Former presbytery exec criticizes complainant in Baltimore case
The Layman Online, November 15, 2002
Herbert D. Valentine, the retired executive of the Presbytery of Baltimore, says Paul Rolf Jensen was invited by registered mail to appear before the presbytery’s judicial commission to present his case for disciplinary action against a homosexual minister, but that Jensen did not avail himself of that opportunity.
Jensen, a Virginia lawyer who has filed charges against the presbytery’s Donald Stroud, says he responded to the presbytery’s invitation by certified mail on Oct. 15, acknowledging that he had signed for the letter but that the contents were either lost or never included in the envelope.
In a letter to The Layman Online, Valentine, long an advocate of ordaining practicing homosexuals, injected himself into the judicial case that began last year when Jensen filed a complaint against Stroud, accusing him of violating his oath of office by defying the denomination’s “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard.
Although he is retired, Valentine apparently has access to presbytery documents in the case and used them to issue a stinging criticism of Jensen and a defense of presbytery officials. His letter did not address the core issue in the case – the fact that Stroud has made numerous public statements that he will not obey church law.
Valentine accused Jensen of never having “availed himself of the many opportunities provided him by the Commission to have his accusations adjudicated.”
But Jensen, in his Oct. 15 letter to the presbytery, said that, while he did not know what happened to the letter sent to him by the commission, “One thing is certain. If the Investigating Committee wanted to schedule a date [for his testimony], they could have done so in a heartbeat by picking up the phone and calling me. The stated clerk had my number.”
Even without his testimony, Jensen said he had raised points in his complaint – including a public statement by Stroud that reiterated his defiance of the constitution – that indisputably required disciplinary action.
Even as recently as Nov. 15, The Presbyterian Outlook published an interview with Stroud that reiterated his views. “To me, it is very important not to be compliant” with church law that prohibits the ordination of practicing homosexuals, Stroud told The Outlook.
Stroud also told The Outlook that he is in an “involved relationship” and that he could not agree with the denomination’s determination that homosexual practice is sinful.
Valentine’s letter sought to portray Jensen – whom he called “disingenuous” – as the villain in the case and operating “extra-constitutionally.”
Other than to blame Jensen, Valentine did not give reasons why the presbytery’s investigating committee and its permanent judicial commission summarily dismissed the complaint against Stroud. Those bodies have not publicly given their reasons either.