Over a decade ago, I had the misfortune to be on a parish council during a clerical scandal. The priest had been seeing a married mother in the parish for months. The husband had found out, and dumped massive evidence (chat logs, emails, pictures, etc.) in our laps. We forwarded all that to the bishop. He came in, investigated, concluded that this was real, swore us all to secrecy, then announced at liturgy some vague reasons for suddenly suspending a beloved parish priest.
The aggrieved husband, of course, told the entire planet about the affair. Simultaneously, the suspended priest was out proclaiming his innocence to any one who would listen. The only ones not talking were the parish council and the dean, because the bishop had forbid us from doing so. Factions formed, and the parish began a cycle of fighting and recriminations. The priest, over the next few months, failed to live up to the terms of his suspension and rehabilitation. He couldn’t let go of the affair, and so his suspension became permanent removal from the priesthood. The bishop took this action without ever actually publicly addressing the real reason the priest had been suspended in the first place. Needless to say, that final step came as a major shock to the priest’s many supporters in the community. The parish simply imploded.
The results of this scandal were disastrous. Over the course of a couple years, the parish lost half its families. Some left for other jurisdictions, but many were completely lost to the Orthodox Faith. Most of those families had cradle Orthodox children. Many of those children are grown now, and only a few of them have found their way back to Orthodoxy. The Faithful who stayed were damaged to various degrees. To this day, former members of the parish council are still assailed as having been part of the persecution of an innocent priest.
During the whole crisis, those of us on the council kept telling everyone they simply had to trust the bishop. That was all we could say. About a year after the scandal had broken, the bishop himself was removed from office by the synod. Imagine how we simple laity felt having told everyone to defer to the discernment of a man who had just been officially pronounced by his brother bishops to have none. That turn of events did not help matters, as you can imagine.
As the reader can see based on this story, and there are many more just like it, Orthodox Bishops in the United States have a habit of turning painful scandals into raging dumpster fires. A habit that continues with the current controversy over Fr. Mark Hodges. Fr. Mark was suspended in January by the OCA Diocese of the Midwest. Fr. Mark publicly proclaimed that his suspension was for attending the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington on 1/6/2021. According to Fr. Mark’s account, Archbishop Paul (Gassios) suspended him for being “guilty by association.” Fr. Mark further believes that the efforts of two homosexual bloggers played a role in his suspension. He referred to it as a case of “LGBT targeting.“
When contacted, the diocese says that Fr. Mark was not suspended for attending the rally. However, the diocese won’t say why Fr. Mark was suspended. The particularities of his suspension, we are told, must be kept private. We are simply to have faith that it was not because of his political beliefs, even though the timing looks highly suspicious and that is exactly what the priest claims is the case. To make matters worse, Orthodox bloggers uncovered multiple cases of very progressive priests who post inappropriately on social media but are left in peace by the bishops. What Fr. Mark claims, that conservative priests are targeted for their beliefs while progressives are not, has also been confirmed by fellow clergy. Whether that discrimination accounts for what happened to Fr. Mark is an open question, however.
After having lived through multiple Orthodox controversies, and seen how badly they can end, please allow me to offer some insights into the ongoing situation with Fr. Mark Hodges.
We need to know if Fr. Mark is lying
If Fr. Mark Hodges were not suspended for attending the rally based on his Archbishop’s judgment of “guilty by association,” then he is lying. To the entire world, as a matter of fact, as this story has turned into international news. As noted, I have seen first hand the damage a lying priest can do to the Faithful. If Fr. Mark is lying, then the truth must come out. A priest who has gone public in this fashion cannot be afforded privacy rights. He has waived them already. If there are innocent people to protect, then don’t name them when explaining the reason(s) for his suspension. The diocese can be both transparent and protective at the same time. In the court system, and even within corporate structures, innocent witnesses and victims are often shielded from exposure even as the guilty are brought to justice.
If the Archbishop has been slandered, if Fr. Mark has transgressed (in ways other than simply being politically conservative), if his suspension is legitimate – then those facts need to be made public.
