Drafters of 'fidelity/chastity' rule: 'Chaste' means 'chaste' The Layman Online Wednesday, December 26, 2001 So what does 'chaste' mean? chaste (ch³st) adj. chast·er, chast·est. 1. Morally pure in thought or conduct; decent and modest. 2.a. Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal. b. Abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse. c. Abstaining from sexual intercourse; celibate. 3. Pure or simple in design or style; austere. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin castus. See kes- below.] -- chaste'ly adv. -- chaste'ness n. American Heritage Dictionary The enforcement of the "fidelity/chastity" ordination clause in the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has become a game of how to make "chaste" mean something other than what it means. But the meaning is clear, say two of the General Assembly commissioners who served on the 1996 drafting team for G-6.0106b. Responding to recent declarations that "chaste" does not necessarily mean refraining from sexual activity, Fred W. Beuttler and the Rev. David Worth say in an open letter to the denomination that they are "distressed by the apparent unwillingness of some in the church to accept the clear meaning of 'chastity.'" Beuttler, an elder at First Presbyterian Church in River Forest, Ill., and pastor of the same congregation, added, "The word itself means abstinence from sexual intercourse outside the bounds of marriage … In fact, during our deliberations as G-6.0106b was developed in committee, that particular understanding was expressed in the committee. We considered the term 'celibacy,' and decided that 'celibacy' had the connotation of being in contrast to marriage. It did not necessarily speak of sexual activity." The common definition of "chaste" or "chastity" has been questioned by some candidates for ordination. Kathleen Morrison, a candidate for minister, told the Presbytery of Redwoods that she was a lesbian and in a sexually active relationship. But after she declared herself chaste by her own definition, the presbytery approved her call to serve as an associate minister of a California congregation. In another high-profile case, Wayne Osborne of Stamford, Conn., who said he was in a "committed partnership" with a man, declared that he was eligible for installation as a elder because he was "chaste in the eyes of God." Osborne refused to tell members of the session at First Presbyterian Church in Stamford whether he was sexually active. Church trials in the Osborne case lasted three years before the PCUSA's highest court -- the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission -- declared that the case was moot because the three-year term for which Osborne was elected had lapsed. The stated clerk's office of the General Assembly, which is responsible for preserving, defending and interpreting the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), has skirted the issue of "chastity" in a document titled "Polity Reflection #19." That document is intended to help guide ordaining bodies. The document answers two key questions as follows: Q. What is the meaning of "chastity in singleness?" A. In the examination of persons for church office, the definition of being "single" or being "chaste" will be decided initially by those doing the examination. A person considered to be living an unchaste life as a single person or living outside of a covenantal marriage as defined in W-4.9001 even in a faithful relationship whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not eligible for ordained office under the provisions of G-6.0106b. Q. Are words like "chastity," "repent," or "self-acknowledged" clear enough concepts for the church to apply G-6.0106 fairly and consistently? A. The words are not defined. Examining bodies will need to consider reasonable definitions and decide which to apply. Ambiguity is not necessarily a barrier to applying a rule to specific circumstances. An example of a familiar ambiguous term which has broad and differing applications in the church is "acceptable" in G-14.0401 in reference to what is a call for ministry that qualifies for ordination. But Beuttler and Worth say that the intent of the 1996 General Assembly was not to allow ordaining bodies to define "chaste" and "chastity" subjectively. "We were concerned that the expression of the Constitution be faithful to our understanding of Scripture as interpreted in our Confessions, that sexual activity is appropriate only within the bounds of marriage … And we are baffled that a presbytery can ordain a practicing homosexual candidate by accepting her claim that she is 'chaste' in her homosexual behavior when the authoritative interpretations of our constitution declare that homosexual practice does not accord with God's will. "Now to find that some think that 'chastity' can be whatever any governing body or individual says it is disparages the careful process that our church has been through to make our standards clear in the Constitution," they added.

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