[The Rev. John] Spencer said the church recognizes the decision was not unanimous. By a separate action, the synod made provisions for a nine-month grace period during which members can withdraw from the diocese in order to stay in the national Episcopal Church.
“It is a matter of allowing everyone to follow their consciences in these very difficult times, without recrimination,” Spencer said.
The Rev. John Throop, a local Episcopalian minister, said he anticipated the breakaway and transferred to the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago last year for that reason. Throop does not consider himself an extreme liberal, but he said his new diocese is more accepting of his point of view.
“I’m grieved that it has come to this, but I knew it was coming, and there was nothing I could do to persuade leaders to think otherwise,” Throop said. “I pray for God’s grace to be with them.”
The article does not quote the Rev Throop’s position on any particular issue, but I find it odd that he is said not to be as liberal as the Diocese of Chicago. Throop was the first director of Episcopalians United, a conservative organization. Perhaps he is committed to the “inside strategy.” If so, good luck to him! Logically, the inside strategy makes sense – practically, it is a hopeless one.
Someone in a position to know — I can say no more — described Fr. Throop to me some three years ago as “the only priest in the Diocese of Quincy who favors WO” and as (at the time) one of the two priests in that diocese who “favors staying in ECUSA under all circumstances” (the other being a now-retired Dean of the diocese’s cathedral).
Readers with long memories may recall that in the aftermath of the 1976 General Convention, “Episcopalians United” and the “Evangelical and Catholic Mission” were sister-societes with the same goals, the same beliefs, but somewhat different focuses; and that there was a considerable overlap between the activists in both organizations. About five years later, however, EU abandoned its previously strong opposition to WO, and came around to supporting it, strongly if tacitly. Such was the position of Fr. Throop (a former Roman Catholic to boot), and it is this no wonder that he removed himself to another diocese, and that this removal was viewed with some relief by my informant, as well as by others in the Diocese of Quincy.
I have met Fr. Throop, but really don’t know him at all. However, I checked the Clergy Finder that shows him as [i]both[/i] canonically resident of the Peoples Diocese of Chicago and Vicar of Christ Church Limestone. CCL is a mission so that makes the Bishop it’s rector, right? How can Throop serve in Quincy as a vicar yet be resident elsewhere? I had the same question about the Muslim priestess as well. Also, okay he wants to stay loyal to the PBess, why join rabidly revisionist Chicago? Why not align with Bp. Beckwith in Springfield?
#3 – isn’t a Vicar the presiding priest at a mission? I am not sure what you are trying to say re: the bishop being the rector.
#3–A priest can be canonically resident in one diocese and work under license from the bishop in another diocese.
#4–While you are right that the vicar is the presiding priest of a mission congregation, the bishop is the rector–as such, a vicar works at the pleasure of the bishop.
These stories — about individuals, parishes, and dioceses leaving TEC — absolutely break my heart, every time. Looking at the state of our Church just makes me so damned angry, and so deeply distressed and sad…
There are rumblings (of unknown reliability, to be fair) that Fr. Throop would like to become the bishop of the replacement TEC Diocese once it’s reconstituted. BTW, he hasn’t been the Vicar of Christ Church, Limestone for a few years now. He was not the only priest in the Diocese who supported WO and there were a number of priests in the Diocese who did not vote for realignment, including a few active clergy currently serving in the Diocese.
I wish Quincy would open a mission in Chicago. It’s in dire need.
Fr. Throop once described himself to a group of local Lutherans as “a Calvinist,” so I suspect his not fitting in well in the very Anglo-Catholic Quincy is more than “liberalism.”
Nevertheless while vicar at Christ Church, his public comments (there were advantages to having a regular by-line in the Peoria [i]Journal Star[/i]) regarding the ECUSA conflicts over homosexuals were much more, uh, accepting of active gays participating in Church leadership (including the priesthood and episcopacy) than others within the Diocese. When asked about one of Fr. Throop’s latest quotes, Bishop Ackerman would be routinely gracious — to the consternation of several Quincy priests of my acquaintance — though clearly he did not agree with his (then) vicar.
Such public stances would have made any application to Bishop Beckwith and Springfield, had he considered that option, problematic. spt+