# So was the GA (PCA) supposed to do something with the Leithart case?



## earl40 (Jun 26, 2013)

I can't find anything about it.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jun 26, 2013)

Overture 19 (asking for a retrial correcting the statement of the issue) was ruled out of order (as was overture 23 dealing with the Meyers' case).

Overtures 20-22 (asking for the SJC to take original jurisdiction) were referred back to the SJC for consideration at their October meeting.

The other attempts (e.g., in the Review of Presbytery Records committee) were also ruled out of order.


----------



## sdesocio (Jun 26, 2013)

Joel said it right. I highly doubt that overtures 20-22 will be taken up. The current wording in the BCO is "failed to act" ie. they are unwilling to take a man to trial or examine his views. While many do not like the action of the PNW, It seems hard to suggest that they has failed to act.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 26, 2013)

sdesocio said:


> Joel said it right. I highly doubt that overtures 20-22 will be taken up. The current wording in the BCO is "failed to act" ie. they are unwilling to take a man to trial or examine his views. While many do not like the action of the PNW, It seems hard to suggest that they has failed to act.



OK so the PNW "acted",so is this the end?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 26, 2013)

earl40 said:


> sdesocio said:
> 
> 
> > Joel said it right. I highly doubt that overtures 20-22 will be taken up. The current wording in the BCO is "failed to act" ie. they are unwilling to take a man to trial or examine his views. While many do not like the action of the PNW, It seems hard to suggest that they has failed to act.
> ...



The SJC hasn't answered yet so it's unknown.

I've kind of gone back and forth on this. I've heard from a number of men that the prosecution in this case was exceedingly bad. According to the men I've spoken to, the SJC limits itself to the case put before it. I think that if you read just this sub-forum you will see how, in the past, how fine a point needs to be made to root out the particular error because FV is one of those things that takes away and "seems" to give back. Consequently, one might argue that the defense did a good job of providing mitigating statements for everything that might have convicted Leithart. Since the prosecutor didn't do a good job of building a compelling case, the SJC didn't have enough to overrule the acquittal.

Whether one agrees with that assessment, I've heard it from enough men that I know for that to be my read of the situation. Look, you can't even bring in evidence like Leithart's books into the SJC hearing to make the ruling. If the prosecution and the complainant are not up to snuff then it's not the SJC's job to do the "work" of overturning a Presbytery decision.

The reason I've gone back on forth on this is because there's sort of a "yeah, but we're the Church" kind of feeling whenever someone gets exonerated on what we see as process. On the one hand I buy that but I also know of innocent ministers who were protected by process. One very conservative member of Overtures helped my thinking on this when he compared Locke's view of government with Hobbes'. There is government that lives by rules or government that does not feel bound by rules. While the Church is Christ's Bride, it is not Christ. We don't have the ability to read men's hearts and so we have to use our fallible means to deal with these things. I'm discouraged, in the end, that we may not properly prosecute Leithart (and I think that the fact that the prosecutore apostasized to Rome ought to have some weight) but I also recognize that this isn't really any kind of endorsement of the FV as I hear some claiming. At its worst, we're maybe so bound by rules that we let a guilty party go free for the sake of protecting the innocent. I'm happy for others to disagree but that's where I land so far.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 27, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I've heard it from enough men that I know for that to be my read of the situation. Look, you can't even bring in evidence like Leithart's books into the SJC hearing to make the ruling. If the prosecution and the complainant are not up to snuff then it's not the SJC's job to do the "work" of overturning a Presbytery decision.



So I just want to get this straight. The PNW ruled and the SJC can only decide on, if they did inded make a judgment, without considering the evidence of WHAT HE WROTE IN BOOKS? Call me skeptical but this reminds me of when Luther went to Worms and he was not allowed to defend his positions. Albiet this situation is in reversed order. Am I reading this situation wrong, and if so please correct me. In other words, is there no recourse to investigate if the PNW ruled correctly?


