 Church court dismisses case against installation of homosexual elder By John H. Adams The Layman Online Tuesday, December 4, 2001 The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly has rung the bell and declared that the fight's over without a decision in the case of a self-acknowledged homosexual who was elected – but not installed – to the session of First Presbyterian Church in Stamford, Conn. The commission, which is the highest court in the Presbyterian Church (USA), dismissed the case with the rationale that the three-year delay in the installation of Wayne Osborne essentially vacated the seat to which he was elected. Therefore, the court said in an announcement made public Dec. 4, Osborne's eligibility for installation is "no longer relevant to the disposition of this case." During a hearing Nov. 30 in Atlanta, John L. Harter, counsel for First Presbyterian Church, was asked whether Osborne's seat was being reserved for him. Harter told the commission that it had been held vacant for three years after Osborne was scheduled for installation in June of 1998. However, Harter said he was uncertain whether that continued to be the case. Service window closed Nonetheless, the commission concluded that the window of opportunity had closed for Osborne to serve the three-year term. Thus, the commission sidestepped the central issue in the case: Whether Osborne was eligible under the rubric of section G-6.0106b of the Book of Order – the constitutional requirement that married officers remain faithful to their spouses and that single officers remain chaste. The Book of Order forbids ordination and/or installation of any officer who refuses to "repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin …" That provision is what created the contention in Osborne's case. Osborne had previously served as an elder when he was asked to consider being a candidate in the 1998 election. Before the election, in what was described as a tearful meeting, Osborne told the elders that he was gay and that he was in a "committed, loving relationship" with another man. He did not say point-blank that they were sexually active. Osborne was elected to another term. Two members of the congregation filed a complaint asking that his installation be prohibited until it could be determined whether he met the requirement of G-6.0106b. Further questioning required The Presbytery of Southern New England gave the Stamford church the go-ahead to install Osborne, but the Synod of the Northeast said both the presbytery and the Stamford session had failed to fully question Osborne about his live-in relationship. After the synod decision, the Stamford session met again with Osborne and asked him about his relationship with his mate, saying: "Is this a sexually active partnership?" According to the case record, Osborne replied, "I decline to answer this question." By not answering the question, Osborne did not "self-acknowledge" any sinful activity that is forbidden by the constitution, argued Harter. Harter contended that the grounds for forbidding Osborne's installation would be his own self-acknowledgement of a sexual relationship with his partner. Refusing to answer a question falls short of that requirement, he said. Newspaper article not considered There has been some evidence that Osborne might have incriminated himself, including remarks in a story published in The Advocate of Stamford in April 2001. But the General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission would not allow that story to be submitted into the record as evidence. The Advocate interviewed Osborne and quoted him as saying:
Direct question not asked Walter Baker, counsel for the complainants, said the session's examination failed to provide "pertinent information which would have settled the matter of eligibility." Baker suggested that a simple, direct answer should have been required of the question, "Is this a sexually active partnership?" He quoted from a previous interpretation – called the "precedent of LeTourneau" – which says "Sexual orientation and pratice are relevant to … qualifications for ordination … [and] must be investigated … when [a] candidate [takes] the initiative in declaring sexual orientation." Baker also asked why the Stamford session declined to explain why it did not demand an answer. "The record in this case contains no evidence of sexual practices," Harter said. "There is no evidence of self-acknowledgement. Saying one is in a homosexual relationship is not acknowledgement of homosexual activity." Session's decision defended Deborah Hurrell, also a member of the committee of counsel for the Stamford church, added, "The appellate has brought forth absolutely no evidence that supports their position. The session, the only body that is qualified to make this decision, has decided that Wayne is fit for service." Two members of the Stamford congregation - Mairi Hair and James McCallum – filed the complaint after Osborne's election. They have continued to attend services at Stamford, although both said they were often shunned by other members. Blair Moffett, one of the co-pastors of the congregation, is a member of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, the group committed to eliminating G-6.0106b from the Book of Order. |
|
Respond to this article |
|
| News
From the PCUSA Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|