Comments: Central Florida's protocol

Bishop Howe indicates that some members voted against and that one abstained. I would be curious to know which "side" or "sides" these represented and what their objections were. Were the objectors those who felt that this restricted them in choosing to leave the Episcopal Church and take the property with them by right, or were they those who felt that it was wrongheaded to have a process which appears to allow bodies to disaffiliate.

In fact, this strikes me as a very sound approach. It affirms without compromise the integrity of the Episcopal Church while providing a potential gesture of good will in cases where there is property to bhe disposed of.

In essence, the one concession to the schismatics is that they would be given the first and uncompetitive chance to bid on the property if and only if the Episcopal Church decides to dispose of it. It implies (but does not say) that such a schismatic group might, as a gesture of good will, be given favourable terms.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Friday, 21 December 2007 at 5:08am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.