Trust the bishop is not an acceptable answer
A group of concerned OCA priests wrote the following in a letter published on Monomakhos.com
The bishops, in many cases, ignored Holy Tradition, especially with regard to sexual misconduct on the part of priests and even the bishops, themselves. They not only allowed it, they continue to allow it. They threaten innocent victims. They pay people to keep silent and to cover up the truth.
That is how priests describe the bishops’ actions in covering up and perpetuating misconduct. Even before COVID, there was already a deficit in the trust afforded to most bishops, precisely because of the history of sexual, financial, and other scandals in our various Orthodox jurisdictions. After a year of closed churches and liturgical innovations, there is less trust than ever before in the hierarchy.
Now is absolutely not the time to tell the Faithful to blindly “trust the bishop” concerning a high-profile priestly suspension. Trust needs to be rebuilt from the ground-up, and transparency is the key to doing so. If the reasons for Fr. Mark’s suspension are valid, then the Faithful should be told what they are. Otherwise, this controversy will continue to rage and much harm will be done. At this point, the publicly available information supports Fr. Mark’s claims, and until that changes, he will be given the benefit of the doubt by many of the Faithful.
The factions spawned by this kind of controversy can last for years. If the Archbishop’s reasons are sound and impartial, then we need to hear them.
Deal with politics before it gets worse
Fr. Mark’s charges of political persecution are highly believable. They may not be true in his case, but priests and Orthodox writers in multiple jurisdictions have backed up his claims that a serious issue does exist. The bishops need to acknowledge the perception of political bias, and tackle it head-on. The double standards need to be cleaned up and “cancel culture” needs to be expunged from the Orthodox Church. Otherwise, the political divide tearing apart our country will do the same to us. A unified Orthodox Church is needed now more than ever.
The Faithful should be heard
If you would like to express your thoughts on this situation, please email / contact:
Archbishop Paul
Diocese of the Midwest
5037 W 83rd St
Burbank, IL 60459
Phone: +1 (312) 202-0420
chancery@domoca.org
Let us pray that truth will be victorious, that these wounds will be healed, and that we can go forward together for Christ and His Kingdom.
Alexander – member of the OCA
The V. Rev. Mark Hodges was suspended. He is documented publicly participating in the events of January 6, 2021. This can be ascertained instantly by anyone with a web browser and internet connection. The priest is not documented breaking the law but he is seen at an event that eventuated a violent attack on the Capitol where people died and the processes of democracy were temporarily halted under threat of violence against the Vice President, Speaker of the House and the whole House of Representatives. This violent insurgent attack was aimed at the disruption of the tally of electoral college votes for the lawful transfer of power from one presidential administration to the next one. The attack on the Capitol was not a ‘political rally’ but a violent assault on our republic and its democratic insititutions.
Rev. Hodges was seen on camera near the Capitol, amidst many others who shared his ire at the election of the candidate they did not favor, and their collective intent was to prevent the ratification of the election for Joe Biden, because he had won the popular and electoral vote. Rev. Hodges wanted to stop the process of transfer of power to the elected President, and he traveled to Washington on the Feast of Theophany, putting aside his priestly duty to celebrate the Lord’s Baptism, in order to protest the lawful transition of secular power.
If Abp. Paul and the Chancery do not want to discuss with you their specific reasons for then(too lenient, too short) suspension of Rev. Hodges, whom by all rights ought to be called Mister by this point, they are under no compulsion to do so. You, anonymous coward blogger fulminate behind a veil for the disruption of church order on behalf of a priest who abjures his own sacramental vocation for the ‘higher calling’ of participation in a violent, who risk nothing writing here anonymously, agitate for the impugning of episcopal authority demanding of a sovereign bishop his reasons for temporarily disciplining a priest who is lucky not to be in ecclesiastical court facing defrocking.
You claim to uphold ‘Tradition’ but your very method is egregiously ochlocratic, not deserving of response. It demonstrates your own delusion – shall I call it prelest and plani? – evincing your assumption of privilege, the same demonstrated by those defilers of Theophany who numbered in their ranks the V. Rev. Mark Hodges.
