The Witherspoon Society has corrected its report from earlier this week regarding the case of Paul Capetz, the ex-PCUSA minister who asked to have his voluntarily surrendered credentials restored despite his repudiation of the denomination’s ordination standards. The report now says:
Three members of the Presbytery filed a complaint against his restoration. The moderator and clerk of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies denied the appeal. They ruled that there was no grounds for the appeal, on the basis of D-8.0301d.
We have not been able to obtain the text of the findings of the moderator and clerk, but apparently they determined that the appeal against the Presbytery action did not cite one of the legitimate “grounds for appeal,” as listed in the Book of Discipline, D-8.0105.
That ruling can be overturned by the full PJC, which has 30 days from the time of the officers’ decision to affirm or overrule the action. If it is overruled, the full Synod PJC would hear the case. Of course the plaintiffs can appeal to the GA PJC if their appeal is denied by any Synod action.
The grounds for appeal listed in the cited section are:
a. irregularity in the proceedings;
b. refusing a party reasonable opportunity to be heard or to obtain or present evidence;
c. receiving improper, or declining to receive proper, evidence or testimony;
d. hastening to a decision before the evidence or testimony is fully received;
e. manifestation of prejudice in the conduct of the case;
f. injustice in the process or decision; and
g. error in constitutional interpretation.
Those of us who weren’t there and haven’t seen the appeal can’t make a judgment about the merits of its argument. But in light of the General Assembly PJC’s decision in the Pittsburgh case (discussed here), it certainly sounds like there’s grounds for an appeal on the basis of erroneous constitutional interpretation. In particular, the Pittsburgh decision stated:
Adopting statements about mandatory provisions of the Book of Order for ordination and installation of officers falsely implies that other governing bodies might not be similarly bound; that is, that they might choose to restate or interpret the provisions differently, fail to adopt such statements, or possess some flexibility with respect to such provisions.
To which I remarked:
But the really interesting thing here is the portion in bold. It suggests that the recent moves by San Francisco and Twin Cities presbyteries to permit sexually active homosexuals to be ordained or readmitted to ordination, in open violation of those standards, based on the candidates’ scruples is also invalid. Though no resolutions were passed, those presbyteries’ actions have the effect of tossing out G.0108 and saying that because the candidates object, and the presbyteries agree with their objection, the latter are under no obligation to enforce the standards, and the former are under no obligation to obey them.
All of which is to say that, if the appeal was botched, it needs to be refiled correctly. Hopefully, this is not a case of a pair of judicatory officials simply deciding on the basis of personal preference that they disagree with the appellants. Hopefully.
Posted by David Fischler 
