Comments for Capetz seeks to declare a scruple in Twin Cities Presbytery on celibacy standard at http://pres-outlook.net , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://pres-outlook.net Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:20:19 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.net/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/6430.html#comment-3675 I applaud Paul Capetz, and Scott Anderson too, both of whom are publically exercising the option of declaring their scruples in pursuit of re-engaging the ordained ministries they once laid aside. Both are gay men of faith and conscience whose call to ministry, in my opinion, uniquely embodies our confessional commitment to 'hear the voices of people long silenced.' Despite Mr. Tony's protestation, Paul Capetz has put his finger directly on a major issue... the de facto requirement of celibacy implicit in the way G-6.0106b has been conceived and understood, even though the confessions of our church (see C-6.126 and 7.249)forbid 'entangling vows' of this nature. The PCUSA has thus placed itself in the very odd position of requiring something that the confessions call sin in the very application of something that disqualifies anyone who persists in anything the confessions call sin. That probably means that under a strict interpretation of G-6.0106b not a single one of us -- clergy, elders, or deacons -- has been validly ordained or installed since 'B' became part of the constitution in 1997. Yep. It sure sounds like the denomination has backed itself into a corner to me! - Kenneth Cuthbertson Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/6430.html#comment-3672 I think there is a major issue here with the General Assembly's acceptance of PUP report WITH AMENDMENT. To declare a scruple simply means you disagree with a theological or polity stance. However, the amendment added by General Assembly makes it clear that one's disagreement does not give a governing body the right to set aside ordination standards. Instead, the next question is, 'Even though you disagree, will you abide by the standard?' If the answer is yes, the individual is ordainable. If the answer is no, then the individual cannot be ordained. Of course, some will attempt to distort the meaning and intent of the General Assembly's action to create a way to defy our consitutional standards. It is then up to the PJCs to uphold those standards. If the PJCs fail to enforce the standards of the Book of Order, then the PC(USA) will be in a state of anarchy -- the precedents will be set for folks to defy all kinds of standards within our polity. I know that in many presbyteries this is an issue, and not just with ordination standards and sexuality. There are many sessions and congregations who do not like our polity when it comes to their treatment of ministers, or the search process to find a new pastor, etc. They constantly try to go against our polity, attack and blame presbytery for the problems they create for themselves, and waste energy and resources of presbyteries as they try to work with these recalcitrant people and congregations. I think what Mr. Capetz and Twin Cities Presbytery are attempting to do goes far beyond our standards of ordination. Whether it is their intent or not, their actions are setting a precedent for sessions and congregations to ignore the Book of Order by stating, 'If the Book of Order standards for ordination, which use mandatory language, are merely optional standards, then all parts of the Book of Order, which use mandatory language, must also be optional.' Then where does that leave the church? In a state of anarchy and chaos. We will truly become a congregational polity denomination. - David McCann Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/6430.html#comment-3669 Dear Editor: Paul Capetz is not asked by the PCUSA Constitution to make a pledge to celibacy. He is right that the reformation did not accept the standard that celibacy was necessary for ordination. G6b still does not impose the standard of 'celibacy'. It is perfectly in accord with G6b to be married -- in accord with the Directory of Worship. That's because celibacy to the reformers and to their descendents means to be not married. But to both the reformers and to today's Christian & Presbyterian church, marriage between a man and woman is the only context for sexual intimacy that accords with God's will for humanity. Therefore, someone needs to ask Paul Capetz not whether he is willing to be celibate. (Married clergy are not celibate by definition.) Rather the question is whether he is willing to comply with the constitutional standard that sexual relations are to be limited to the marriage of a man and a woman. I confess I am astonished by Mr. Capetz's use of 'celibacy' since that word does not appear in the Book of Order. What's going on with that usage? Sincerely, James R. Tony - JR Tony Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/6430.html#comment-3668 Paul Capetz, a self-described unrepentant sinner (vis. G6.106b) has called your bluff. As you will note, he, in his own words is: '... a gay man who could not in good conscience pledge a vow of celibacy. ...' Now he is declaring a scruple and demanding reinstatement as a minister of Word and sacrament. He does so entirely on the strength of the PUP report. I listened carefully as self-described conservative evangelicals such as Messers Achtemeier, Louden and Haberer made their full-court press as apologists for this surrender to acculturation. In this one step, everything they denied as possible is suddenly on the table. It is time for a little transparency and perhaps some honesty. Gentlemen, was this or was this not what you anticipated? Was it or was it not, in fact, what you desired? I recall the pre-assembly workshops and whistle-stop tours you made from presbytery to presbytery to tell us that nothing had changed. Really? What do you say now? Have you been paying attention to the raft of overtures and maneuvering to circumvent the clear teachings of the Word? Or are you counting on the ignorance (either real or pretended) of the larger body of church members and frightened clergy to force syncretism onto the church? What are your positions now? Do you really believe you have served well? I am pondering a question recently posed by Bob Kopp: 'Shaken and befuddled, she called ... to ask how anyone couldn't affirm ordination promises made years before; and I answered, 'Some didn't understand the questions, some lied at the chancel steps, and some have changed their minds but lack integrity to demit.'' I guess my question to the PUP apologists remains the same: 'Isn't this what you intended all along?' - James Yearsley Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:00:00 +0100