General Convention 2009, in adopting Resolution D035, proclaimed the doctrine outmoded in this day and age, even though there has been no example of its application in recent times. The Resolution calls for the governing bodies of ECUSA to write a letter to the Queen of England, Elizabeth II:
Resolved, that The Episcopal Church . . . directs the appropriate representatives of the House of Bishops and House of Deputies . . . to write to Queen Elizabeth II, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, requesting that her Majesty disavow, and repudiate publicly, the claimed validity of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery . . .
It is, as already noted, unclear how or why the Queen should repudiate a doctrine which she herself has not personally espoused. Moreover, the Presiding Bishop has recently declared a new Episcopalian form of the Doctrine in a letter to the House of Bishops not yet published on the official ENS site, but released elsewhere. In her letter, she declares it her policy not to allow any Episcopalian Diocese or bishop to sell any of their parish property without a clause that would exclude the setting foot on it by any bishop or other clergy of another church in competition with ECUSA for a period of at least five years from the date of sale:
I will continue to uphold two basic principles in the work some of us face in dealing with former Episcopalians who claim rights to church property or assets. Our participation in God’s mission as leaders and stewards of The Episcopal Church means that we expect a reasonable and fair financial arrangement in any property settlement, and that we do not make settlements that encourage religious bodies who seek to replace The Episcopal Church.
Pragmatically, the latter means property settlements need to include a clause that forbids, for a period of at least five years, the presence of bishops on the property who are not members of this House, unless they are invited by the diocesan bishop for purposes which do not subvert mission and ministry in the name of this Church.
It is worthy to note how the Presiding Bishop simply assumes, without any discussion, that she has the authority to impose these requirements on the bishops responsible for the lawsuits brought….
D035 is a better example of the goofiness that the legislative bodies of TEC are capable of than any other action taken in Anaheim. Was this a belated reaction to the Falklands Conflict? Are we concerned that Great Britain is plotting some new territorial expansion? Do we really think that the PB or the Church should address the Queen on 16th -19th Century attitudes toward territorial imperialism? Isn’t there anyone out there who can just intervene when something like this comes up (Graham Chapman’s Brigadier comes to mind) and say, “This is too silly. Now stop it.”?
Mrs Schori is a chancer – she will push [whether within her authority or not] and if there is no kickback she will push further, whether it is with TEC bishops, the Communion or the ABC.
If there is kickback she will shift the ground of attack and come at it from a different angle.
We have seen it in England: for example: “We are going to set up TEC churches in your backyard to divide you” has been replaced with “Hey, there are Americans in London; they say they need a TEC church, so if they are demanding it, what can we do? We will have to provide them won’t we? For Americans in London that is..that’s reasonable…isn’t it?”
Or so the latest talking points from 815 would seem to suggest. We are not taken in Mrs. Schori.
[blockquote]Isn’t there anyone out there who can just intervene when something like this comes up (Graham Chapman’s Brigadier comes to mind) and say, “This is too silly. Now stop it.� [/blockquote]
Well, Kate Schori went to Cuba shortly after her rise to the office of PB. From the report I read at Episcopal Life, she thought everything there was going swimmingly under the Castro boys, what with free healthcare, free education and first-rate gun control. She did find one grave injustice going on, however: America’s embargo of the Communists’ plucky little isle.
So no, it would appear that denunciations will remain well within the safe zones of conventional southpaw orthodoxy.
ROTFLMHO!
I would love to see the Queen’s reaction when she receives that letter from Jefferts Schori!
And there is more droll humor.
The PB’s Special Legal Assistant for Real Property matters, Mr. Henny Brumbsworth Phitingor, Esq. gives his legal opinion:
[blockquote]…of whether the Presiding Bishop’s Doctrine of Discovery violated laws prohibiting restraints on alienation. “As traditionally understood, no, we do not believe it does,” he explained. “The usual form of unconstitutional restrictive covenant tried to prohibit whites, for example, from selling their property to African-Americans, or to Asians. Here we place no restriction whatsoever on who may buy the property. It’s only on whom they allow to come onto the property.”[/blockquote]
It would appear to me that what this “attorney” has said is that, while I may not refuse to sell my house to an African American, I can put a provision in the deed that if an African American sets foot on the property within five years of the sale, the property reverts to me.
[blockquote]“Curiouser and curiouser!†Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).[/blockquote]
Tut, tut, tut, Ms. Schori. THIS isn’t very inclusive of you. I mean, really…. Cynical in Maine
Well, I did read it all and it is almost like reading a medieval novel. I thought Professor Cromwell’s remarks were most revealing of the Presiding Bishop’s pretensions.[blockquote]”But in recent years, and especially under Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, we are seeing promulgation of a second, unwritten Constitution,” said Professor Oliver Cromwell of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Under that Constitution, the Presiding Bishop can be whoever she says she is. And for her request to the Queen to have equal dignity, thus making it worthy of the Queen’s consideration, she would have to be a Supreme Governor of a Church in her own right.”
Professor Cromwell spoke at a press conference called by the Office of the Presiding Bishop to address a number of inquiries it said had been received about the Presiding Bishop’s recent letter to the House of Bishops. He assured reporters that the appropriate title which the Presiding Bishop would choose to use in addressing the Queen was still under careful consideration by the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice, which thus far has backed her every move to assume more power in the Church.[/blockquote] And just in case those who fear God more than they fear the PB might object, Professor Cromwell slipped in this remark.[blockquote]“God does not determine what the Episcopal Church (USA) shall do from time to time; only the Presiding Bishop does.â€[/blockquote]
O.K., I read my post over and I admit that I don’t recognize satire until I have dived into it and the name Cromwell should have been a tip off and I should have recognized Dickens part in this but I am dealing with computer problems at the same time and I just can’t figure out where fact leaves off and fiction starts in the Episcopal Church.