The Bishop will call a meeting of those members desiring to remain in The Episcopal Church as indicated in the declarations. The Bishop, or his designee, will preside at that meeting. The purpose of the meeting shall be one of mutual discernment regarding two key questions: Is there a viable continuing congregation? And if so, can the continuing congregation maintain its life and ministry within the existing physical plant?
Should the mutual discernment be that a viable continuing congregation does not remain the members shall be asked to dissolve the parish and corporate entity, with all assets reverting to the Diocese of Central Florida. Note that: “whenever the number of persons so associated shall fall below 25, the Ecclesiastical Authority may dissolve the mission.” (Canon XIV.5) While this Canon applies to missions, and not to parishes, the Canon provides guidance as to the minimum number of members the Diocese believes is needed to maintain a viable congregation.
Should the mutual discernment be that a viable continuing congregation does remain, and that the continuing congregation can maintain its life and ministry within the existing physical plant, the members shall at that meeting fill any vacancies on the Vestry. Or, the Bishop may appoint at least five of the members of the continuing congregation as an acting Vestry and will appoint an interim senior warden. The Vestry shall take charge of the continuing congregation and establish a plan for its future operation.
Should the mutual discernment be that the continuing congregation cannot maintain its viability in the existing physical plant the continuing congregation shall be asked to empower the Vestry and Bishop to negotiate the sale or lease of the real and/or personal property.
The Bishop shall report the results of the meeting to all parties within one week of the meeting itself.
Interesting. This could be spun in multiplbe ways. It could be pro-orthodox parish or against the same. The actors seemingly will be depending on the private assurances of the bishop. The rub for the orthodox who want to leave is that: a parish with only 20 or so signatures (easy to get) pledging to keep the work viable (also easy to pledge) and perhaps only one person of means to give such a pledge substance (yet even this might not be necessary), can negate the will of the vast majority of parishioners. The important step is entirely between Howe and a parish’s minority group of liberals and their ringers. It seems the orthodox leadership and perhaps 95% of parishioners may have to formally concede that they do not have any rights to even find out if Howe will stand up to a handful of liberals that say “we can run this parish, and if you violate this protocol by saying we can’t, we’ll sue you in a heartbeat and ask Kate to suspend you.” Howe, of course, has a reputation at being a good letter writer, but not so strong at actually doing anything that displeases 815 and like-minded liberals. (The potentially “positive spin” that I can’t buy: “oh, this gives me cover with 815 and of course I’ll negotiate with any parish that overwhelmingly (75%?) wants to leave.”)
To me, however, the largest annoyance is that there is a very large life-boat on one side of the sinking (mostly submerged) boat and Howe, who claims to be faithful to the Faith once delivered, refuses to be towed to safety. He’s going down with his TEC credentials and status and won’t let folks get off the boat with any clothes on, let alone keep their suitcases and belongings.–Well, maybe if they agree they have no right to their own things, and no one else says they want them, then maybe, just maybe, he’ll let them keep them, in one or two cases, if that.
I think it is the most graciuos possible solution for a diocese that is hanging in TEC — particularly in Florida where the property laws are very clear and most deeds are in the name of the diocese.
There is much to commend these protocols, but there are two major problems. The bishop, under purely hypothetical pressure from 815, can act in such a way that they are meaningless. The other is that the provisions for vestry and clergy who vote to disaffiliate have the effect of instantly decapitating the parish leadership. They will need to have a shadow vestry already in place to continue the parishe’s chosen path, or they will be easy pickings for the pressures and worse applied by the diocese.
#2, I’m with you. I continue to be impressed with +Howe’s wisdom in seeking to resolve a very complex and emotionally wrenching situation.
What does DioCF have that DioVA doesn’t? A bishop…