And I guess the question is, can they still call the Episcopal Church home?
9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."
They can't purge the church, so they may have to remove themselves from it:
The question then is, how will the bishops respond to a parish that wants to act differently from the diocese as a whole -- either to follow the ECUSA, or to follow the Communion?
In strictly practical terms, for example, will the bishop allow the property to remain in the hands of "the parish?" (The fact is, of course, that when parishes leave without the property, the bishops typically cannot afford the upkeep of it -- which is especially true for old buildings such as my parish has....)
In many cases -- again, taking my own parish as an example, there is little doubt about what "the parish" wants to do as a whole, though there'd be some dissent to staying with The Communion even so. Then again, there are several failing Episcopal parishes hereabouts, so those folks could still have a building, courtesy of our bishop.
The question is whether the bishops are willing to accept this "opt-in" policy for their individual parishes. They should do so, in most cases, but I suspect most of them won't.