So before we address your comment, here is a more recent article that mentions the situation with Father Mark:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/orthodoxy-needs-communication-and-repentance/
Now, on your first paragraph – yes, that is a very good point. Fr. Mark claimed that he was suspended for participating at the capitol. The chancellor denied this. Multiple commentators and posters on this site claimed that Fr. Mark was not suspended for participation in the protest at the Capitol. Yet, you claim he was, as does Fr. Mark. They can’t all be right. If Fr. Mark is telling the truth, then the chancellor was lying. Including, lying to us. But, curiously, even though this became as major worldwide story, the diocese was very reticent to speak to the press on record. If Fr. Mark was correct, then the chancellor lied to multiple people. This is a scandal in and of itself.
As for the Capitol protest, what Fr. Mark did was completely legal and constitutionally protected. That is your interpretation of their intent. The vast majority of hundreds of thousands of protestors did nothing illegal. Those that did are guilty of trespassing. That is all that any of them have really been charged with. If it were an insurrection, then it was the dumbest one ever “organized.” As a military veteran, I could have organized a better action using a Boy Scout Troop. The Capitol Police are obviously glorified security guards and they obviously should have had assistance from actual police or Nat. Guard. What Fr. Mark is accused of is being in the vicinity of individuals who took illegal action. That is not a good enough reason to end a priesthood. Fr. Mark was protesting. Pure and simple, which is perfectly fine. Whatever the motivations of the pure idiots that entered the Capitol, which were probably mixed and more a matter of stupidity, Fr. Mark was not among them.
Therefore, this was a political witch hunt as your post amply proves.
Abp. Paul and the Chancellor should be savvy enough to realize what I said above. Either they are lying, or Father Mark is lying, about the reasons for his suspension. This was an international story. Father Mark gave multiple interviews. The whole thing looks horrible and should have been handled better. The bishop could even have said, “Look, I don’t want my priests at political rallies. He was wrong to go, and he won’t make that mistake again nor will any other priests. Plus he should have been at the altar on a major feast day.” Boom! End of story. Simply restoring Fr. Mark, after claiming he lied about the reasons for his suspension, looks like they don’t like his politics, but realized they can’t get away with laicizing him.
It is somewhat ironic that you posted your comment anonymously while condemning others for protecting their privacy.
But here is the final irony. We totally agree with the outcome. We believe the Archbishop acted rightly in restoring Fr. Mark. We agree that Fr. Mark is and should be a priest (and not “Mr. Hodges” as you do). We believe the outcome was just, but don’t agree with how the process was handled. However, it is clear that you believe the Archbishop was wrong in his decision. You want Fr. Mark, a priest of the Church, to be removed from ministry. You think the Archbishop was wrong not to. Yet, you believe we have betrayed tradition and are guilty of prelest. Are you not guilty of even more, as you plainly want a different decision and do not agree with this one? We want bishops to pay better attention to the way their actions are perceived, to be fair, and to be transparent. Fr. Mark may actually deserve to laicized. We don’t know, as we really only have his side of the story. You, on the other hand, are completely convinced that the Archbishop was too lenient and that Fr. Mark should be removed from the priesthood.
Transparency in this case would be greatly appreciated.
“Even before COVID, there was already a deficit in the trust afforded to most bishops, precisely because of the history of sexual, financial, and other scandals in our various Orthodox jurisdictions. After a year of closed churches and liturgical innovations, there is less trust than ever before in the hierarchy.”
As odd as it seems, the above statement is actually a huge understatement. Thanks for another great post.
Your not going to get transparency, if anything your going to get less of it. “Its later than you might realize”, as the saying goes, “do you get my drift?”.
Transparency is important, because absence of transparency leads to distrust, “lies of the mind”, confrontations, and eventually a dissolution of an organization (or church)…of course, in some cases, it is not appropriate to divulge all the facts, but silence is not a solution either, because it enables the distrust, etc…
On the second point (Fr. Mark):
Those in the military submit themselves to the Military Code of Justice for as long as they are in the service. They are no longer considered “civilians”, and are not necessarily allowed to do or say everything that a “civilian” could do or say, even when they might be off duty in “civilian” clothing.
