule on the substance or merits of the case,” the Office of the General Assembly’s manager for judicial process  Laurie Griffith told the Presbyterian News Service. “They in essence told the synod PJC that it has the power and authority to conduct a trial on the merits and therefore must do so.”

There are a couple of wrinkles in the Capetz case. “This case is not remanded for a determination in the abstract as to whether any presbytery may decide that the “fidelity and chastity” requirement can be waived for any candidate or applicant for membership,” the ruling stated. “Rather, the synod PJC shall decide only on the basis of the facts of what the presbytery did with respect to Capetz and whether that particular action was irregular.”

Further, “there is nothing in the record to show that Capetz has taken any action that could be determined to be an act in violation of G-6.0106b.” Capetz declared a “scruple” objecting to G-6.0106b, but told the presbytery he is not currently in a sexual relationship.

And two procedural questions are also at stake: the process for restoration to ordained office and ordination are not the same; and the complainants filed a remedial case, which applies to actions of governing bodies, while any action against an individual, such as Capetz, must be dealt with in a disciplinary case.