However, our Presiding Bishop also has stated that she has absolutely no interest in sharing church buildings with those who chose to depart. In fact, I believe she has stated that she would sooner see them de-consecrated and used for other things than be either shared with, or sold to, departing folks.

Tom, can you cite sources for this, please?

I may be muddying the water, but once ownership is established, and I believe the Episcopal Church is the rightful owner of church property, even when the whole or a majority of a congregation or of the membership of a diocese chooses to leave TEC, why not a subsequent sharing of the use of the buildings? I realize that shared use may not always be possible or desirable, but it might be an idea worth considering.

June Butler

It strikes me that, regardless of what the Presiding Bishop may or may not have said, renting or sharing parish property with any group is generally left to local (diocesan and parochial) jurisdiction.

1. You'll notice that the general secretary's statement about ownership is unequivocal and to the point. In contrast whether RC groups could rent from the continuing CoE parish is given as a response to a leading question. And he states what is the same policy in TEC. It's up to the parish with the consent of the diocese whether to rent to another religious group.

2. In no case where departing TEC members have refused to leave the property have they been willing to rent to the TEC members they have excluded.

I think you all are overlooking human nature! When a parish splits, the two factions are automatically in a competitive relationship: "Who's got the most people?" "Are more going with them than with us?" "They left the sacristy in a mess last week." "They have more services than we do so they should pay more on the heating bill." "If I don't get my way, I'll just go join the others..." etc., etc. ad infinitum.

And if I were the rector of a "rump" TEC congregation, I would not want me or my people exposed to the reality of that schism day after day and week after week. And, if the building were restored to us (TEC), there'd be a lot more impetus for up-keep and appearance than if it were "common territory".

Not that it matters, but I would never accept a call to be rector of a "remaining" congregation in a shared building.

To say that the Telegraph interviewed the Secretary-General may be an overstatement. There was a public press conference, at which I was also present, and at which the Telegraph reporter asked a couple of questions. The answers given were that the existing normal customs and practices of the CofE would apply in this case, as in all other cases of sharing buildings, of which there are very many examples. But it is all down to each local diocese to decide. This really is a classic case of a manufactured story.

Thanks for the correction, Simon. I hesitated over whether to "interviewed" and should have followed my instinct. Glad we agree it's a manufactured story.