Similarly, those familiar with the Canons of the Church will recall that each Canon treats Clergy different than Laypeople in terms of severity of penance, etc…the reason is simple. Much like the conventional military, the clergy have volunteered to focus on a “spiritual” vs. “worldly” mission. From the point of view of how the Canons are written, very plainly, whether fair or unfair, ethical or unethical, Christian or un-Christian, the bishop “owns” you, and decides your fate…that’s what you signed up for as a priest, so next time, be careful to pick a more spiritual bishop, if you feel he is not acting in a Christ like manner…A spiritual, saint-like bishop like St Nektarios will always treat you in a Christian way, and the Canons will not be used as an anvil around your neck at the edge of a cliff…on the other hand, a more worldly or even vindictive bishop might leverage the Canons in a different way and fry you on both sides like an egg…
And this is where things get a bit messy from a “legal” perspective. When living in the world, you can’t ignore the world, or even politics. And just like the Apostle Paul invoked his right as a Roman Citizen one day to a hearing in Rome when they were about to lynch him, it is true that Clergy are technically also considered to be citizens of a country. Unfortunately, the protections of “free speech” or “freedom of assembly” that a Citizen enjoys is not something protected within a private organization, as is a Church. So in a “cancel culture”, where it is possible to find some “Church leaders” who may not be willing to disrupt capital inflows, or risk the “big tech” sanctioned deletions and defamations that we are witnessing, it becomes an easy economic decision to sacrifice a single priest who attended a civil / political rally (as a civilian) with a penalty, placating the important, politically motivated Church donors, and simultaneously sending a message to the rest of the clergy, hoping that a year from now all this will be forgotten and things will “return to normal”. Could this backfire in the other direction, sure, in theory, but when it comes to “trust the bishop”, it appears highly likely these days that the comment could be expanded to “Trust the bishop who knows how to follow the money coming into the coffers…” They know how to play the long game, politically…that’s why they are surviving in those positions…
However, there will be a day, Judgement Day, where these same church leaders will have to face those who were “canceled” by the sword, by fire, by lions in the arenas, etc…. Not having access to the exact facts behind what happened to Fr. Mark, at least let’s pray they are making the right decision, but people should be aware that priests ARE historically subject to a different standard by the Church than are “civilians” – (fair or unfair…)
About the concept of ‘obedience’ and ‘trusting the bishop’…the majority of heretics and false teachers in our history have been the Hierarchy…
just a few thoughts here…
“We are all responsible for the Church, and not only the bishops, for the Church is not someone else’s private property. The bishop, together with the clergy, as well as the laity, as one body with the head – Christ, are responsible for it, each in their own way. Often, when patriarchs and hierarchs fell into error, only the elders and monks stood up to protect the Church from all kinds of heresies, and the faithful people have for centuries been generally recognized as the guardians of Orthodoxy.” –Fr. Theodoros Zisis
Each one of us has to figure out the difference between prudence or reasonable caution on the one hand and cowardice or unreasoning fear on the other hand. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice is. The times we are living in tend to make cowards of us all –me included. We are pressed to make moral compromises every day, and it becomes a habit. For all practical purposes we are living like a conquered people under an enemy occupation government. We adjust our behavior in order to get by without a lot of trouble. We do not act heroically, because heroism is out of fashion. We try to do what is prudent rather than what is heroic.
Or… are we willing to be heroic and “live not by lies” and if required of us, die for Truth and Beauty?
Blurred Lines: Priestly Pastoral Care and the Responsibility of the Laity by Archpriest Steven Ritter [Excerpts] https://stjamesorthodox.org/blurredlines
Each one of us is engaged in this exercise of godliness, and each and every one of us alone is responsible for the outcome. . . In the end, we are all responsible before God for our own actions and no relationship with another human being can relieve us of this.
This is important because there is an idea out there, prevalent among many laity, and even encouraged by some clergy, that a large aspect of salvation is contingent upon this concept of obedience. While this statement, taken in raw form without context contains much truth, too often the ideas engendered behind it are culled from monastic materials that are not appropriate to the lay state or cultivated within the lay community. Obedience is paramount in the Christian life; as Christ Himself was obedient to His Father in all things, so we too are called to be obedient to His teachings. And obedience is central to the issue of free will and the human person.