----------



## Jack K (Jun 27, 2013)

Earl, it may help you to think of it as somewhat similar to an appeals process in our state and national courts. If a man is put on trial and found "not guilty," he doesn't get subjected to the higher court putting him on trial all over again—calling new witnesses and examining further evidence. The appeals court can only rule regarding the evidence and processes at the original trial. This protects people from abusive prosecution and "double jeopardy." It's the sort of safeguard that's generally good to have in place. We don't want to go around saying, "Yeah, but we think this guy is clearly a bad dude, so in his case we need to break the rules." The rules are there for good reason.

And, as Rich pointed out, when a case is upheld at this level, it doesn't necessarily mean that the court is making a statement on the merits of the case or the guilt or innocence of the one on trial. It's wrong to read into the SJC decision that the PCA was ruling on Federal Vision thinking. That wasn't that committee's job.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 27, 2013)

Jack K said:


> Earl, it may help you to think of it as somewhat similar to an appeals process in our state and national courts. If a man is put on trial and found "not guilty," he doesn't get subjected to the higher court putting him on trial all over again—calling new witnesses and examining further evidence. The appeals court can only rule regarding the evidence and processes at the original trial. This protects people from abusive prosecution and "double jeopardy." It's the sort of safeguard that's generally good to have in place. We don't want to go around saying, "Yeah, but we think this guy is clearly a bad dude, so in his case we need to break the rules." The rules are there for good reason.
> 
> And, as Rich pointed out, when a case is upheld at this level, it doesn't necessarily mean that the court is making a statement on the merits of the case or the guilt or innocence of the one on trial. It's wrong to read into the SJC decision that the PCA was ruling on Federal Vision thinking. That wasn't that committee's job.



Yes I can see where this can be a good thing if the PNW judges did a good job. I just reread Rich's post here and am almost afraid to read Lane's and Horton's entire testimony for I may burst a blood vessel knowing the defense swam to Rome from which I was delivered from.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 27, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Yes I can see where this can be a good thing if the PNW judges did a good job. I just reread Rich's post here and am almost afraid to read Lane's and Horton's entire testimony for I may burst a blood vessel knowing the defense swam to Rome from which I was delivered from.



I assume you meant the prosecution. Look, there are some really solid men on the SJC. They have, in the past, found when a Presbytery is presented with sufficient grounds to convict and ruled that they had failed to act so it's not as if the Presbytery is autonomous. Nevertheless, it appears that if the Prosecution blows it (as it appeared to have done in this case) then it's review of the proceedings isn't to re-try the case when they're reviewing it based upon a complaint. I don't know if one of the arguments that might be made for them to assume original jurisdiction is the idea that the prosecution can arguably be seen as incompetent to present the case (despite his protestations of competence to the contrary). After all, it seems odd to me that a man is on the one hand arguing in favor of WCF orthodoxy while he's in the process of apostasizing. Furthermore, his arguments about why he left makes me wonder how well he ever understood the system of doctrine he was supposed to uphold given how many strawmen he now erects against the system he claimed competence for.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 27, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I assume you meant the prosecution. Look, there are some really solid men on the SJC. They have, in the past, found when a Presbytery is presented with sufficient grounds to convict and ruled that they had failed to act so it's not as if the Presbytery is autonomous. Nevertheless, it appears that if the Prosecution blows it (as it appeared to have done in this case) then it's review of the proceedings isn't to re-try the case when they're reviewing it based upon a complaint. I don't know if one of the arguments that might be made for them to assume original jurisdiction is the idea that the prosecution can arguably be seen as incompetent to present the case (despite his protestations of competence to the contrary). After all, it seems odd to me that a man is on the one hand arguing in favor of WCF orthodoxy while he's in the process of apostasizing. Furthermore, his arguments about why he left makes me wonder how well he ever understood the system of doctrine he was supposed to uphold given how many strawmen he now erects against the system he claimed competence for.



Thank you Rich. I thought wrongly that it was a member of the defense team for Leithart that turned to Rome.


----------