…The submission to an elder or spiritual authority also involves the mutual obedience of the elder to those under his charge as well; it is never monolithic or unilateral. In this the desert dictum that “obedience responds to obedience and not to authority” is fulfilled. Obedience and submission are not the same things. There can be no servility in true obedience, and the one requiring it out of personal desire sins greatly in doing so.
…I interject this brief excursion into history because a lot of our currently misapprehended teachings on obedience and spiritual direction are based on cursory readings by the laity of monastic texts which, done outside of the saving confines of the monastic community, often lead to misunderstanding of authority in the life of the church and interpersonal relationships within the local parish. Often those that visit monastic communities are misled as well by the plethora of self-styled “elders” which plague our contemporary ecclesial situation. The monks teach those that are visiting certain things which one might question in the normal life of a layperson, require monastic-like obedience from them, and are critical of the local pastoral leadership in the parish. Despite the sometimes-heard canard that “monks and laypeople are all the same”, or that “the same things are required of both monks and laypeople”, these statements in bald form contain only partial truths. In fact, the monastic state is one where “all cannot accept this saying, except to those whom it has been given” according to our Lord Jesus Christ. The life of a monk is radically different from the life of an average layman, and the confusing of the two roles can lead to horribly undisciplined and perverse spiritual states among those in the laity trying to live as monks while still in the world.
This is not to deny that the goal of both states in life is the same—salvation—or that even what is required of monks is not required of the laity.
Those who oppose traditional, Patristic Orthodoxy ask from our Church not dialogue, but simple capitulation to your own agenda and ideology—of what you believe to be acceptable Orthodox behavior –that we Orthodox, who ‘follow the Fathers’ remain silent and shut up forever. I understand the nature of such demands. When it occurs in the school-yard, it is called “bullying”—though in this case the muscle is provided by not by violent shoving, hitting the other party with your lunch-box, or “cancel culture-ism” but by self-righteous rhetoric and gossip via social-media. And, like I did in the school-yard when faced with such demands as a child, I decline to get into it with him. I would rather just walk away and eat my lunch safely and quietly somewhere else.
However, if I did choose to reply, I might say the following, for after all some of the mislead [and those misleading] have issued a kind of public manifesto via social-media, and it is to the public manifesto that one can reply. Manifestos invite reply; that is the point of a manifesto.
In my reply, I would first of all say that the Orthodox Christian Church should not heed impassioned demands that it ‘shut up or remain silent’ and say nothing when its central teachings are trampled, denied, and distorted. The Church has a divine duty to proclaim the truth to whoever wants to listen, and especially to its own members. St. Paul did not “keep quiet forever” about the false Christology proclaimed by the early Gnostics, or about the supposed necessity of circumcision demanded by the early Judaizers. It is true that both the Gnostics and the Judaizers would have been happier if he did, but such silence would have been spiritually criminal and a betrayal of Christ. Of course, the World will not like it when opposed by the Church. No one likes being opposed and contradicted. It can be very irritating and infuriating. But being an adult involves being committed to non-violent dialogue when such disagreements occur, not screaming at the other party because they dare to challenge and then in response, run away in anger. It is easy to have a tantrum and to scream “shut up!” It is harder to be an adult and go on debating calmly. No doubt the child having the tantrum is “in pain,” but such pain is no excuse for the tantrum.
Blessed Fr. Seraphim describes this passionate decision ‘web-making’ delusional-prelest behavior in a letter he wrote as spinning “A SPIDER WEB OF IDEAS” –
‘the state of prelest called by the Holy Fathers “fancy” or “opinion”—when a web of ideas is spun which has no real contact with reality, which is why when it comes out it seems so very “far out.” A person then acts according to his passions, but thinks he is being logical according to the web of ideas he has spun. Usually the devil uses one little idea to “catch” us, knowing that it will catch us in something we may be emotional about; and that “catch” is sufficient to get us to weave the whole spider web which trips us up.’
Beware the “web-spinners’ brothers and sisters.
Doxa to Theo, John D.
It would also be helpful and healing to learn why certain obvious public offenders have not been disciplined (such as the Archimandrite in NY posting on his FB page.). Transparency please about decisions both ways.